Obama Plays The Politics He Accuses Republicans Of And Says Screw YOU to the Senate

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I wondered how long before a Republican hack would vomit this up for us to look at. Why are people such fuggin' hacks? Can't you ever consider an issue from the standpoint of what should be rather than repeating party talking points like a barely trained parrot? I mean, #######!!!!!!!! I had a parrot once (an eclectus) and that bird could repeat anything I said, even once! Would be a good party bird and about as intelligent as political HACKS.

I recall George Bush appointing the Ambassador to the UN this way...you? And I was damn glad he did! Not to mention a lot of judges. I wish more Presidents, Republican AND Democrat would do this and tell the Senate to pound sand up thier @ss! It is the duty of the President under the constitution to appoint judges, it is the duty of the Senate to advise and consent. Kind of like what your mother does when you choose to marry a foreign person. Not to obstruct. But always the minority party plays this game and it is revolting no matter who does it.

Were I Preseidnt I think I would appoint judges ONLY during congressional recess and tell them ALL to pound sand! Elections have consequences and one of the most important things a President does, and one with lasting affect, is appointing judges. As long as a populace that 74% of which answer "Yugoslavia" when asked to name a country that begins with "U" can vote for President, this will be the result. As long as dufuses vote for Presidents because he is a popular guy, no matter that he has -0- experience, this will be the result. When people can consider that they should vote for more than what seems "cool" at the time...fine. I think we ought to go back to an appointed Senate ASAP. There ought to be some part of the legislative process that isn't subject to special interest influence or the dim-wit, political hack electorate.

Barring any legitimate reason to withhold consent, the Senate should quickly and efficiently clear judge appointments. Period. Always.

Please, stop the silly righteous indignation over this.

[Dan T 8]

I wondered how long before a Republican hack would vomit this up for us to look at. Why are people such fuggin' hacks? Can't you ever consider an issue from the standpoint of what should be rather than repeating party talking points like a barely trained parrot? I mean, #######!!!!!!!! I had a parrot once (an eclectus) and that bird could repeat anything I said, even once! Would be a good party bird and about as intelligent as political HACKS.

I recall George Bush appointing the Ambassador to the UN this way...you? And I was damn glad he did! Not to mention a lot of judges. I wish more Presidents, Republican AND Democrat would do this and tell the Senate to pound sand up thier @ss! It is the duty of the President under the constitution to appoint judges, it is the duty of the Senate to advise and consent. Kind of like what your mother does when you choose to marry a foreign person. Not to obstruct. But always the minority party plays this game and it is revolting no matter who does it.

Were I Preseidnt I think I would appoint judges ONLY during congressional recess and tell them ALL to pound sand! Elections have consequences and one of the most important things a President does, and one with lasting affect, is appointing judges. As long as a populace that 74% of which answer "Yugoslavia" when asked to name a country that begins with "U" can vote for President, this will be the result. As long as dufuses vote for Presidents because he is a popular guy, no matter that he has -0- experience, this will be the result. When people can consider that they should vote for more than what seems "cool" at the time...fine. I think we ought to go back to an appointed Senate ASAP. There ought to be some part of the legislative process that isn't subject to special interest influence or the dim-wit, political hack electorate.

Barring any legitimate reason to withhold consent, the Senate should quickly and efficiently clear judge appointments. Period. Always.

Please, stop the silly righteous indignation over this.

I refer you to my earlier post of bho being sold as a post partisan candidate. And that none, or relatively few, appointees had been filibustered prior to gw, and turnabout being fair play. dont get me wrong, I hate the very concept of political parties, as it appears you do too, but i hate being told that a candidate is above such tactics and hear him rant and rant and rant about tactics like this being used by his predecessor. It is unpresidential. And now we see low and behold that hes just as dirty as everyone else in washington, dem or rep not excluded

[Dan T 8]

His attempts to become a post partisan candidate were met with a collective "No" from the Republican Party. Stalling tactics became "Look how infective Obama is!" Time to get things done despite the intransigence of the Republican Party, and their official propaganda wing Faux News.

to me this just shows an ignorance on obamas part of what being president really means and why he was and continues to be unqualified for the office to which he is appointed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

to me this just shows an ignorance on obamas part of what being president really means and why he was and continues to be unqualified for the office to which he is appointed.

He IS unqualified, no doubt, but he was NOT appointed. He was elected by an unqualified electorate. I guess it is the bane of a free country that the electorate can be unqualified, though I would love to see some sort of test administered before allowing people to vote, wouldn't that be a hoot?

Still, he is entitled to appoint whoever he wishes as judges, as was GWB. Too bad if someone doesn't like it. The time to think about that was before you pulled the voting lever! Now you can just eat ####### for four years and learn to like it. Ought to serve as a lesson why we don't vote for idiots. We needed Carter before we could have Reagan.

Anyone who ever believed Obama was "post partisan" is a post intelligence, brain dead moron. If they have a "D" or an "R" after their name, they are partisan.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wondered how long before a Republican hack would vomit this up for us to look at. Why are people such fuggin' hacks? Can't you ever consider an issue from the standpoint of what should be rather than repeating party talking points like a barely trained parrot? I mean, #######!!!!!!!! I had a parrot once (an eclectus) and that bird could repeat anything I said, even once! Would be a good party bird and about as intelligent as political HACKS.

I recall George Bush appointing the Ambassador to the UN this way...you? And I was damn glad he did! Not to mention a lot of judges. I wish more Presidents, Republican AND Democrat would do this and tell the Senate to pound sand up thier @ss! It is the duty of the President under the constitution to appoint judges, it is the duty of the Senate to advise and consent. Kind of like what your mother does when you choose to marry a foreign person. Not to obstruct. But always the minority party plays this game and it is revolting no matter who does it.

Were I Preseidnt I think I would appoint judges ONLY during congressional recess and tell them ALL to pound sand! Elections have consequences and one of the most important things a President does, and one with lasting affect, is appointing judges. As long as a populace that 74% of which answer "Yugoslavia" when asked to name a country that begins with "U" can vote for President, this will be the result. As long as dufuses vote for Presidents because he is a popular guy, no matter that he has -0- experience, this will be the result. When people can consider that they should vote for more than what seems "cool" at the time...fine. I think we ought to go back to an appointed Senate ASAP. There ought to be some part of the legislative process that isn't subject to special interest influence or the dim-wit, political hack electorate.

Barring any legitimate reason to withhold consent, the Senate should quickly and efficiently clear judge appointments. Period. Always.

Please, stop the silly righteous indignation over this.

Yeah, Gary.

Actually, if the President - any President - would give the Senate x amount of time to vote up or down on his (or her) nominee and assure the Senate that whatever backlog the Senate creates would be appointed during the next recess, the Senators might just get their ####### together and fcuking do their job and vote.

[Pooky 3,784]

Yeah, Gary.

Actually, if the President - any President - would give the Senate x amount of time to vote up or down on his (or her) nominee and assure the Senate that whatever backlog the Senate creates would be appointed during the next recess, the Senators might just get their ####### together and fcuking do their job and vote.

How many times do you have to be told that, in this case, they did vote?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

He IS unqualified, no doubt, but he was NOT appointed. He was elected by an unqualified electorate. I guess it is the bane of a free country that the electorate can be unqualified, though I would love to see some sort of test administered before allowing people to vote, wouldn't that be a hoot?

Still, he is entitled to appoint whoever he wishes as judges, as was GWB. Too bad if someone doesn't like it. The time to think about that was before you pulled the voting lever! Now you can just eat ####### for four years and learn to like it. Ought to serve as a lesson why we don't vote for idiots. We needed Carter before we could have Reagan.

Anyone who ever believed Obama was "post partisan" is a post intelligence, brain dead moron. If they have a "D" or an "R" after their name, they are partisan.

I agree with some sort of political test/knowledge, especially on the constitution possibly.

As usual though, Democrat/Liberals would just call it a ploy against 'minorities' lol... - Whose really the bad guy then? The one making a fair test, or the ones who are calling minorities stupid?

[Dan T 8]

I agree with some sort of political test/knowledge, especially on the constitution possibly.

As usual though, Democrat/Liberals would just call it a ploy against 'minorities' lol... - Whose really the bad guy then? The one making a fair test, or the ones who are calling minorities stupid?

well its not a new idea to test voters, trouble is that back when they first tried this education betweeen blacks and whites was undisputably unbalanced in favor of whites, and they were even giving harder tests to the blacks(or coloreds as they were called in those days). poll taxes were used as a similar deterant. In a society still marginally dominated by old white men it would be very difficult to prove that such a test was being administered evenly among all segments of the population, especially when each state decides its own election laws. Perhaps making the test open book, and letting you choose your testing center instead of making it according to where you live would alleviate some of those concerns, but the history of how these measures were implemented in the past makes this a very tough sell despite its merrit.