To be fair to everyone that’s highly skeptical of this, Obama lies.  A lot.

Yes I call BS given his signing of NDAA.

Paul 2012

Ron Paul would’ve been overridden.

Words mean so much little to this administration.

since the veto to NDAA would have been overridden handling it like the Adminstration did – pushing for changes to it –  made much more sense than vetoing & also ACTUALLY produced changes to it that made it Less dangerous – where as a veto might have felt real good but would not have stopped it.   Obama2012

People who want REAL change should have stopped the Tparty from taking over Congress in the Midterms.   I think a few people need civics lessons on how gov works.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!  I’d like to hear how civics work.  Now, tell me, how was Obama’s war in Libya constitutional?  How was Obama’s appointments to the NLRB and to the CFPB(Which I’ll remind you, the bill specifically states all the power of the CFPB rests with the Treasury secretary until the head of the CFPB is CONFIRMED by the Senate), especially considering that Kagan wrote in support of the Republicans position a couple years previous to this?  

No, no, I have to tell myself: no, liberals aren’t serious when they speak of how a government works.  Well, maybe serious when they ignore the constitution.

He didn’t actually change anything.  He just released a signing statement, which I’m almost positive he said he wouldn’t be doing any of when he was running(Ya know, the pre-election run, as opposed to when he started running for re-election on 1/20/2009), which stated he wouldn’t use any powers people keep saying he has, but doesn’t actually have.

I can applaud trying to be bipartisan, but when you’re pushed into a corner as he was, it’s all optics and nothing else.  He didn’t veto because he’d look impotent losing to his democratic senate.

My god, you aren’t going to give the President and his administration credit for anything, are you?  He’s on record opposing SOPA, so I am not sure what more you want.

Besides, what Republican president in memory invites those with views that may be different than his own to the White House to talk about it?

While I don’t agree with everything Obama has done, he deserves credit for at least acknowledging views that may differ from his own, as opposed to demonizing, belittling, then attacking, which is the typical Republican response.

What war in Libya are you talking about (other than the one that exists in your overactive imagination, that is)?

The rest of your post I have to look into because, unlike you, I don’t invent things out of whole cloth just to attack someone else.

I usually let their nonsensical, fantasyland arguments do that for me.

I read the title to this article and immediately fist-pumped and shouted “yeah, go white house!”… Which startled the crap outta my husband lol. The Prez and Co aren’t perfect, but at least they HEAR and LISTEN. Every day I hear and read more and more disgusting and despicable things said or done by the Republicans and it causes me to despair for the future of this country…and then I read something that our President or First Lady or Elizabeth Warren or any number of Democrats have said or done recently – or how we Americans are rising up and reclaiming our power en masse – and I feel almost grateful to be a witness to it. I have not lost hope. As a poor disabled American woman who struggles on a daily basis, I confidently place my faith with the person who fights every day for people like me – President Obama.

His recess appointments were perfectly Constitutional and protected, since Congress was in recess – unlike their little ‘pro- forma’ gimmick. They’ve been blocking his appointments (and everything else he tries to get done) by being bullies for no reason other then pure spite. I’ll let them get away with their ridiculous cries of unconstitutional when they explain how it’s constitutional for them to not to do their jobs!

Considering that’s all the Republicans have, I can understand why.

It’s amazing how the right is up in arms about the legality of things when things go against them. It had to be done this way as they were prepared to block any appointment to the CFPB, regardless of qualifications because they dislike it’s very existence despite having passed the bill that created the thing and to deny Obama a win. Acting like spoiled children, saying no no no time and time again to things you’ve agreed to, things that were often your idea because rich donors have pushed you to change your mind is no way to run a country.

ho blamer is so full of sheet. He is a lying fraud who needs to be removed

@bmn2:disqus  Woohoo!  He’s on the record as opposing it!  Ya know what else he was on the record as opposing?  Keeping Gitmo open beyond his first year in office.  Needless to say, that’s still open, which I’m happy about.

Obama says a lot of stuff and he does other stuff.  And for you to believe him on SOPA?  I think that’s just great.  Just, while you’re basking in the great decision making skills of Obama, continue to ignore that when he came into office he put some 5 or 6 RIAA lawyers in the DOJ.  As well, continue to ignore that he’s pushed for limits on free speech at the UN.

Bush signed NCLB with that drunken murderer Ted Kennedy at his side.

No, he doesn’t deserve any credit, especially after what happened with Obamacare, where he accepted no differing opinions; the war in Libya that he didn’t go to Congress for; the recent appointments to the CFPB and NLRB where he acted in an extremely unconstitutional way.

Quit getting high on his fumes and see what he really is.

The one he let other nations volunteer our military for, which I am REALLY interested in how that works.  The Libya War being illegal 
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/lind_libya_war/

For the other stuff, let me help:
1. Obama didn’t have the authority to declare the Senate in recess http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/12/kagan-in-2010-pro-forma-senate-sessions-enough-to-block-recess-appointments/

2. And then the CFPB head needing to be approved by law?  http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/202425-chamber-official-court-fight-over-obamas-appointments-almost-certain  “However, one question a judge could need to answer is whether Cordray will actually be able to assume those powers since he has been recess-appointed. The text of the Dodd-Frank law states that those powers will not take effect until the CFPB director “is confirmed by the Senate.”"

3. Yeah, I like how what I stated was made up.  

4. If ignorance is bliss, you must almost be as happy as Obama.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yeah, no, it’s not.  Here’s a few facts for you:
1. “Another awkward fact acknowledged in Seitz’s opinion is that less than two years ago the Justice Department sent the Supreme Court a letter-style brief noting that “the Senate may act to foreclose [recess appointments] by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period.”
Seitz insisted that the letter, from then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan, didn’t directly address the situation Obama faced earlier this month.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71376_Page2.html

2. Reid used the same tactic to block Bush from making appointments in 2008 which Obama agreed with http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/202335-reids-backs-obama-for-ignoring-pro-forma-sessions-he-once-pushed

3. I like how you have no facts to back up your position.

4. Don’t even get me started on Obama not doing his job.

1. No, it didn’t need to be done that way and it won’t work. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/202425-chamber-official-court-fight-over-obamas-appointments-almost-certain 
“However, one question a judge could need to answer is whether Cordray will actually be able to assume those powers since he has been recess-appointed. The text of the Dodd-Frank law states that those powers will not take effect until the CFPB director “is confirmed by the Senate.”"

 2. Spoiled children are the liberals.  If you don’t like the constitution? Subvert it. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71376_Page2.html

3. You do understand, there are rich donors on the democrats side?

If you want to talk about spoiled children, that’s great.  Let’s start with Obama: he comes from the infantile position that if you disagree with him, it’s because you hate him.  He argues that people who disagree with him want what’s worst for this country.  Do you really think you’re in the position of arguing that the other side is childish?  Take a good long look at the person you democrats have installed in the position of your god before you say that again.

Thanks for the links, I have to admit that I didn’t expect that.  That being said, your first one proves absolutely nothing.

By which I mean, there was a CONFLICT in Libya.  Everyone knows that, though where is the connection to the Obama Administration? 

Qaddafi’s people rebelled against him, and the US provided air support so that the rebels wouldn’t be bombed back into the Stone Age.

And our military has always been a volunteer military, so not quite seeing your point there.

And you know your stuff about recess appointments is nonsense–and in facts makes me question your entire premise–because when Bush was the first president to do so, yet you failed to mention that.

And if Bush hadn’t done so, I would still support Obama doing so because it wasn’t as if the Republican house was even going to vote on his nominations.

Once again, you can’t make things up–because they support your particularly perspective–and call it truth.

There is indeed some ignorance here, but it’s all coming from your end of the street.

Thanks for the links, I have to admit that I didn’t expect that.  That being said, your first one proves absolutely nothing.

By which I mean, there was a CONFLICT in Libya.  Everyone knows that, though where is the connection to the Obama Administration? 

Qaddafi’s people rebelled against him, and the US provided air support so that the rebels wouldn’t be bombed back into the Stone Age.

And our military has always been a volunteer military, so not quite seeing your point there.

And you know your stuff about recess appointments is nonsense–and in facts makes me question your entire premise–because Bush was the first president to do so, yet you (conveniently?) failed to mention that.

And if Bush hadn’t done so, I would still support Obama doing so because it wasn’t as if the Republican house was even going to vote on his nominations.

Once again, you can’t make things up–because they support your particular perspective–and call it truth.

There is indeed some ignorance here, but it’s all coming from your end of the street.

Okay, so what;’s so terrible about Elizabeth Warren that made her so unsuitable as a nominee? What made Richard Cordray so unsuitable for heading it up? What was it about them that made it essential for the good of the American people that they be blocked? 44 republicans signed a letter vowing to block anyone unless they got their way on completely neutering the agency, an agency they agreed to before so something had to be done. Of course, it’s purely coincidental that the republican reasoning for blocking nominees happened to be exactly what the chamber of commerce were lobbying for…

Going no, no, no, no, no en masse to something you agreed to, something you signed into law is childish, no matter how you try to justify it by saying ‘but they do it too!’