[youtube]http://youtu.be/4q6aqw_SfU0[/youtube]
two other quick thoughts:
1. Courts cannot function unless Congress funds them — meaning both houses of Congress approving spending on them.
2. The Constitution vests in Congress decisions about what federal circuit and district courts we need. It does not say that once courts and the judgeships on those courts are established, these must be maintained forever.
If senate rules are now to be changed on the dime by the majority, all kinds of seemingly impossible things become possible.
I think this unfortunate step was finally taken out of pure frustration. The GOP has pretty much declared war on the Obama administration. It had gotten to the point where all normal legislative business had come to a halt—even what should be routine and totally uncontroversial. You can’t have gridlock forever.
@Greg:
I’m reasonably certain that when the Repubs get in charge, you will be calling for it to be back the way it was. I heard some interesting stats this morning. So far, under Obama he has had 215 federal judges approved and 2 turned down. None by filibuster. Dims definition of gridlock is when they don’t get everything they want. One answer to this, of course, is for the House to turn down everything the Senate sends to them. More stats of the Senate, no cabinet officer ever denied by filibuster, no Supreme Court justice ever denied by filibuster. 5 dims court appointments denied by filibuster, 5 Reps court appointments denied by filibuster. That is in the entire history of the Senate. Those were decades ago. Real gridlock.
I doubt very much that the Dims are going to be happy when the Reps are in the Majority after ’14 elections.
Actually, I don’t agree that this was necessary. Filibuster has an entirely legitimate function for both the minority and majority party—designations get traded off on a regular basis.
It would have been better had they required that any filibuster actually be carried out on the floor of the Senate, Mr. Deeds style. Presently a stated intention to filibuster is treated too much like the real thing. That makes it all too easy, turning it into a routine response. If you want to bring things to a stop, you should have to hold the floor and speak. That would make overuse a far less attractive option to both parties. It would be reserved for what’s really serious.
BRING THE US FORCES BACK,
LET THE AFGHANISTAN FALL ON THEMSELVES, THEY DON’T DISERVE THE BLOOD SPILL BY THE AMERICANS TROOP,
THEY HAVE NOTHING THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN,
FOR ONCE SINCE YOU BECAME COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
THINK THAT THE TROOPS ARE YOUR PRIORITY,
INSTEAD A TWO BIT KARZEI LEADER HATER OF AMERICA,
IS IN IT 12 YEARS ENOUGH FOR THE TIRED TROOPS,
YOU GO INSTEAD IF YOU WANT IT SO MUCH, GO ALONE,
LET’S ALL HAVE AN UNFORGETTED PARADE FOR THE TROOPS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, JUST TO SHOW OUR APRECIATION AND SHOW HOW MUCH WE OWE THEM TO NEVER LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO REPAY THEM,
Harry has ripped his gloves off is hitting below the belt. This is a partisan declaration of all out war by Reid. If the Democrats of the Senate were smart, they would immediately call for the removal of Harry from his leadership position, elect a new leader of the Senate and reinstate the filibuster. Should Republicans retake the Senate in 2014 there will be no incentive to reinstate the right to filibuster. By doing this Reid has officially instituted permanent gridlock. with simple majority rule neither party (Dem or Rep,) has any incentive to compromise (even the RINOs).
If Democrats don’t reverse this immediately they will rue this day the next time they lose control of the Senate.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO AMERICA?
the GOP,are in a position where they must stop them for the sake of the unaware CITIZENS,
before they go on their intent to bring this USA UNRECOGNISEBLE and vulnerable to foreign attacks as
we saw , BUT COMMING FROM WITHIN THiS AMERICA, after having cease the total control of the masses by implementing their OBAMACARE, under the pretense of helping the poors,
which in theses last 5 plus years have not change statue
what so ever an inch, with what they have done, JUST CRUMBS
and giving them a phone has not change either anything,
and so much so that you see the same young attacking the citizens now violently and not even delt by the government who are responsible for their young in the fringe now hurting the people, just like they allow the ow movement and other to break every thing out of spite and desire to express their anger they hit the people who are not responsible for the anger,
only the leadership aware but to scare to act and fix it,
but instead they try to hit all the AMERICANS with their suppose good plans which the smart citizens don’t think good of it,
they continue their advance into choking the people
WITH MULTIPLE RESTRICTIONS BY A MULTIPLE GROUP OF AGENCIES and disposess them of liberty and peace and freedom which is the foundation of AMERICA which resist as best as they can against that power crashing them at EVERY
CORNER THEY TURN
UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CONTROL LIKE A GESTAPO READY TO PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK A RESTRICTION FROM THEIR BOOK OF MULTI THOUSANDS PAGES, WHICH EVERY ONE IS SURE TO BREAK A LAW FROM THAT BOOK, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT’S IN IT, THEY ARE HIRED TO GO ALL OVER THIS USA
SO TO FIND A LAW BREAKER, AND THEY SURE DO, AND MAKE THEM PAY, LIKE A MAFIA COLLECTING A FEE,
THEY TORMENT THE GOOD CITIZENS,
THAT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT WHO WANT TO HELP THE PEOPLE,
NO THEY WANT TO DESTROY THE PEOPLE INSTEAD AND REPLACE THEM BY ILLEGALS COMMING FROM MANY COUNTRIES SOME HATERS OF AMERICA BY THE TRUCK LOAD,
WHILE THE GOOD CITIZENS HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT IN THEIR EVERY DAY LIVES,
Just another example of Obama’s words having an expiration date. His loyal sycophants don’t care if what he says today is tomorrow’s lie. It’s all about power. They will follow and suck it up. Dishonesty is all apart of the deal.
Funny thing is if a Republican had done this the usual suspects both here and in the media would be fully up in arms. Decrying the lack of reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship.
Politics is a power business. Perhaps the Repubs will finally begin to realize what the other side is really all about.
@Ditto, #5:
You’re forgetting that so long as democrats control the Senate, what they have changed they can change back. If they were to do that just before surrendering majority control, republicans would either have to let the reinstated filibuster rules stand, or redo exactly what they’re now so loudly complaining about. I have little doubt they would choose the second option.
Mully
IthinK, never the less that the lost of credibility for him ,
now has driven a ridge too deep to be overlook by the people,
and for that alone he has been degraded no matter how and who and what any of his alike can say,
THE PEOPLE HAS AWAKEN AND WON’T GO BACK TO SLEEP HEARING THE SONG OF THE SYRENE,
BYE
@Greg: You need to get off that laughing gas, Greg.
Do you think there’s something inaccurate about what I just posted? If so, you forgot to mention what it is.
Having just kicked the GOP squarely in the butt, do you imagine Harry Reid wouldn’t do it one final time if he had to surrender his seat as Senate Majority Leader?
@Greg: If there were really 51 Dimocrats that thinks majority should rule, no filibuster, why would they change their mind just because of who makes up the majority. Are they acting on principle or is it just a power trip?
@Redteam, #12:
They didn’t do it because they think the majority should rule, although that’s a democratic principle. They did it to defeat the republican strategy, which is to disempower the Executive Office of the Presidency by creating total gridlock in the Senate. The response isn’t an exercise of principle. It’s a calculated political counter-attack.
@Greg:
By actually invoking this change and setting it up as the new ‘way of the future’, ( against the advice of the Senate chair and parliamentarians,) Reid has permanently poisoned the well of the Senate. This is not a matter to make light of by any means nor to joke about. This changes the way the Senate has done business for 200+ years, and Reid has insured that there is no longer any reason for any party to ever compromise again. The Senate Democrats have declared partisan war, for no good reason. Stopping the minority party from “obstructing” (by their use the filibuster, as the Senate has allowed for centuries,) of presidential appointees that they found objectionable is not good enough reason to destroy it. The filibuster was the one power the minority has always held to block the tyranny of a majority party. The can of worms has been opened, and once this rule change is used it will from now on be the norm by for one party to bully the other. ( And to think it was done in manner so petty, so as to unbalance the Washington DC Circuit Court judiciary for only 3 appointments, is extremely destructive and pure stupidity.) This rule change is now valid for any and all Senate business in the future, to be changed again and again, anytime a simple majority party leadership in the Senate decides it want’s to force it’s will. All minority parties will no longer have this valuable tool ever again, as filibustering will no longer be allowed for any business if the majority party doesn’t wish to allow it, the minority from now on may be neutered callously and tyrannically at will.
Ditto
THAT WAS DIRTY AS WE KNOW HOW FAR THEY CAN GO TO STEP ON THE LAWS OF THE LAND,
NOW THERE SURELY SOME RECORSE WICH THE REPUBLICAN WILL FIND TO CIRCUNVENT THE LEADERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEW LAWS, AND APPLY IT WITHOUT ANY RESTRAINT AND FEAR OF HURTING THEM, THEY HAVE UNCOVER THEIR INTENT AND THEY MUST BE DEALT WITH AS HARSHLY AS THE REPUBLICANS CAN, SO TO BREAK THEIR AGGRESSIVE USE OF THAT NUCLEOR RULE,
WHICH WAS UNECESSARY BECAUSE OF THEM HOLDING THE PRESIDENCY POSITION,
IT APEAR TO AMERICANS AS VERY OVER USE THEIR POWER, AND THERE IS A WAY TO HUMILIATE THEM AS A REMINDER THAT THEY DON’T OWN AMERICA, WE KNOW THAT BY WHAT CROOKED TOOLS THEY USED TO WIN THAT LAST ELECTION, WHICH THE REPUBLICANS WOULD NEVER USE,
@Greg:
You really are a true believer, aren’t you, Greggie?
Reid pulled this stunt because he knows the Democrats are in deep, deep trouble. More than likely, Louisiana will elect a Republican Senator in 2014. That’s one. The longer the Obamascare fiasco goes on, the deeper trouble the Dems are in. So Reid destroyed 200 years of tradition to be able to shove through judicial nominations between now and Jan. 20, 2015. It was a pure power play for a party that knows it is losing approval of the citizens.
But guess what, Greggie; there is no rule that can prevent the Republicans from doing the same thing if they take control of the Senate in 2014. And here’s the kicker, considering what just happened, the Republicans can then apply the same filibuster rule to SCOTUS appointments. So let’s take a look at the SCOTUS, shall we?
There is little chance Obama will get to appoint another Supreme Court Justice. So no justice will be leaving in the next three years. But come Jan., 2017, there are 4 possibilities of a replacement nomination. Scalia will be 80, Ginsburg, whose husband is quite ill, will be 83 and Breyer will be 80. A Republican president in 2017 will have an opportunity to stack the court will conservative justices with the resignation of Ginsburg and Breyer, but more importantly, with the replacement of Anthony Kennedy who serves as the swing vote and who will then be 80, as well.
That would leave you with a court that then becomes 2 liberal justices, 6 conservative justices including Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and 1 chief justice who can flop in the wind depending on who gets to him first. The court is then stacked 6-2 conservative, and there will not be one thing you radical left wingers can do about it even with the shaky opinions of Roberts.
Think about that for a minute, Greggie; a deeply Constitutionally conservative court for the next 20 years. Liberal heads would be exploding all across the nation.
@Greg: 13
Well at least you admitted they weren’t acting on principle, just petty politics. Unfortunately I’m afraid the conservatives will act on principle and re-instate the rule that was put in to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Which might be okay in a Dimocratic country. Unfortunately for the Dims, they didn’t remember this is supposed to be a Republic and went with Dictatorial principles.
one that is worth listening to is K t. MCFARLAND on foreign affairs and military affairs,
she should be at a top decisions position,
@Ditto, #14:
Some people might characterize the rule change not as the poison, but as a long-overdue antidote. The rule change only allows a simple majority vote to end a filibuster in the cases of lower federal court appointments and certain executive branch appointments—specifically, in the case of routine Senate business that republicans have been blocking for no other reason than to impair the Executive Branch. A 3/5 majority vote is still required to end a filibuster that’s blocking anything else.
The change is only as permanent as any current Senate majority party wishes it to be.
@Greg:
Greg, are you aware that the filibuster has not actually prevented his nominees getting appointed, only slowed them down. That is the little bit about ‘THE tyranny of the majority. ‘ I think that means that if the person really is qualified and is the person we need, that they can get 60 votes. But go ahead and enjoy that until Jan 15 when the Repubs will have more than 50 and can appoint who they want. No more playing fair, just politics.
@retire05, #16:
If it were nothing more than a stunt, republicans wouldn’t be howling about it. Republicans were pursuing a strategy in the Senate that involved deliberately creating total gridlock. They were doing that to further their own partisan ends. Reid has effectively countered that strategy.
What? But republicans are totally opposed to this rule change, aren’t they? That’s what they’re claiming. Because—unlike democrats—they’re Highly Principled, and have been Aghast at this brazen overturning of What the Founders Had in Mind. Hence my speculation that Harry Reid might revert the rule before relinquishing his majority speaker seat as a parting gift, just to make republicans openly display their hypocrisy.
You need to get your facts straight. The recent rule change doesn’t affect filibuster rules regarding SCOTUS appointments. It still requires a 3/5 majority vote to end a filibuster on that.
Right wing “conservatives” have also whined endlessly about legislating from the court bench. Yet that’s apparently exactly what you would like to see done to further your own decidedly undemocratic, counter-progressive agenda.
@Redteam. #20:
The republican’s gridlock strategy has blocked 82 presidential appointments during the 5 years Obama has been in office.
A total of only 86 presidential appointments were blocked during the administrations of all other U.S. presidents combined.
Reid’s claims are accurate. There is absolutely nothing normal about what the republicans have been doing.
Harry Reid says 82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama, 86 blocked under all other presidents
@Greg: I personally would like the current US Senate to be run honorably, the way it has always been. I am not for the Republicans to use this rule and don’t care if it is reverted by the current scoundrels attempting to get some measure of decency for themselves. It just shows the basic dishonesty of the unprincipled Dimocrats. The country has been run fairly well it’s entire history and it only took a President with no principles and a Senate Leader with no principles to say, if we can’t play fair, we’ll cheat.. I would expect you to applaud it.
@Greg:
Your numbers are apples and oranges. No filibusters have actually been used to block any nominees. Filibuster and ‘gridlock’ strategy are two different things. Dims caved under the ‘THREAT’ of a filibuster. Look at the numbers held up the same way in the last 4 years of GWB, about the same as now. That’s the American way. Obama’s admin has decided on the socialist method.
@Greg:
Actually, they would, and should. There is no place for political stunts in the People’s House.
How is what the Republicans doing any different than what the Democrats did when the Republicans were the party of power?
And you want us to believe that the Democrats are not?
No, what Reid has done is effectively destroy 200 years of precedent.
I’m sure you won’t mind producing a link for that number, right? I mean, besides Harry Reid, a known liar, and Politifact, which has been known to present fact information, since you’re also so eager to back up your claims 🙂
Redteam
HI,
YOU KNOW, a mister nice doesn”t work with a mad cat with all claws out,
If one talk to you pounding his index on your shoulder,
you have to raise the bar, and bite of THE TIP OF his finger,
and spit it back to him,
BYE
I couldn’t resist that one,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
yes, I know, thanks
Greggie,
defend the previous statement of Harry Reid, liar, who complained about Republicans doing exactly what he did:
@retire05, #25:
No, I don’t want you to believe that. I said as much myself. The entire battle is partisan. Reid’s action was a counterattack, intended to defeat a strategy republicans have been using in an effort to disempower the Obama presidency. That republican effort involves impairing the function and effectiveness of the federal government to the greatest extent possible, and then pinning all negative consequences on the Democratic Party in general, and on the Obama administration in particular.
Links to external sources were provided in the article:
For 1949 to 2012: Cloture Attempts on Nominations: Data and Historical Development
For 2009 to November 21, 1913: Nominations with Cloture Motions, 2009 to Present
Regarding the pre-1949 period, Politicafact had this comment:
@Greg:
Had you bothered to read your own link, you would know there is a difference between “cloture” and “nominee.”
Also, don’t think it goes unnoticed that you refuse to address the statements of Harry Reid when he was Minority leader. And you ignore that the very man who, during the Bush administration, argued that the nominations to the D.C. appellate court were not necessary due to the court’s light load, seems to now be willing to destroy 200 years of tradition for those three seats.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Harry Reid is now absolutely corrupt. And a liar.
And you support Reid’s indefensible actions. Disgraceful.
@retire05, #30:
The article itself addresses that difference. It was a point on which they initially took issue with the accuracy of Reid’s count.
Considering how the GOP has been behaving of late, I approve of Reid having administered a swift kick to their Senatorial butts. That does seem to be where their brains are presently located.
@Greg:29
Not true, as Reid said:
There was no justification. Remember the founding principle was that if enough people want a law or an appointment and it is that important, you should easily be able to get 60 votes to pass it. A simple majority is a Dimocratic principle, a 60% majority is a Republic principle. This is a Republic.
@Greg:
Those of us who actually love this country would look at the numbers you put forth, compared with the outright lies of Obama and the extreme leftwing appointees he has nominated and understand completely why he has had so many nominees filibustered. The people he is nominating are way too far left to be allowed to have governmental positions.
And frankly, after the shameful treatment of Bork, Thomas and Pickering by the dems during their nomination hearings, the left – as usual – has zero credibility in complaining about Obama’s nominees being blocked.
Anyone watching the videos of then Sen Obama, Reid, Durbin, Boxer, et al, vehemently scolding the idea of implementing this nuclear option back in 2005 when the GOP was having the exact same problem with dems blocking Bush nominees can clearly see the outrageous hypocrisy of the dems. This was a desperate ploy by Reid to allow Obama to stack as many hyperpartisan activist leftists onto the courts prior to the expected dem losses in the next election as a holding action against conservative efforts to rollback the detrimental stupidity of the years of dem/socialist policy.
@Pete, #33:
Republicans have openly stated their intention to block Obama’s appointments for reasons unrelated to the appointments themselves. Take Lindsey Graham and his demand for access to Benghazi witnesses, for example. Give me what I want, whether it makes sense or not, or we’ll block everything! They haven’t only blocked the routine appointments of federal judges. They’ve forced federal agencies to operate for years on end without permanent heads.
It’s obvious to anyone who’s been even halfway attentive that the GOP has become totally obstructionist. It’s all they’ve done for the past 5 years. They’ve been elected to serve in the federal government, but they’re heavily under the influence—if not in the pay—of people who don’t really want the federal government to function well; of people who openly state they’d like to kill off most of the nation’s social programs.
To my mind, that sort of behavior doesn’t correspond to love of country. I haven’t completely figured out what it most closely corresponds to.
Greg
the GOPS have been elected to serve the PEOPLE NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
they remember who is their boss,
and the other who serve the government have forgot and get too comfortable in there,
it”s time they are told who pay their rent,
AND IF THE GOPS ARE OBSTRUTIONIST, IT’S BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE WHAT THE LEADERS CHOICE IS AND FIND IT NOT GOOD CHOICES FOR THE COUNTRY,
MEANING THEY CARE FOR AMERICA,
The entire federal government works for the people of the United States.
GREG
YOU SURE OF THAT?
THE PEOPLE ARE NOT SURE,
NOTHING SHOW THAT TO BE TRUE,
JUST BY the way the STATES ARE BEING TREATED BY THE FEDERAL,
@Greg:
Do you believe that a Senator should be held to the same standards, no matter if his party is the party of power, or not? Do you believe that the standards he holds the opposition party to, he should also hold his own party to?
If you do, then defend the actions of Harry Reid using his own words just 8 short years ago:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050412095709/http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=236222
Seems Harry Reid is not against blatant power grabs when it is him doing the grabbing.
And Pete is right: the Democrats were absolutely criminal in their treatment of Miguel Estrada (Democrats objected to him because he was (cough, cough) Hispanic), Clarence Thomas, and Bork. Just where do you think the term “Borking” came from?
It is clear that you have no objection to the destruction of over two centuries of precedent, as long as it serves the Democrat [Progressive] Party.
@Greg:
Function well: Dims definition is successfully taking money from those that work to give to those that don’t want to work.
MARTIN BASHIR, IF YOU ARE SORRY, GIVE 5 MILLION DOLLAR TO SARAH PALIN,
AND IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO COVER THE FIRST SYLLABS OF YOUR INSULT,
SARAH PALIN SHOULD SUE YOU FOR YOUR LIFE LONG EARNINGS
PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE,
Redteam
JUST READ THAT THE COMPANY WICH HAD THE CONTRACT TO DESIGN THE WEBSITE FOR
OBAMACARE WHICH FAILED SO FAR,
i THINK THEY ARE STILL WORKING FOR OBAMACARE, YET NOT SURE OF THIS LINE,
BUT NOW THEY IN CANADA HIRING TO GET MANY EMPLOYEES,
IS IT FOR THE AMERICANS OBAMACARE JOBS ?
IT SOUND WEIRD TO ME THAT IF THEY ARE STILL UNDER OBAMA CONTRACT WHILE HIRING CANADIANS, FOR WHAT? GOOD QUESTION,
@Redteam, #39:
A generation of older Americans who worked hard all of their lives are where most of that money is going. Back in the days when they were younger, a portion of every dollar they earned was taken for the same purpose. Without food stamps and unemployment compensation, the children of the working poor would go hungry during every economic downturn. Wages are often so low that a two worker family struggles constantly, even when the economy is good. Republicans who oppose food stamps commonly oppose unions as well, that once channeled a larger portion of the wealth workers create to the people who actually do the work. The same people also oppose minimum wage laws.
These people oppose consumer protection regulations. Environmental protection regulations. They opposed regulation of the financial industry, and regulations designed to protect working people from predatory lenders.
Do you see a pattern emerging here?
Nothing annoys me more than accusations of immorality and governmental theft, from people who’s ideas of fairness, morality, and free enterprise would turn the United States into a modern-day equivalent of Dickensian England; from people who claim to honor Christian values, but who have been convinced that selfishness is a virtue, and that greed should be recognized as the primary driving force behind all all human progress.
Redteam
I just found the newspaper add, ON THE COMPANY NAME CGI INC. WILL CREATE 125 NEW JOBS
FULL TIME,
THEY CLAIM TO BE,
AN INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES FIRM,
AND PROVIDES HIGH-END BUSINESS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING SYSTEMS
INTEGRATION APPLICATION, DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND INFRA STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT TO CLIENTS AROUND THE WORLD,
NEED PROJECT MANAGERS BUSINESS ANALYSTS, DEVELOPERS AND TESTERS,
FOUNDED IN 1976 CGI GROUP INC. IS THE FIFTH LARGEST INDEPENDANT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES FIRM IN THE WORLD,
ABOUT 68000 PROFESSIONALS SERVE THOUSANDS OF GLOBAL CLIENTS FROM OFFICES AND DELIVERY CENTERS
ACROSS THE AMERICAS EUROPE AND ASIA PACIFIC,
ANNUAL REVENUE FOR THE COMPANY IS IN EXCESS OF 10 BILLION WITH AN ORDER BACKLOG EXCEEDING 18 BILLION .
BYE
@retire05, #38:
Precedent alone is not a very compelling argument for the continuation of anything. There was once a long-established precedent in this country for keeping other human beings as slaves. There was once a long-established precedent that allowed people to settle disagreements by fighting duels.
The question is whether it was worth overturning a precedent in order to break a politically motivated state of gridlock one party had imposed on the other. Harry Reid decided that it was. There’s nothing the least bit unconstitutional or illegal about this. A rule was changed that the rules themselves allowed to be changed.
I doubt if he worried much about “poisoning Washington.” The situation in Washington has been poisonous for some time now. Half of the republicans in office seem to not simply disagree with their opponents. They seem to hate them. Some of them couldn’t become any more negative than they already are.
Redteam
it look like he favor that big world company in CANADA to the super smart technician and developers
in AMERICA USA,
THAT IS A LOT OF BILLIONS GIVEN TO FOREIGNERS BUSINESS,
WHAT A WASTE, OR HE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE,
@ilovebeeswarzone: It is in line with his theory of separating the working people of the US from their money and giving it to his cronies and Michelle’s classmates. Has nothing to do with improving the country.
@Greg:
Perhaps you are so uninformed that you do not realize that both slavery, and dueling, were state laws? So once again, as you are wont to do frequently, you are trying to compare apples to cumquats.
And what exactly was the “rule” that allowed Harry Reid to change the rules. Quote chapter, and verse. But like all things Greggie, I will not get an answer.
So Harry Reid was expressing his love, not his hate, for George W. Bush when he called President Bush “a loser?”
Really, Greggie, you should seek some mental health help.
@Greg:
Absolutely near full blown socialism, headed toward communism where everyone except the super rich will live miserable lives. The Dimocrat (progressive) Party dream.
@Greg:
And exotic vacations for the First Lady and free no bid contracts for millions to their cronies for non functioning web service for their socialized medical system.
@Redteam:
I see the same pattern Redteam, A diabolical pattern that includes extreme bureaucratic over-regulation with a decidedly heavy-handed political agenda. A complete and willful destruction of the nation’s healthcare system done to force a partisan political agenda. A Justice Department that ignores wrong doing by the president’s cronies and targets for harassment the declared enemies of the far-left. A arming and militarization of non-military enforcement agencies. A lawless administration that completely ignores the seperation of powers. All to enact an incoherent, ill-designed, unworkable, elite socialist utopian agenda warned about by George Orwell that is incompatible with a the federalist Constitutional Republic that the founders designed and promised (‘If we could keep it’).