Who do you think should win the Republican nomination?

[Flackle]

Did you just suggest an attribute of "common sense" to politics (if even qualified by "a little")?

Point taken! lol

but not everyone who gets sick has to go to the doctor. I am sorry your child couldn't get healthcare when he needed it, just like I am sorry that those who die as a result of flooding can't afford a helicopter. Helicopters are not basic needs, but they are a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do.

Exactly! Just like firefighting--oh wait...

If consider every need as basic, then how can you define basic when there are no just regular needs?

I would put healthcare over the usps, fire fighting, or local libraries as a basic need. I'm sure most people would too.

Thats assuming I believe the government should provide these things. Which I don't. Thats also assuming that because the government does supply these things that they are in fact basic needs. Which is untrue. Legally, however, the states and local governments has the authority to provide fire fighting, usps, health care. The federal government has no authority over any of these things besides a postal service, of which I don't believe the federal government should supply.

[1goodputter]

Newt Gingrich.  He has been battle tested as Speaker of House.  Plus he is a shrewd politician-a plus in his favor because he won't back down when "duking it out" with Congress.

[jordandog]

Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments

This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:

"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above.  Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic.  I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position.  I will bend my knee to no man."



He made 243 of them.  Spin that.

I will say this again to see if your reading comprehension has improved.  Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment and you saying that he made 243 is a lie (unless you are so limited in intellect that you cannot tell a "recess" appointment from a "non-recess" appointment.  You don't seem to understand what the difference is here and honestly if you don't then you have no business discussing the matter (except to ask one of us to explain to you the difference).  I mean that should show you how uniformed or brainwashed you are that you continue to mention this and yet you still do not understand the simplest difference between the two.

Sorry, abrupt, but sig is correct. You keep talking about NON-recess appointments and sig stated, correctly, they were recess appts. "President Reagan made 243 recess appointments over two terms."
(Source:Congressional Research Service and Senate Historian's Office)
Perhaps your 'reading comprehension' needs a little work, not sig's.

This (below) really bothers me, no matter which Prez would have done it, but especially since it is yet another 'Obamaism' showing his lack of regard for the constitutionality of his own actions. It is another example of just how above the law he believes he is.

President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese, has said Barack Obama’s non-recess “recess appointments” have pushed the nation dangerously “close to a constitutional crisis.”
 
Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s program on the Fox Business channel, Meese said the appointments of Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three pro-union members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were historically unprecedented and violated constitutional order. He noted that since the House did not give consent for the Senate to go on recess for more than three days, nor did the Senate go into recess, there was no recess; thus, the president could not legally make a recess appointment. He said all Americans must ponder one question: “If the president is willing to violate the Constitution now, when he has an election upcoming, think what he would do if he was in his second term with no election ahead. To what extent he would literally shred the Constitution during that period of time.”

http://tinyurl.com/8xk6y8p

I am NOT a fan nor a follower of FOX News, but this is the same story they all (sources) have run in the last week. This is from just one, of many, for info on this. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is something I do NOT take lightly. If anyone actually thinks this is 'okay' to do or should become the new SOP for the sitting President, please reconsider whether or not you are even knowledgeable enough or informed enough to cast a vote.......

[Abrupt]

Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments

This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:

"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above.  Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic.  I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position.  I will bend my knee to no man."



He made 243 of them.  Spin that.

I will say this again to see if your reading comprehension has improved.  Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment and you saying that he made 243 is a lie (unless you are so limited in intellect that you cannot tell a "recess" appointment from a "non-recess" appointment.  You don't seem to understand what the difference is here and honestly if you don't then you have no business discussing the matter (except to ask one of us to explain to you the difference).  I mean that should show you how uniformed or brainwashed you are that you continue to mention this and yet you still do not understand the simplest difference between the two.

Sorry, abrupt, but sig is correct. You keep talking about NON-recess appointments and sig stated, correctly, they were recess appts. "President Reagan made 243 recess appointments over two terms."
(Source:Congressional Research Service and Senate Historian's Office)
Perhaps your 'reading comprehension' needs a little work, not sig's.

This (below) really bothers me, no matter which Prez would have done it, but especially since it is yet another 'Obamaism' showing his lack of regard for the constitutionality of his own actions. It is another example of just how above the law he believes he is.

President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese, has said Barack Obama’s non-recess “recess appointments” have pushed the nation dangerously “close to a constitutional crisis.”
 
Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s program on the Fox Business channel, Meese said the appointments of Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three pro-union members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were historically unprecedented and violated constitutional order. He noted that since the House did not give consent for the Senate to go on recess for more than three days, nor did the Senate go into recess, there was no recess; thus, the president could not legally make a recess appointment. He said all Americans must ponder one question: “If the president is willing to violate the Constitution now, when he has an election upcoming, think what he would do if he was in his second term with no election ahead. To what extent he would literally shred the Constitution during that period of time.”

http://tinyurl.com/8xk6y8p

I am NOT a fan nor a follower of FOX News, but this is the same story they all (sources) have run in the last week. This is from just one, of many, for info on this. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is something I do NOT take lightly. If anyone actually thinks this is 'okay' to do or should become the new SOP for the sitting President, please reconsider whether or not you are even knowledgeable enough or informed enough to cast a vote.......

Wait a minute, how is he correct?  We were talking about non-recess appointments and not recess appointments.  He quoted numbers for recess appointments to back up his claim that Reagan made 50 more of them than Obama did (Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, but I hear Bush considered it).  If you read back to the point where the discussion started regarding NON-RECESS appointments you will see exactly what I am talking about.  Recess appointments do not matter at all since they are a power given to the President (although it was for the original 6 month recesses with the event of a vacancy occurring during such times as congress was away and it is abused in spirit now even with the 'allowable' recess appointments). 

[jaymz462]

Don't let our country turn into santorum! VOTE LT. COMMANDER DATA STARDATE 2012!!!

I'm making a bumper sticker for that!

[mattc4000]

I always find politicians quite slimy and dishonest.  With all that being said, I would vote for Romney only.  There are no other viable Republican candidates in my mind.  Een so, I don't really love Romney, more of a reflection on the others.

[constance312003]

I am not sure.  Would like to take parts of each candiate and make one person.

[sigmapi1501]

Frankly, the term "non-recess appointment" is Rush Limbaugh/Fox speak.   

They are saying that Obama illegally made appointments to offices when Congress was in session.  The legal term is a intrasession appointment.  It is legal to make a recess appointment even if that comes during a recess within a session.

What is non-recess?  It would mean congress is in a current session. Our President did not appoint anyone during a session then say FU, you don't get to review it.  Kool Aid drinking man.   If you dislike this President because you own a huge business and don't like that he wants to preserve labor unions, or you are afraid that your 100+ million dollar estate will incur an inheritance tax... then I can't blame you.  But if you are a silly gun totin' southerner who has been tricked into rich white people thinking they care about you, open your eyes.

[Abrupt]

Frankly, the term "non-recess appointment" is Rush Limbaugh/Fox speak.   

They are saying that Obama illegally made appointments to offices when Congress was in session.  The legal term is a intrasession appointment.  It is legal to make a recess appointment even if that comes during a recess within a session.

What is non-recess?  It would mean congress is in a current session. Our President did not appoint anyone during a session then say FU, you don't get to review it.  Kool Aid drinking man.   If you dislike this President because you own a huge business and don't like that he wants to preserve labor unions, or you are afraid that your 100+ million dollar estate will incur an inheritance tax... then I can't blame you.  But if you are a silly gun totin' southerner who has been tricked into rich white people thinking they care about you, open your eyes.

Well there isn't really a legal term as it isn't allowed and has never been done before and so any term that is used and catches on would be the correct term.  Congress is in session and during such times the President has no authority to make appointments.  The President overstepped his authority and this should be intolerable and distasteful to everyone.  The appointment was made while congress was in session.  The president can only make recess appointments, hence this was a non-recess appointment.  This is much like his war that wasn't a war in Lybia where he ignored Congress.

The only person that cares about me, is me.  Nobody else can have my truth into what is best for me and I will not surrender authority over me to any person.  I have never met anyone more capable of deciding what is best for me, than me.  Perhaps you have for yourself.  Perhaps you need to be led around on a lead and told what to do.

[sigmapi1501]

Frankly, the term "non-recess appointment" is Rush Limbaugh/Fox speak.   

They are saying that Obama illegally made appointments to offices when Congress was in session.  The legal term is a intrasession appointment.  It is legal to make a recess appointment even if that comes during a recess within a session.

What is non-recess?  It would mean congress is in a current session. Our President did not appoint anyone during a session then say FU, you don't get to review it.  Kool Aid drinking man.   If you dislike this President because you own a huge business and don't like that he wants to preserve labor unions, or you are afraid that your 100+ million dollar estate will incur an inheritance tax... then I can't blame you.  But if you are a silly gun totin' southerner who has been tricked into rich white people thinking they care about you, open your eyes.

Well there isn't really a legal term as it isn't allowed and has never been done before and so any term that is used and catches on would be the correct term.  Congress is in session and during such times the President has no authority to make appointments.  The President overstepped his authority and this should be intolerable and distasteful to everyone.  The appointment was made while congress was in session.  The president can only make recess appointments, hence this was a non-recess appointment.  This is much like his war that wasn't a war in Lybia where he ignored Congress.

The only person that cares about me, is me.  Nobody else can have my truth into what is best for me and I will not surrender authority over me to any person.  I have never met anyone more capable of deciding what is best for me, than me.  Perhaps you have for yourself.  Perhaps you need to be led around on a lead and told what to do.

The appointments will hold up. They were legal.  Congress was in recess.

[Abrupt]

The appointments will hold up. They were legal.  Congress was in recess.

You are no more qualified than I am to decide the legality of the situation.  Let us see what Obama's top constitutional attorney has to say about it: “The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days,” -- Neal Katyal.  Senators from both parties — including Democrats in 2007 and 2008, when Mr. Obama was in the Senate — have said it takes a recess of at least three days before the president can use his appointment powers.

Senate Democrats who, after taking control of the chamber, used pro forma sessions to stop President Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008.  “I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma sessions to block the [Steven G.] Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he summed up the legal consensus in 2008. Mr. Obama was in the Senate at the time.

Obama made this appointment a day after a session of congress (it was pro forma).  He was obviously informed of his unprecedented power grab regarding long held decisions about what designates a recess but he just as obviously doesn't care about The Constitution, other than trying to bend its meaning to conform to his socialistic beliefs.

[Joeyramone]

The appointments will hold up. They were legal.  Congress was in recess.

You are no more qualified than I am to decide the legality of the situation.  Let us see what Obama's top constitutional attorney has to say about it: “The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days,” -- Neal Katyal.  Senators from both parties — including Democrats in 2007 and 2008, when Mr. Obama was in the Senate — have said it takes a recess of at least three days before the president can use his appointment powers.

Senate Democrats who, after taking control of the chamber, used pro forma sessions to stop President Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008.  “I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma sessions to block the [Steven G.] Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he summed up the legal consensus in 2008. Mr. Obama was in the Senate at the time.

Obama made this appointment a day after a session of congress (it was pro forma).  He was obviously informed of his unprecedented power grab regarding long held decisions about what designates a recess but he just as obviously doesn't care about The Constitution, other than trying to bend its meaning to conform to his socialistic beliefs.

Sigmapi... I know you are a liberal, but even liberals stop trying to defend the indefensible when they are caught lying.  Just stop.  You are embarrasing yourself.  Just stop.

[jordandog]

When Obama went ahead with the controversial recess appointment of Richard Cordray, in order to initiate yet another high cost government agency ie "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau", he broke the very law he fought for and signed just a short time ago. How is that 'aboveboard' in anyone's eyes?! He has also repeatedly stated he intends to govern in 2012 without Congress. So why bother having seated Senators and Representatives from each state? Why even bother remembering/bringing up the fact that this country has a Constitution when he obviously feels the 'constitutionality' within it's guidelines does NOT apply to him?

If these self declared 'options' Obama has given himself in order to skirt around the duties and boundaries outlined in his job description do NOT alarm you, maybe a different country would be more to your liking. Perhaps one with a more socialistic ideology......

[sigmapi1501]

They will hold up and be deemed legal.

[Falconer02]

I'm having some sort of deja vu here because I recall these exact overpowered-president arguments constantly happening in the Bush era on another forum. It's like word for word! Not much has changed I suppose. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html

The only person that cares about me, is me.  Nobody else can have my truth into what is best for me and I will not surrender authority over me to any person.  I have never met anyone more capable of deciding what is best for me, than me.  Perhaps you have for yourself.  Perhaps you need to be led around on a lead and told what to do.

When I read this, my mind totally visualized some hermit up on a mountain with a shotgun in hand 24/7. lol jk jk! But no matter what you do and if you're on any sort of documentation, like it or not a gov't will have some sort of authority over you.

Edit: JDOG! Where've you been? How have you been?