dayman

just saying...more money out than in...technically taking

And just keep in mind here I'm not saying he shouldn't have that service or anything against him or military families at all...

Hey all I'm saying is anyone who gets more benefits than they pay in with cash money...technically taking...no disrespect to military families I know many of them and many of them are in my family...merely pointing out a fact

http://bigstory.ap.o...-backing-hitler ROME (AP) — Former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi praised Benito Mussolini for "having done good" despite the Fascist dictator's anti-Jewish laws, immediately sparking expressions of outrage as Europe on Sunday held Holocaust remembrances. ... "It is difficult now to put oneself in the shoes of who was making decisions back then," Berlusconi said of Mussolini's support for Hitler. "Certainly the (Italian) government then, fearing that German power would turn into a general victory, preferred to be allied with Hitler's Germany rather that oppose it." Berlusconi added that "within this alliance came the imposition of the fight against, and extermination of, the Jews. Thus, the racial laws are the worst fault of Mussolini, who, in so many other aspects, did good." More than 7,000 Jews were deported under Mussolini's regime, and nearly 6,000 of them were killed. Reactions of outrage, along with a demand that Berlusconi be prosecuted for promoting Fascism, quickly followed his words. ....

If you insist on calling people takers, you might as well include every single person in the country on medicare....and every military family...

Earlier this week, the bill was referred to the House Constitution Committee. hehe...heh....heh

Oliver Stone movie incoming. *Oliver Stone voice*: "If only we had been brave enough to be vulnerable, we might have stayed free"

BTW the best answer for that is a DOJ brief in a '93 case that cites the adjournments clause (a clause unrelated to appointments) as a weak but the best argument that there is a constitutionally set number of days to constitute a recess for the purposes of intrasession recess appointments. Of course, intrasession recess appointments were rare and very short at the founding, intersession frequent and long, today it is the exact opposite, and it is clear there is no set intrasession break days number...therefore there is no real difference between 10 days and 3...certainly not when the 3 is in the middle of a 20 day break w/ mere pro forma sessions. In any event Obama has used recess appointments in general far less than his 2 predecessors but I know that doesn't fit the narrative...

I don't really know nobody will. There are a few articles floating around claiming that she was unhappy that she had limited appearances and almost nothing towards the very end of her contract, and that various producers at fox called her stupid and made fun of her to coworkers behind the scenes. Ultimately she rejected the contract which if she wants to continue to be an outspoken advocate for...whoever it is she represents....you would think $1M gift for the opportunity to selectively appear on fox as a contributor would be something she wants...unless of course she wasn't getting on enough and/or felt they didn't appreciate/respect/value her...it's all speculation of course since no sources accusing their boss of calling her stupid will be named and neither side will comment about the regularity of her appearances and both just say "good luck to her/fox" respectively...

Explain the difference please I would love to hear you do it

hehe...I know the conservative media narrative is that imperial overlord Obama tried to slip in some recess appointments when the congress was in recess but not between sessions and this is bold and unheard of insanity....the reality is these intrasession appointments have happened all the time. How dare he staff the NLRB so it can function! Who does he think he is! The President?

In the courts opinion and it's one thing I do agree with, substantively no. If you want to talk number of days...then it was 3 where more commonly it has been 5 or 10 or so on the close on end... ...and it was really 20 anyway the 3 just accounts for the gavel dropping w/ nobody in the room every 3 days

Well you are just wrong on that. I can't prove it obviously b/c I don't have a time machine but it's not true. And btw like I said earlier there are many positions that the confirmation process is appropriate for and should be kept, just not 500+ not even close

Well we're getting a bit off topic since I'm just saying let whoever gets the job have an easier time staffing his agencies....but to your point....I suppose you elect the guy who runs saying he doesn't like it?

Then reign in that power, but as long as we're voting for the guy we give the power to do that...let him staff the exec positions a little easier? well IDK if that exists or not but something similar probably does...point being that if something should be eliminated then eliminate it don't just sabotage it...what we have we should try to do well

Then advocate for its deletion? Campaign more specifically and aggressively for getting rid of various departments you don't like? Don't use the appointment process to just !@#$ up something and keep the government that does exist without leadership.

Well she hit all her buzzwords. After being snubbed in her fox news contract apparently by not getting many appearances as she wanted and by not being respected by various producers, glad to see she can at least do some interviews still. Politics just isn't the same without the wild child from the wilderness. I would be interested to know who she thinks they should have picked...Santorum? Moving forward...Santorum again?

I often end up advocating a strong executive. THe entire nation votes for that spot, whoever is in it becomes the commander in chief and head of teh executive, allow him so staff a bit more of his underlings a little easier. They rarely get rejected anyway they're just bothered and delayed....for God's sake he can reign hell fire from the sky on some guy walking around in a desert halfway around the world I think he can pick a director of womens activities in the labor department...

I would argue that Hamilton saw this a great check promoting judicious choices at the time when the number of confirmed positions was less than the number of guys on a football team. And no doubt he imagined the actual process existing was more the check than an actual down vote which he imagined would be extremely rare. But now...it's just a self defeating mechanism and it doesn't promote our republican system in any credible way to have the entire senate confirm the inspector general of the railroad retirement board. Oh and just be clear I'm not saying do away with it I'm say drastically reduce the positions that need a confirmation to those that are important and worthy of the senate's time...so that the senate may get to it and do it rather than having posts just sit around w/ nobody in them officially.

Taking after Bman and just posting stuff that everybody who has read a basic article about this story knows? hehe The greater point of the confirmation process is that it is insane at this point. There is absolutely no reason the senate should have to confirm over 500 positions....and regardless of the party in the WH they should be more deferential and just look a qualification, not put stupid holds on nominees for unrelated reasons, and on and on...I mean at any given point there are countless positions in the government some of which are actually important that have no acting official...if that doesn't show how the entire process is broken (broken by both parties obviously) then idk what does....

As I've said, intrasession recess appointments have happened a bunch. Thus, it is surprising to most people that the opinion says they cannot happen ever, and even intersession recess appointments can only be made when the vacancy arises during that recess. In other words, this is a very surprising ruling. Bman somehow does not understand that this does in fact prevent what many presidents have been doing for a long time, and just pastes articles highlighting what the decision is...which is not something anybody is confused about and thus makes it seem as though he's retarded.

lol Bman you really are stupid. I don't think you understand the posts I've made.

If you aren't safe from a horde of pillagers coming over the hill you aren't free to farm! Never mind that anarchy leads to dictatorship. But since we're talking philosophical government with Takser first let me say DEFINE FREEDOM!!! DEFINE RIGHTS!!! DEFINE WORDS!!! ...and before you freak Tasker...yes....I'm being...well...you get me b/c we're friends

While the idea of a 3rd term is insane, 3rds genera point is correct. He got his second term...cover him forever? It's over...obviously he'll want to remain effective but in political terms...games over. President for 8 years in the bag....you hardy need more cover lover him or hate him

I would just break a pool stick in half and throw it between the candidates and tell them to make it quick