oilfieldDave Loc: From AK live in WA

I find it quite horrifying that people are not up in arms over our president and his wife, and their need to be superstars. Its pretty sad that they have for years been on all of the Hollywood rumor shows, daytime TV shows, and h*****g with the elite. They talk about the 1% like its the enemy, yet they themselves try soooo hard to part of the same elite 1% Hollywood crowd. The ones that talk a good line, but do not live that which they preach.

Now we have one of the most respected journalist in our current time being slammed by the left media, and told by senior WH officials that if he doesn't stop, he will regret it.

I wonder if the liberals on this site agree with that? Are they proud of the president and his illegal appointments, threats to the media, and his lack of any t***sparency even tho he campaigned on it for his first term? I mean, how can any American be proud of a president that thinks its OK to break the rules of the constitution? Do you liberals think its OK for Obama to act this way while demanding a different standard for the right? Do you honestly believe its OK to threaten the media for reporting the t***h?

Here is proof of these attacks:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/woodward-at-war-88212.html?hp=t1_3

oilfieldDave Loc: From AK live in WA

By illegal appointments I mean the ones that have been declared illegal and against the constitution by the DC courts. The NLRB appointments that were done illegally at the end of last year. And, the 600 decisions they have done since the illegal appointee's have been in office.

Do liberals believe in the law? Do they think that its OK to have gun laws? If they do, and expect people to follow them, then they must also believe in the other decisions by the courts. The president has been informed of his illegal appointments, yet chooses to ignore the decision. He is real good a picking and choosing which laws he thinks he can follow or ignore.

I bet if this were GW Bush, the liberals would be in an uproar. And before you use the argument that past presidents have done it, keep in mind two things. One: No president has done what he did in ignoring the fact that congress was in session when he made his appointments by having periodic "gavel soundings" (which the democrats invented, and was OK when they did it) and Two: Just because we have don't things in the past doesn't mean we need to continue to do them in the future. That is why laws change. If one continues to think that because we did it in the past so we should in the future, needs to think about gay rights, a******n, s***ery, women's right to v**e, prohibition, and a multitude of other laws that have been changed because we've grown as a society.

I just wonder why liberals are so good at ignoring the facts, or pretending only part of the law works. Can any of you uber-lefty's explain why its OK for Obama to choose which laws he follows while expecting those of us whom he works for to follow all of the laws?

The Progressive Patriot

Common Dave, that recess appointment thing is a strech. All of a sudden, one court rules against it. Reagan, too, would have been severely hemmed in by the ruling. "Reagan made an estimated 232 recess appointments, followed by George W. Bush with 171, Clinton with 139, George H.W. Bush with 78 and Obama with 32."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/obama-recess-appointment-ruling_n_2618902.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

The Progressive Patriot

Hey Dave, you don't like elitists?? Bet you v**ed for Romney. Right?

oilfieldDave Loc: From AK live in WA

wrong

oilfieldDave Loc: From AK live in WA

Here is a nice article talking about how the barryster finally got around to actually talking about the sequester with congress, even tho he has been preaching the end of the world for 2 months. Such a phony POS:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/28/friday-sequester-meeting-give-cover-obama-congress/

oilfieldDave Loc: From AK live in WA

Golly, its the common liberal reply......"well, Reagan did it, too". LOL that doesn't make it right. Barry Soetoro Obama broke the constitution (not the first time). Reagan NEVER broke the laws of the constitution, or did what Barry has done. Barry made his appointments while congress was still in session. Reagan NEVER did that. Just because Barry h**es the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't apply to him.

I realize liberals dont believe in following the constitution unless it fits their agenda, but the t***h is that they are bound by law to do so in all cases. You liberals are not special even tho you like to think so. You are also bound by our laws. You don't get to choose. Barry got caught trying to choose, and lost.

When Barry and the "progressive" party change our country from a constitutional Republic to a Socialist Republic, then you guys can do what you want. Until then, you're just going to have to follow the rules. We forced your party to allow s***es to be free, we forced your party to give up the idea of making your KKK a national party, and we forced your party to allow Rosa Parks, MLK, and all of the other AA's equal rights. We will also force your party to follow the rules of the land.

The Progressive Patriot

"He h**es the Constitution"You guys just love that line. He has not done anything that all presidents have not done since the 40. There is room for interpretation of article 2, section 2 of the constitution. It's the tea publicans who h**e the constitution. They want to weaken the the federal gov.Do away with the republic and have a federation of states.

The Progressive Patriot

On sequestration Dave, He has been talking all along. The Repubs. won't give up any more revenue. That's the sticking point. And please give me a break with the socialism and KKK bulls**t.

The Progressive Patriot

Didn't v**e Romney, Dave? Who than, some libertarian AKA Anarchist?

The Progressive Patriot

In the paper today....1 in 4 Americans want tax loopholes on the wealthy closed vs. spending cuts.Obama is looking out for the people

The Progressive Patriot

Hey Dave, what do you think of this?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-f**ed-threats-from-the-white-house-what-else-has-he-f**ed-video/

MLITTON

The other presidents made the appt. when senate was in recess...exactly obummer did it while the were still in session, that's why it was illegal to our constitution. he can make appt. when senate is in session because they have the ability to v**e on it, he can not when they are on recess unless it is a long recess.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

For those who pay no income taxes, there is no rate that is too high, nor any benefit ensuing from those taxes too generous.

The popular cry of let's raise the taxes on the other guy is little more than evidence why pure democracy lead to mob rule. When popular cry against gay marriage was clear, liberals tell us that you can't allow popular voices to settle right or wrong, but when the issue is taxes on anyone else but me, popular v**e is critical.

Intellectual consitency is a real problem for these folks, as is economic reality.

The Progressive Patriot

The appointments were made on an intrasession break. The constitution says that appointments may be made during recess. It does not distinguish between intra session vs. when thay are actually between session. The elimination of intrasession appointments would have been particularly frustrating for George W. Bush, according to the report. He made an estimated 141 such appointments, compared with Obama's 26. the D.C. circuit court ruling was way outside of mainstream thought and practice on p**********l recess appointments," said Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the House committee.