Then name the 82 blocked nominees !!
But - Of course it was uttered by a liberal democrat so it has to be right in your mind, heh ???
Actually I posted the last part of the article first and the first part last just to mess with your mind so your advice on reading the rest of article is a flop. You in fact need to do some studying on the subject before you post nonsense like you did. It was easily proven to be false by naming all those blocked..Sure didnt add up to what you said now did it ??
Take your own advice....It is a lie by Harry Reid....
No, Republicans Have Not Blocked 82 Obama Nominees by James J Heaney Posted on 22 November 2013 SPOILER ALERT: At the end of this article, we will reveal that Republicans have in fact blocked only 8 Obama nominees.
Of the 77 cases Reid cites as attempted “filibusters,” those two situations cover fully 65 of them! Only 12 developed into genuine filibusters, where the Republican minority actually blocked progress on a nominee. Those nominees were: Hagel, Cordray, Millett, Watt, Wilkins, Pillard, Halligan, Bacharach, Aponte, Liu, Becker, and Hayes. Of these 12, 4 were confirmed anyway, after negotiations (Hagel, Aponte, Cole, and Hayes). That leaves a grand total of 8 blocked Obama nominees, during five years of Democratic control of the Senate, or about 1.5 per year. This is the real lie in Sen. Reid’s infographic: not his abuse of cloture vote counts to measure filibusters, not his incomprehensibly bad counting, but his decision to change the meaning of the word “blocked” so that it means something completely different from what the English language says it means.
So you don't like how he has used the Executive Order..that's a reasonable complaint.
Unreasonable complaints would be implying that Obama is not eligible to be President.
Presidential candidate Obama pledged in 2008 not to use executive orders and “signing statements” as a means of doing an “end run around Congress.” Then-Senator Obama condemned the idea that a president “can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”
"All of them sealed"
You were wrong. You are the one that needs a good argument. So far you have tried and failed at the following:
1. Obama is not a citizen- that would be a fail on your part
2. Obama's family is questionable therefor he is- another fail because we do not elect a person's family but the person
3. Obama's teachers were questionable therefor he is- yet another fail because again, we vote for the person and not those they learned stuff from
Heck, what would you call a man that learned military tactics from our sworn enemy, was a defiant traitor to his homeland and used what would be deemed terrorist tactics? You would probably call him the worse scum on the planet, most in the US call his President Washington.
OH GOD.. And it took HOW LONG and HOW MANY LAWSUITS to get an assembled one opened ???? Why cant you guys put up a good argument ??
And yet we have his birth certificate, so not everything was sealed.
I SAID ALL OF THEM SEALED. NOT ONE OR TWO.. ALL OF EM...
Obama isn't the first Prez to ever have documents sealed.
OK I will GIVE you all that so you can justify your vote for him. BUT you have to tell me WHY he has ALL of his and his wifes information sealed ??When NO OTHER president in our history has !!!
"So now I am supposed to trust who, in government??"
Who was President when Candidate Obama was running for the Democrat Nomination? Do you think Bush and his underlings didn't check Obama out at all?
At this point Greek, you are sounding a bit like an anarchist because there doesn't seem to be any aspect of the govt you trust or ever seemed to trust.
greek, "Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981.."
Good grief did you ever copy/paste that loyally.
The facts are that the US did NOT have Pakistan on its no travel list during the time Obama travelled there.
On top of that, a New York Times editor (BARBARA CROSSETTE) travelled to Pakistan at the time you are saying an American couldn't go. (ww w.nytimes.co m/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.ht ml)
So..no Greek, you are wrong..again.
"The Supreme Court has refused to hear every case challenging Obama's Constitutional eligibility submitted to date."
Because the Supreme Court doesn't have to listen to every crack pot that wants to complain about something. Not only that but obviously the lower courts didn't give these crack pots satisfaction and that's why they had to keep going to the next one up and finally been told to go away.
Thegreek's post about Obama traveling to Pakistan contains a lie that destroys the entire premise of the post.
Thegreek claims that Obama must have traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an Indonesian or British passport because Americans weren't permitted to travel to Pakistan in 1981.
Here's the truth that rebuts the lie: From Snopes in 2009, " The U.S. State Department did not include Pakistan on a 'no travel' list barring Americans from traveling there in mid-1981, and evidence documents that Americans could in fact freely visit that country at that time."
Read more at *******w ww.snopes.c om/politics/obama/passport.asp#X8lP1buXtL0Q4wzC.99
So. Your official answer is "caue I was stupid enough to vote him into the office of POTUS in the 1st place". I am all seeing all knowing and I am right is what you are telling me.. Haa haa. Thats about typical.
Give me proof they investigated him. You said that at first and cannot prove it and you're calling ME stupid. wow.
Well the way you democrats are always yelling prejudice, I would say they were too scared to do a backround check cause you would say it was racial profiling !
700 Channel Lane , Marietta, OH 45750 | 740-373-2121