Gov. Walker seeks help from Pres. Obama on propane shortage

[jon_berzerk]

Sounds like the Governor is availing himself to all the options open to him on behalf
of the people of his State....

Good job Governor....

He's doing his job. Liberals are confused because he is not behaving according to their narrative. No one on the right is supposed to care about people and they've repeated so many lies regarding the mean right that they make a big deal out of it when people don't think the way liberals think they should.

I'm glad he gave some tax money back to it's rightful owners, most of which are average Americans. Liberals were pissed because once government has money, it's supposed to go to groups of their choosing, not the people who earned it in the first place. They say it's greedy if you let average tax payers hang on to more of their earnings, as if we all don't need our money.

The same tax payers also paid plenty to the feds, so why not send some back to the states.

they've become so brainwashed in how they think everyone should rely on the Federal government, we get these kinds of horrible threads

sad

they've become so brainwashed

exactly

that is why you see them stand and cheer

at the SOTU when the prezbo notified them

that he is going to disregard the Constitution and go it alone

on penning laws

 

[bullwinkle]

Uncle jonny, would you be so kind as to point out exactly what the Prez said that indicates he is going to circumvent the Constitution?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Uncle jonny, would you be so kind as to point out exactly what the Prez said that indicates he is going to circumvent the Constitution?

his pledge to sidestep congress “wherever and whenever” possible

 

[bullwinkle]

Are you talking XOs?

 

[editec]

Uncle jonny, would you be so kind as to point out exactly what the Prez said that indicates he is going to circumvent the Constitution?

his pledge to sidestep congress “wherever and whenever” possible

"Whenever possible" meaning whenever constituitonally allowed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Uncle jonny, would you be so kind as to point out exactly what the Prez said that indicates he is going to circumvent the Constitution?

his pledge to sidestep congress “wherever and whenever” possible

"Whenever possible" meaning whenever Constitutionally allowed.

he has gone past that on occasion

on his recess appointments for example

 

[bullwinkle]

jonny, I haven't been here often enough to post links so I can't provide a comparison between Obama and a President you supported, but I think the guy you liked has a recorded higher count. Not to mention when a caucus, on inaugural day, vows to withhold every appointment to cabinet, I suspect recess appointments are the only option.

But then, what else is new, right? Republicans have been getting their shorts in a wad over situations they intentionally created since 1/20/09.

Is it cold up dere? We are up to 15F today.

 

[jon_berzerk]

jonny, I haven't been here often enough to post links so I can't provide a comparison between Obama and a President you supported, but I think the guy you liked has a recorded higher count. Not to mention when a caucus, on inaugural day, vows to withhold every appointment to cabinet, I suspect recess appointments are the only option.

But then, what else is new, right? Republicans have been getting their shorts in a wad over situations they intentionally created since 1/20/09.

Is it cold up dere? We are up to 15F today.

which president did i support

as for XOs sure lots of prezbos do it

it is the content of the XO that matters

we have been having cold weather

so far fingers crossed not so much snow

--LOL

 

[bullwinkle]

OK, you don't like the XO content. But the original thought was something about Unconstitutionality. That you don't like content does not mean that content is Unconstitutional. You know as well as I that within the same nanosecond Obama acts, as President, outside the Constitution that somebody outside Fox News will level legitimate charges. Until then, lets keep the slop inside the bucket.

Lots of snow here. I had to burrow out pathways in my backyard for the little dog. Big dogs love the challenge of getting to the back fence. Can't see my street from the sidewalk because of the snow thrown up from the walk. We're vortexed out. No church today.

 

[Darkwind]

Use the so called surplus and buy the people some propane.

What?

You people just can't help yourselves, can you?

Government does not pay for individual heating expenses. Nor should it.

 

[bullwinkle]

If government doesn't pay for individual heating expenses, why is Walker asking for Federal aid because of it? Or did I read Wisconsin's original claim for federal aid wrong wrong?

 

[auditor0007]

What part of obamas policies have raised the cost of propane to dangerous levels is over your head?

Are you happy obama has impoverished people like this?

Soaring fuel prices coupled with food prices coupled with the aca nightmare is the trifecta of evil.

And liberals are cheering the misery.



but it's ok, cuz most of those people are white and it's Bushs fault

Yea, here's the problem with that ridiculous statement. If this had been a normal winter like the ones typical over the past decade, there would be an overabundance of propane and prices would be very cheap. So what you are really doing is blaming the cold winter on Obama. Man you guys crack me up.

 

[FA_Q2]

Addressing talking points?

Dude..we are spending some 400 Billion dollars to build a plane we aren't even going to be using.

Now that's a huge gift to Lockheed Martin from people that may not even know that the tax money, they sweat for and hand over to the government, is going toward that.

Add in the income inequality that goes on there.

Social Spending yields MUCH better results. It allows people in distress to get through the bad times. It allows for people to send their kids to school. It allows for old folks to live out their retirement in dignity.

So, I am not trying to "equate" anything. Because one, military spending, is completely fucking wasteful and one Social Spending, is not.

THEN, you have Governor Scott Walker, who enjoyed a SURPLUS, giving it back to, RICH PEOPLE. Why that's the very SAME FOLKS that benefit from all the military spending.

THEN, you have the SAME governor, hat in hand, ask for approximately the same amount of money he JUST PISSED away making rich folks RICHER, from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

And THAT DOESN'T make you mad?

I never said anything against or supporting the F-22 program. I stated that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. And it doesn’t. It has no relation or resemblance to what walker is doing. The fact that you are still stuck on this really speaks to your inability to support your arguments.


Even BETTER is the fact that I have not said anything against social spending in this thread – that is ALL YOU. YOU are the one bemoaning social spending because Walker is the one requesting it. You have still not addressed the legal point that was brought up by another poster, the fact that you push for these programs and the fact that here you are upset that Walker is taking advantage of something that you would be just fine with a democrat governor doing.

IOW, you are showing your hyper partisanship all the while trying to change the subject to military contract programs. Pathetic.

Do you think there's some magic pot of gold for military spending?

Seriously?

It's all the same kitty.

When the Fed spends money on the military, it doesn't have money to spend on other things.

And that's germane to the topic.

Given that Walker, who enjoyed a surplus, then gave that money back, instead, say, creating a "Rainy Day Fund" then asked the government for funds, that's also in keeping with the topic. It's not a stretch at all.

Again, it's all the same kitty. Walker pissed away the state kitty and went to the Fed kitty.

Tell me again how you guys are fiscally conservative again?

Fuck off sallow. I tire of this asinine attempt to change the topic into another program.
Face it, you are incapable of addressing the actual topic, incapable of coming up with a coherent point and utterly incapable of defending the fact that you support exactly the spending that is outlined in the OP as long as a democrat is doing the spending.

In shout, you are an assclown for the democrat party. Thankfully, you have been banned for a short time so I will not have to listen to your incessant beating of the F22 program in A THREAD ABOUT WALKER ASKING FOR PROPANE RELIEF.

 

[FA_Q2]

jonny, I haven't been here often enough to post links so I can't provide a comparison between Obama and a President you supported, but I think the guy you liked has a recorded higher count. Not to mention when a caucus, on inaugural day, vows to withhold every appointment to cabinet, I suspect recess appointments are the only option.

But then, what else is new, right? Republicans have been getting their shorts in a wad over situations they intentionally created since 1/20/09.

Is it cold up dere? We are up to 15F today.

Except they were not in recess meaning the appointment was outside the established process.

You do realize that the ‘only option’ is not acceptable if it is not according to the constitution. That is an interesting defense though: the other guy didn’t cooperate with my ajenda so I had to do it unconstitutionally.

Sure, stick with that.

 

[bullwinkle]

You're claiming that the 'only option' (i.e. recess appointments or XOs) is not acceptable because it is not according to the Constitution? Since when? Since 1-20-2009?

FA_Q2, you don't like Obama's solution to gridlock? That's perfectly OK. Complain about it. A legit complaint may even have merit. But if you have to fall back on the old Republican mantra of Unconstitutional because you don't like it, may I respectfully request you either fish or cut bait? Charge him in the courts.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're claiming that the 'only option' (i.e. recess appointments or XOs) is not acceptable because it is not according to the Constitution? Since when? Since 1-20-2009?

FA_Q2, you don't like Obama's solution to gridlock? That's perfectly OK. Complain about it. A legit complaint may even have merit. But if you have to fall back on the old Republican mantra of Unconstitutional because you don't like it, may I respectfully request you either fish or cut bait? Charge him in the courts.

Uh, he IS being charged in court. Where the heck have you been?

Here is the argument by the way and the government’s position on this is incredibly weak.
C-SPAN | Presidential Recess Appointment Power Oral Argument

 

[jon_berzerk]

OK, you don't like the XO content. But the original thought was something about Unconstitutionality. That you don't like content does not mean that content is Unconstitutional. You know as well as I that within the same nanosecond Obama acts, as President, outside the Constitution that somebody outside Fox News will level legitimate charges. Until then, lets keep the slop inside the bucket.

Lots of snow here. I had to burrow out pathways in my backyard for the little dog. Big dogs love the challenge of getting to the back fence. Can't see my street from the sidewalk because of the snow thrown up from the walk. We're vortexed out. No church today.

But the original thought was something about Unconstitutionality

yes the appeals court found that to be the case on recess appointments

now we await what the SC says

 

[jon_berzerk]

You're claiming that the 'only option' (i.e. recess appointments or XOs) is not acceptable because it is not according to the Constitution? Since when? Since 1-20-2009?

FA_Q2, you don't like Obama's solution to gridlock? That's perfectly OK. Complain about it. A legit complaint may even have merit. But if you have to fall back on the old Republican mantra of Unconstitutional because you don't like it, may I respectfully request you either fish or cut bait? Charge him in the courts.

Uh, he IS being charged in court. Where the heck have you been?

Here is the argument by the way and the government’s position on this is incredibly weak.
C-SPAN | Presidential Recess Appointment Power Oral Argument

kagan didnt sound favorable of the admins position

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

You're claiming that the 'only option' (i.e. recess appointments or XOs) is not acceptable because it is not according to the Constitution? Since when? Since 1-20-2009?

FA_Q2, you don't like Obama's solution to gridlock? That's perfectly OK. Complain about it. A legit complaint may even have merit. But if you have to fall back on the old Republican mantra of Unconstitutional because you don't like it, may I respectfully request you either fish or cut bait? Charge him in the courts.

Uh, he IS being charged in court. Where the heck have you been?

Here is the argument by the way and the government’s position on this is incredibly weak.
C-SPAN | Presidential Recess Appointment Power Oral Argument

the admins position is quite tyrannical

they move from making recess appointments (by exec deciding it is a recess)

to

making appointments when congress refuses to do so

 

[FA_Q2]

You're claiming that the 'only option' (i.e. recess appointments or XOs) is not acceptable because it is not according to the Constitution? Since when? Since 1-20-2009?

FA_Q2, you don't like Obama's solution to gridlock? That's perfectly OK. Complain about it. A legit complaint may even have merit. But if you have to fall back on the old Republican mantra of Unconstitutional because you don't like it, may I respectfully request you either fish or cut bait? Charge him in the courts.

Uh, he IS being charged in court. Where the heck have you been?

Here is the argument by the way and the government’s position on this is incredibly weak.
C-SPAN | Presidential Recess Appointment Power Oral Argument

the admins position is quite tyrannical

they move from making recess appointments (by exec deciding it is a recess)

to

making appointments when congress refuses to do so

I was somewhat surprised to hear the government’s case. They basically stated that the recess appointment was specifically put in the constitution in order to circumvent congress and that the founder’s original intent was to allow the president to completely disregard the congress the power of review.

I don’t see how you can justify that position. I think it is rather plain why the founders placed a recess appointment clause into the constitution at a time when it might take three weeks just to travel to Washington.