White House: ‘Strongly Disagrees’ With Ruling – Politics Informer Video

The White House says it ‘strongly disagrees’ with a court ruling that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution by making recess appointments to a labor panel, but says it won’t affect the president’s other personnel actions. (Jan. 25)

15 Responses to “White House: ‘Strongly Disagrees’ With Ruling – Politics Informer Video”

  1. George Martin says:

    The only fiction I’m reading is yours dumb canuck. You’re the one who’s the anti-Amaerican useful idiot. Perhaps you should actually find out the truth insead of spreading your propaganda filth. Perhaps you have heard of Google or maybe Bing. BTW, are you now stoned? I don’t even undertand that weird garbled last senrence.

  2. utubeaccount00 says:

    Haha yeah I guess if you’re a fucking pathetic crackpot whatever you just shat out all over your keyboard might be correct. I won’t even bother address your fictional claims (90% killed by CI and TB and not US bombs? Get your head out of your ass). Perhaps when you start to understand what the fuck you’re talking about you’ll see who is really to blame and here is a tip: It’s not ‘omg obummber the monkey dictator!11′

  3. George Martin says:

    90% of those deaths were caused by the counter insurgance(Iraq) and the taliban(Afanistan). GW relied on intellegence provided by from intelligent agencies both domestic and from our Allies. Nothing was fabricated. The only fabracation is from those anti-American propagandist you and your ilk seem to prefer. G.W. asked Congress for approval and they gave it, and continued to give it annually. There was no treason. I think you should stop….smoking the ganga that is.

  4. utubeaccount00 says:

    He is responsible for every one of those hundreds of thousands of deaths the same way Obama is responsible for a half dozen people dying from drone deaths (guess which is worse), also to think fabricating evidence and lying to the people, and congress to go to war isn’t treasonous then you should probably stop.

  5. George Martin says:

    He had congressional approval for those wars. So how were these wars illegal and treasonous? BTW he did not kill hundreds of thousand of Iraqis or Afghanis.

  6. utubeaccount00 says:

    hahaha are you fucking serious? started two illegal wars resulting in thousands of american deaths and hundreds of thousands of iraqi and afghan deaths?

  7. treid100182 says:

    Strongly disagree… with reality.

  8. WashingtonDCtreason says:

    WE WARNED YOU! The marxist Barack Hussein Obama (AKA Barry Obama, AKA Barry Soetoro), and his White House commies and Progressives-communist allies in Congress,are FURTHER testing the waters of absolute dictatorship … run, of course, by him:

  9. allgoo19 says:

    “Are you being deliberately moronic?”
    I explain to you why you are moron.
    *Revolt against gov. rarely happened by privately owned guns, most of the time using military force, other times foreign intervention or both. People fought by sheer numbers using farming tools in French revolution.
    *There’s no constitution in the history allows people to revolt the gov. by weapons. People will try regardless what says in constitution anyway. It’s kinda stupid, don’t you think?

  10. allgoo19 says:

    “Are you being deliberately moronic?”
    I thought it was you.

    “The Bill of Rights explicitly applies”
    Why everybody brings up the same thing? Is there a single source that teaching you how to make argument in youtube? “Bill of rights” says about *by voting* not by guns.
    Unanswered question,
    “Does it say “Against the gov.” anywhere (in the 2nd amendment)?
    Yes or no?”

  11. sklanger says:

    Slavery used to be constitutional until the Thirteenth Amendment abolished it, dumbass. If it wasn’t constitutional according to the Constitution there would have been no need for an amendment.

    Whenever “the right of the people” is used in the Constitution it refers to individual rights: the Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect the government, it protects individuals; and the First Amendment doesn’t protect the government’s right to petition itself.

    Your reading of “people” is incoherent.

  12. sklanger says:

    Are you being deliberately moronic?

    The Bill of Rights explicitly applies to the government and it says so: “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

    So: Yes.

  13. allgoo19 says:

    “law suite” –> “Lawsuit”

  14. allgoo19 says:

    Again, does it say “Against the gov.” anywhere?
    Yes or no?

  15. allgoo19 says:

    “Wrong. The purpose and historical context was explained by the Supreme Court:”
    Slavery used to be constitutional. SCOTUS decision is not permanent. Current SCOTUS is as conservative as it can get.
    “Who did you think “shall not be infringed” was directed at?”
    In legal term, “People” means “government”. Do you think “We the people” means individual? It means the “Government of people”.
    More over, when the law suite titled “People vs” it means the government against the opponent.


Leave a Reply