Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:
How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

guess the moron didn't read the article:

"Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees
without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under
the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

But President Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed
Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the
Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of
Congress.

The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night that “the
administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress”
under the use of force resolution. “The administration is not
currently seeking additional authorization,” the statement said."


so the article says congress gave the president the power to hold
detainees...the president does not himself, apart from a congressional
mandate, have the power to hold detaineess...

the right wing is trying to have it both ways...arguing the president
CAN hold people without congressional approval AND saying obama's
arguing this.

which, of course, is a lie.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is known as a distinction without a difference. If Obama doesn’t
see the need to get Congressional authorization for continued
indefinite detention, then it means that Obama believes he has that
power under the Constitution from which he derives all authority.
Obama may not want to say it out loud, but his actions speak volumes.
Obama has adopted the Bush position in its entirety.

Obama is a master of this type of prevarication. For the Pinheads,
this might help you - a definition: to speak falsely or misleadingly;
deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.

What is getting more and more amusing is that the Left is becoming
more and more marginlised - just look at the responses to all this
recent activity by yours truly. The Pinheads are literally talking to
themselves. Facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter, logic/reason/
verity just don't matter.

Normally, I would expect at least one of these Pinheads admit that
Obama has some problems keeping his lines/stories and promises
straight. They have drunk the Kool-Aid however, swallowed the arsenic
and can't purge themselves of their closely held beliefs.

Stay tuned for a major block buster report about AARP, it's insurance
plan, Federal support and the health care bill.

This is going to be a MAJOR issue in the coming weeks. Following the
money - following the money.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 9:14*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:





On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

guess the moron didn't read the article:

"Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees
without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under
the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.


You're confused. Here's what your boy promised:

""He will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S.
to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees."

But now he's reversed that. Here's what the ACLU has to say about
that:

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties
Union, said Obama was taking the wrong approach by trying to retain
the commissions.

"As unfortunate as it is to inherit that legacy, to accommodate those
policies is essentially to ratify them," Romero said. "President Obama
would do well to remember his own infamous words during his
presidential campaign: you can't put lipstick on a pig."

Another BO lie.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 10:06*am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:14*am, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

guess the moron didn't read the article:

"Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees
without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under
the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

You're confused. *Here's what your boy promised:

""He will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S.
to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees."

which, of course, has nothing at all to do with the article, or what
bush said, or what the right wing said obama said

this is called 'goalpost moving'. he got his ass shredded in this
argument so now abandons it and tries something else

typical right wing idiot.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 10:17*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:06*am, Jack wrote:





On Sep 24, 9:14*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people..
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

guess the moron didn't read the article:

"Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees
without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under
the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

You're confused. *Here's what your boy promised:

""He will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S.
to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees."

which, of course, has nothing at all to do with the article, or what
bush said, or what the right wing said obama said

this is called 'goalpost moving'. he got his ass shredded in this
argument so now abandons it and tries something else

typical right wing idiot.

You evidently never even understood the original post. Let me refresh
you:

"Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader."

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Now put down the Sterno,
back away, and sober up.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 11:13*am, H the K wrote:
On 9/24/09 11:11 AM, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 11:02 am, *wrote:
*wrote in message

nor the right-wing zealots who think he can do no right. On the other
hand,
you and Harry seem to be stuck in a time warp of the 1960's where tearing
down our country was a rite of passage for the beat generation.
says the guy who thinks we have a socialist president who's destroying
america. and proof of that is that everything is OK because wall
street is in control
such is right wing logic

There you go again, pretending to read minds. I never wrote anything that
would lead a rational person to believe I thought anything of that sort.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 1:05*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:14:28 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

What a difference a (D) makes. (sorry Dinah)

When it was an (R) congress and the president was (R) Gitmo was
blatantly unconstitutional. Now it is fine as long as congress agrees.

congressional oversight has always been an issue, as richard nixon
found out. *and it's SLIGHTLY more complicated than just having
'congress agree'. but that's a first step

If it is truly unconstitutional, congress can't approve it either.

which was not the topic of the article


You folks do have to get your story straight.

you just have to learn to read...and to stop lying. the topic was
whether or not obama continued bush's policies. he didn't.

so now you move the goalposts...

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 1:23*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:55*pm, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 11:11*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:17*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:06*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:14*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

guess the moron didn't read the article:

"Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees
without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under
the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

You're confused. *Here's what your boy promised:

""He will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S.
to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees."

which, of course, has nothing at all to do with the article, or what
bush said, or what the right wing said obama said

this is called 'goalpost moving'. he got his ass shredded in this
argument so now abandons it and tries something else

typical right wing idiot.

You evidently never even understood the original post. *Let me refresh
you:

"Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader."

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? *Now put down the Sterno,
back away, and sober up.-

IOW you righties said obama supported bush's policy

the article said exactly the opposite

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from
Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

"the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by
the Bush administration "

so under right wing logic that makes you correct.

I am correct. *Obama did not support it when Bush did it, and promised
to change the policy, but now he has flopped and adopted Bush's
policy. *He lied to you.

so you never did learn to read. bush said he didn't need congress's
approval. obama said he does and he already has it

that's what the article said. sorry you can't read


Your left wing logic has failed you. *But you are a good apologist for
BO... a lemming to the end.-

says the right wing limbaugh sock puppet

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 1:15*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:44:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

I am (I) who thinks most of these al qaeda *weasels should have been
interviewed in the door of a helicopter, then thrown out, so it is just
amusing to me.

Except most of them aren't al Qaeda. *Over 400 of the prisoners were
released without charges.

That can be said of virtually everyone we are killing in Afghanistan
right now but Obama is still saying "these are the people who caused
9/11". I heard it at least a dozen times last Sunday on the media
blitz.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Obama is GWB with a tan

IOW you don't know where afghanistan is or who we're fighting.

go back to dr. seuss. that's about your speed

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 2:30*pm, wf3h wrote:


I am correct. *Obama did not support it when Bush did it, and promised
to change the policy, but now he has flopped and adopted Bush's
policy. *He lied to you.

so you never did learn to read. bush said he didn't need congress's
approval. obama said he does

"concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress"
BO says he *doesn't* need it. Got it?

and he already has it

Because he's keeping something Bush got originally, you lefties howled
about it then, BO promised to get rid of it, but is now embracing it.
Obama lied, you spin, and the world turns.

You're so easy.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:02*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:30*pm, wf3h wrote:



I am correct. *Obama did not support it when Bush did it, and promised
to change the policy, but now he has flopped and adopted Bush's
policy. *He lied to you.

so you never did learn to read. bush said he didn't need congress's
approval. obama said he does

"concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress"
BO says he *doesn't* need it. *Got it?

uh...no.

he doesn't need SPECIFIC approval for detaining people

BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS IT

WITHOUT it, he'd NEED TO GO AND GET IT

bush, OTOH, said he didn't need it

hope that clears it up for you.


and he already *has it

Because he's keeping something Bush got originally,

ROFLMAO!! bush said he didn't need it. that's what the article said

m'kay?

got it?

sheesh! a black hole emits more info than you do

you lefties howled
about it then, BO promised to get rid of it, but is now embracing it.
Obama lied, you spin, and the world turns.

You're so easy.

i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

like obama prefers, instead of bush with his imperial presidency and
unlimited powers.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:46*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 24, 1:05*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:14:28 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

What a difference a (D) makes. (sorry Dinah)

When it was an (R) congress and the president was (R) Gitmo was
blatantly unconstitutional. Now it is fine as long as congress agrees.

congressional oversight has always been an issue, as richard nixon
found out. *and it's SLIGHTLY more complicated than just having
'congress agree'. but that's a first step

If it is truly unconstitutional, congress can't approve it either.

which was not the topic of the article

You folks do have to get your story straight.

you just have to learn to read...and to stop lying. the topic was
whether or not obama continued bush's policies. he didn't.

so now you move the goalposts...

He continued the policies,

which is, of course, meaningless. what 'policies'? the difference is
that he recognizes separation of powers and limits on presidential
powers which the imperial president bush never did

just with a rubber stamp from the (D)
controlled congress.

ah. more goalpost moving. now you're admitting you're wrong in that
he DOES need congressional approval BUT you're saying it's a rubber
stamp congress

gee. why not move the goalposts out of the park completely

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:43*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:


Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Obama is GWB with a tan

IOW you don't know where afghanistan is or who we're fighting.

I know the difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan (where Bin
Laden really is)

and you seem to think afghanistan is a nation just like pakistan. IOW
you think all 'stans' are alike...


Even the senior members of the administration are starting to admit
Afghanistan is a nation building operation

ROFLMAO!! they're saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. no one is talking
nation building. they're talking predator drone attacks in pakistan,
building up the ANA and ANP, but nationbuilding? no such luck

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
Even the senior members of the administration are starting to admit
Afghanistan is a nation building operation

ROFLMAO!! they're saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. no one is talking
nation building. they're talking predator drone attacks in pakistan,
building up the ANA and ANP, but nationbuilding? no such luck


I think we should do some nationbuilding... right here in the US. It's about
time.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 3:10*pm, wf3h wrote:


i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

like obama prefers, instead of bush with his imperial presidency and
unlimited powers.

You mean like firing the CEO of a private company, appointing
unconstitutional "czars" for all kinds of crap, attempting to silence
critics by sending thugs to beat then up, asking citizens to rat out
people with different viewpoints... yeah, right.
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

June 15, 2009Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar”
with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this
latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote
President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab
centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional
oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the
pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money
(and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say
that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay
until the czar is pleased.

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter,
Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack
Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had
one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high
as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen
czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous
government power, and answers only to the president.
--------------------------------------------------------
"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:10:38 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

The constitution says that is THREE branches of government, not Two

you don't know what separation of powers means. no kiddin'. a right
winger only knows the 2nd amendment...


A year ago this was being defined by the left as an abuse of the right
of habeas corpus and due process.

uh...no it wasn't. what WAS being defined as a power grab was bush's
imperial presidency...no limits...no checks...no accountability to
congress

and that's what the article says. i suggest you read it

Suddenly that is OK with you as long
as it is OK with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Bush would say he got the tacit approval from his congress in the
various war resolutions they passed

and bush said he didn't need it. that's the point.

and you? you just quit reading after the first 3 letter word in the
article


.. The reality for anyone who really
thinks this is a constitutional issue is that neither the congress nor
the president has that power. Due process requires the judiciary.

meaningless


You would have to amend article 1 section 9 of the constitution to
change that.

The flip side of this is others say Gitmo is not in the United States,
these are not US citizens, they are enemy combatants and the
constitution does not apply at all.
This is purely a military exercise and the president is commander in
chief of the military.

irrelevant. goalpost moving.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 4:31*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 3:10*pm, wf3h wrote:



i know you righties love big govt with unlmited powers, but we lovers
of the constitution prefer a separation of powers...

like obama prefers, instead of bush with his imperial presidency and
unlimited powers.

You mean like firing the CEO of a private company,

i guess you, like a typical right winger, think we should have just
given the rich $25B and said 'it's paid for by the taxpayers. screw
'em'


appointing
unconstitutional "czars" for all kinds of crap,

meaningless. has nothing to do with habeas corpus

*attempting to silence
critics by sending thugs to beat then up, asking citizens to rat out
people with different *viewpoints... yeah, right.


more racist ****** hatred from the far right. obama has zip to do
with this, but the far right, with their hatred of the commie kenyan
****** arab muslim president, make up lies.


------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

June 15, 2009Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar”
with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this
latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote
President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab
centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional
oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the
pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money

ah. receiving govt money

funny how you right wingers think the president should have unlimited
powers to arrest and detain, but you shudder with horror over the govt
trying to protect the money it's lent private companies

shows how ****ed up the right really is.

..
--------------------------------------------------------
"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. *You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

says the guy who thinks only rich right wing presidents should have
unlimited powers

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 7:25*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 24, 4:31*pm, Jack wrote:
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

June 15, 2009Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar”
with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this
latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote
President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab
centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional
oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter,
Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack
Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each
had
one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high
as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen
czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous
government power, and answers only to the president.
--------------------------------------------------------
"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. *You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

says the guy who thinks only rich right wing presidents should have
unlimited powers

Never said that, but you're the guy that backs a president that not
only goes back on his promise to rescind the previous administration's
powers, but then make an unprecedented power grab of his own that his
own party admonishes him for. All the while you blindly march along,
eh comrade?

You either just love to argue, or you're exceptionally stupid. Who am
I kidding, it's both. I'm done.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On 9/24/09 8:48 PM, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 7:25 pm, wrote:
On Sep 24, 4:31 pm, wrote:
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

June 15, 2009Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar”
with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this
latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote
President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab
centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional
oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter,
Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack
Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each
had
one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high
as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen
czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous
government power, and answers only to the president.
--------------------------------------------------------
"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

says the guy who thinks only rich right wing presidents should have
unlimited powers

Never said that, but you're the guy that backs a president that not
only goes back on his promise to rescind the previous administration's
powers, but then make an unprecedented power grab of his own that his
own party admonishes him for. All the while you blindly march along,
eh comrade?

You either just love to argue, or you're exceptionally stupid. Who am
I kidding, it's both. I'm done.



Won't it be great when "the scoops" stop by jackoff's house and take him
away to the soylent green processing plant?

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 9/24/09 8:48 PM, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 7:25 pm, wrote:
On Sep 24, 4:31 pm, wrote:
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

June 15, 2009Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar”
with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this
latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote
President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab
centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional
oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter,
Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack
Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each
had
one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high
as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen
czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous
government power, and answers only to the president.
--------------------------------------------------------
"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

says the guy who thinks only rich right wing presidents should have
unlimited powers

Never said that, but you're the guy that backs a president that not
only goes back on his promise to rescind the previous administration's
powers, but then make an unprecedented power grab of his own that his
own party admonishes him for. All the while you blindly march along,
eh comrade?

You either just love to argue, or you're exceptionally stupid. Who am
I kidding, it's both. I'm done.



Won't it be great when "the scoops" stop by jackoff's house and take him
away to the soylent green processing plant?

--

I don't think he'd get past the quality test........ maybe he could
fertilize weeds somewhere.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 8:48*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 7:25*pm, wf3h wrote: On Sep 24, 4:31*pm, Jack wrote:

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter,

Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack
Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each
had
one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high
as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen
czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous
government power, and answers only to the president.

irrelevant. you can't be slightly pregnant and you cant be slightly
unconstitutional. it's either constitutional or not.


--------------------------------------------------------

"big govt with unlimited powers"... indeed. *You're such an idiot you
can't see what going on right in front of you.

says the guy who thinks only rich right wing presidents should have
unlimited powers

Never said that, but you're the guy that backs a president that not
only goes back on his promise to rescind the previous administration's
powers

meaningless

, but then make an unprecedented power grab of his own that his
own party admonishes him for. *All the while you blindly march along,
eh comrade?

well no. so a senator admonishes the president. who cares?

You either just love to argue, or you're exceptionally stupid. *Who am
I kidding, it's both. *I'm done.

if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

you're living proof

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 11:14*pm, wf3h wrote:


sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.


You're quoting that bigot? Case closed, you're a freakin' loon.

No more wasting my time with you.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 11:40*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 11:14*pm, wf3h wrote:



sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

You're quoting that bigot? *Case closed, you're a freakin' loon.

No more wasting my time with you.

says the guy who believes strom thurmond was the 2nd coming

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 24, 10:14*pm, wf3h wrote:


if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

you're living proof


Quoting H.L Menken? HL Menken?

Then here is a quote of his that you should remember.

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy
is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner
soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron."

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy
is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner
soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)..."

Excellent! ....this is what we get when Americans don't pay attention
to politics until election day.

But lets go for another quote, shall we?

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most
daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth."

Let go for another, shall we?

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 25, 4:13*am, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:14*pm, wf3h wrote:



if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

you're living proof

Quoting H.L Menken? *HL Menken?

Then here is a quote of his that you should remember.

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy
is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner
soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron."

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy
is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner
soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)..."

Excellent! ....this is what we get when *Americans don't pay attention
to politics until election day.

But lets go for another quote, shall we?

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most
daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth."

Let go for another, shall we?

Heh, heh... crickets from the wf3 idiot.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 25, 4:13*am, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:14*pm, wf3h wrote:



if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.



But lets go for another quote, shall we?

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most
daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth."

Let go for another, shall we?

yeah. how about this:

'people will love you if they think you're making them think. they'll
hate you if you make them think'

no wonder the right doesn't quote him much

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 25, 10:11*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 25, 4:13*am, TopBassDog wrote:





On Sep 24, 10:14*pm, wf3h wrote:

if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

you're living proof

Quoting H.L Menken? *HL Menken?

Then here is a quote of his that you should remember.

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy
is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner
soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron."

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy
is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner
soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)..."

Excellent! ....this is what we get when *Americans don't pay attention
to politics until election day.

But lets go for another quote, shall we?

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most
daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth."

Let go for another, shall we?

Heh, heh... crickets from the wf3 idiot.-

that can happen when you have a sick family member.

unlike you, i believe in the dignity of people instead of
relationships based on profit

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 9:41*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 25, 4:13*am, TopBassDog wrote:



On Sep 24, 10:14*pm, wf3h wrote:

if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

But lets go for another quote, shall we?

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most
daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth."

Let go for another, shall we?

yeah. how about this:

'people will love you if they think you're making them think. they'll
hate you if you make them think'

no wonder the right doesn't quote him much

In the blanked statement you quoted, there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 1:41*pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:41*am, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 25, 4:13*am, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:14*pm, wf3h wrote:

if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

But lets go for another quote, shall we?

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most
daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth."

Let go for another, shall we?

yeah. how about this:

'people will love you if they think you're making them think. they'll
hate you if you make them think'

no wonder the right doesn't quote him much

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:41*pm, TopBassDog wrote:



On Sep 26, 9:41*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 25, 4:13*am, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:14*pm, wf3h wrote:

if i were stupid i'd be right wing.

sorry. aint gonna happen. as mencken said, 'not all conservatives are
stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative'.

But lets go for another quote, shall we?

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most
daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth."

Let go for another, shall we?

yeah. how about this:

'people will love you if they think you're making them think. they'll
hate you if you make them think'

no wonder the right doesn't quote him much

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 3:03*pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:




In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda-

which is quite a statement from someone who can't read at all

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 2:16*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 26, 3:03*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda-

which is quite a statement from someone who can't read at all

That was such a statement of brilliance!

If I can not read; I cannot type.

If I can not type; you can not read what I type.

If you cannot read what I type; you can not reply to what you have
read that I have typed.

You have replied to what I have typed, so who is it that cannot read?

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 3:41*pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:16*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:03*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda-

which is quite a statement from someone who can't read at all

That was such a statement of brilliance!

If I can not read; I cannot type.

well, no. you have your 5 year old kid do it for you. he undoubtedly
is more capable than you.

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 2:59*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 26, 3:41*pm, TopBassDog wrote:



On Sep 26, 2:16*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:03*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda-

which is quite a statement from someone who can't read at all

That was such a statement of brilliance!

If I can not read; I cannot type.

well, no. you have your 5 year old kid do it for you. he undoubtedly
is more capable than you.

Really? You know me? I have a "5 year old kid?

I suppose you earned your ham radio license via correspondence, or did
you pay off a bureaucrat in the FCC?

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 4:23*pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:59*pm, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 26, 3:41*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 2:16*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:03*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda-

which is quite a statement from someone who can't read at all

That was such a statement of brilliance!

If I can not read; I cannot type.

well, no. you have your 5 year old kid do it for you. he undoubtedly
is more capable than you.

Really? You know me? I have a "5 year old kid?

my mistake. perhaps you have a computer that can read text. it'd
certainly be more intelligent than you are. and, i suppose, if you
DID have a kid, you'd never admit it. paternity suits are expensive

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 4:17*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:23*pm, TopBassDog wrote:



On Sep 26, 2:59*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:41*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 2:16*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:03*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda-

which is quite a statement from someone who can't read at all

That was such a statement of brilliance!

If I can not read; I cannot type.

well, no. you have your 5 year old kid do it for you. he undoubtedly
is more capable than you.

Really? You know me? I have a "5 year old kid?

my mistake. perhaps you have a computer that can read text. it'd
certainly be more intelligent than you are. *and, i suppose, if you
DID have a kid, you'd never admit it. paternity suits are expensive



So you know first hand about paternity suits, eh?

again:

I suppose you earned your ham radio license via correspondence, or did
you pay off a bureaucrat in the FCC?

Obama supports Bush detention policy
 

On Sep 26, 6:58*pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:17*pm, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 26, 4:23*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 2:59*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:41*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 2:16*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:03*pm, TopBassDog wrote:

On Sep 26, 12:50*pm, wf3h wrote:

In the blanked statement you quoted, *there was nothing mentioned
about the right nor the left. So, evidently you are addressing the
point that the liberals are stupid

seems like you haven't read much mencken

seems you read only what fits your agenda-

which is quite a statement from someone who can't read at all

That was such a statement of brilliance!

If I can not read; I cannot type.

well, no. you have your 5 year old kid do it for you. he undoubtedly
is more capable than you.

Really? You know me? I have a "5 year old kid?

my mistake. perhaps you have a computer that can read text. it'd
certainly be more intelligent than you are. *and, i suppose, if you
DID have a kid, you'd never admit it. paternity suits are expensive

So you know first hand about paternity suits, eh?

yeah. your mom filed one against me. turned out she was wrong