# Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?



## bigrebnc1775

Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order" 
Isn't this how dictators begin?


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
Click to expand...


But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
After all, he was voted into the position by The People.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
Click to expand...


When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.


----------



## LoVE

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
Click to expand...


you are right on the money... that is how dictatorships start.


----------



## LoVE

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
Click to expand...



it was the will of the majority of the people that he should be president.. not that he becomes a defacto dictator.


----------



## spectrumc01

LoVE said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it was the will of the majority of the people that he should be president.. not that he becomes a defacto dictator.
Click to expand...


That is true, but if the presidential powers include executive orders isn't he within his legal power that the people have entrusted him with?  And if the people don't want him to have such power shouldn't they take it away instead of blaming him for using legal powers the people gave him in the first place?


----------



## Douger

Simple. Barry is doing what your masters want him to do. Your masters own ALL of the politicicians.Look in your wallet. Paper and plastic.Tags that identify you as OWNED.Like a dog tag, but dogs understand reality..


----------



## Sallow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
Click to expand...


Which people?


----------



## Sallow

spectrumc01 said:


> LoVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was the will of the majority of the people that he should be president.. not that he becomes a defacto dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, but if the presidential powers include executive orders isn't he within his legal power that the people have entrusted him with?  And if the people don't want him to have such power shouldn't they take it away instead of blaming him for using legal powers the people gave him in the first place?
Click to expand...


That's the fun part. They want to figure out a way to take the executive order "power" from Presidents they don't like and restore them to Presidents they do.

Sorta like Paygo and the Filibuster.


----------



## Sallow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
Click to expand...


How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.

Majority wins.


----------



## spectrumc01

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
Click to expand...


with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.


----------



## Sallow

spectrumc01 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
Click to expand...


To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.

But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## spectrumc01

Sallow said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?


----------



## Sallow

spectrumc01 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, *and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
Click to expand...


No it hasn't. Our government has become paralyzed because of right wing radicalism..that has lied to get into power. The Republican governors ran on an agenda of creating jobs. What do they do? Once in power..they smashed Unions. Not only that..they cut taxes on the wealthy.

The representatives that won in 2010, did so because they scared seniors with the idea that the Health Care Package was going to kill Medicare and cause health care to become a "rationed" mess..and that they would be forced to die.

What do they do once in power? They try to kill Medicare, try to restrict and tax abortion and block almost every meaningful bill that comes down the pike. They passed like 19 bills since their asses hit the seats and like 16 of them were for naming stuff.


----------



## spectrumc01

Sallow said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, *and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. Our government has become paralyzed because of right wing radicalism..that has lied to get into power. The Republican governors ran on an agenda of creating jobs. What do they do? Once in power..they smashed Unions. Not only that..they cut taxes on the wealthy.
> 
> The representatives that won in 2010, did so because they scared seniors with the idea that the Health Care Package was going to kill Medicare and cause health care to become a "rationed" mess..and that they would be forced to die.
> 
> What do they do once in power? They try to kill Medicare, try to restrict and tax abortion and block almost every meaningful bill that comes down the pike. They passed like 19 bills since their asses hit the seats and like 16 of them were for naming stuff.
Click to expand...


But that is my point exactly...You don't trust them and they don't trust you.


----------



## Care4all

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?


if it were an impeachable offense to use an executive order to go around congress, then President Bush and all other presidents would have been impeached.

me thinks you're crying wolf....


----------



## Stephanie

Sallow said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, *and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. *Our government has become paralyzed because of right wing radicalism..*that has lied to get into power. The Republican governors ran on an agenda of creating jobs. What do they do? Once in power..*they smashed Unions*. Not only that..they cut taxes on the wealthy.
> 
> The representatives that won in 2010, did so because they scared seniors with the idea that the Health Care Package was going to kill Medicare and cause health care to become a "rationed" mess..and that they would be forced to die.
> 
> What do they do once in power? They try to kill Medicare, try to restrict and tax abortion and block almost every meaningful bill that comes down the pike. They passed like 19 bills since their asses hit the seats and like 16 of them were for naming stuff.
Click to expand...


hahaha, busting the UNIONS WILL create JOBS..they will not be able to make obscene DEMANDS on a employer so they will be able to HIRE..
And don't ya love it, ALL IN SIX months the Republicans (who are now called, right wing radicals) have been in CONTROL and this mess is ALL THEIR FAULT..you just gotta shake your head and laugh


----------



## chikenwing

Sallow said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, *and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. Our government has become paralyzed because of right wing radicalism..that has lied to get into power. The Republican governors ran on an agenda of creating jobs. What do they do? Once in power..they smashed Unions. Not only that..they cut taxes on the wealthy.
> 
> The representatives that won in 2010, did so because they scared seniors with the idea that the Health Care Package was going to kill Medicare and cause health care to become a "rationed" mess..and that they would be forced to die.
> 
> What do they do once in power? They try to kill Medicare, try to restrict and tax abortion and block almost every meaningful bill that comes down the pike. They passed like 19 bills since their asses hit the seats and like 16 of them were for naming stuff.
Click to expand...


Good geeaawd,both parties do the exact same things,but as long as the troops line up,and keep that,its only them other guys fault.We won't get many changes to the good.


----------



## pete

LoVE said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are right on the money... that is how dictatorships start.
Click to expand...


So then if We The People decided to revolt against him ... like is happening around the country my guess would be that he would use force againt his people to stop it and there would be casualties. So I guess at that point any other dictator or government can then fly planes here and bomb the pentagon and the white house, hawaii, chicago and so on ... yes?
If not what give the piece of shit in office the right ?


----------



## WillowTree

I think he's got it in his future.


----------



## WillowTree

Fast and Furious anyone?


----------



## Moonglow

The Dream Act is not active, it is not a law. No one is participating in the operation of the provisions of the Dream Act bill.


----------



## NoNukes

*A few weeks ago in a poll, 90% of those polled said that they liked Obama as a person. To reach 90%, many Republicans would have had to answer favorably. The Obama haters on these boards should realize that they are in the minority and quit attempting to speak for the majority of Americans.*


----------



## WillowTree

Moonglow said:


> The Dream Act is not active, it is not a law. No one is participating in the operation of the provisions of the Dream Act bill.



Bullshit. moron, ICE is.


----------



## Moonglow

the president may use military forces as deemed necessary for thirty days, after that he must have Congressional authority. It has been done by many presidents over the last two centuries..


----------



## WillowTree

NoNukes said:


> *A few weeks ago in a poll, 90% of those polled said that they liked Obama as a person. To reach 90%, many Republicans would have had to answer favorably. The Obama haters on these boards should realize that they are in the minority and quit attempting to speak for the majority of Americans.*



Cryusariverwhydonchyabushhater!


----------



## mmmjvpssm

*If a Republican House impeachec two of the last two Democratic Presidents you wouldn't notice a pattern. If they do impeach then the Democrats should make it a tradition too and start impeaching Republican Presidents*


----------



## Moonglow

WillowTree said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dream Act is not active, it is not a law. No one is participating in the operation of the provisions of the Dream Act bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. moron, ICE is.
Click to expand...


The DREAM Act legislation has not passed yet. This means that you cannot yet apply.

Frequently Asked Questions - Basic Information | DREAM Act Portal


----------



## Moonglow

Care4all said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> if it were an impeachable offense to use an executive order to go around congress, then President Bush and all other presidents would have been impeached.
> 
> me thinks you're crying wolf....
Click to expand...


they have no case for impeachment,that is why there has been no proceedings for impeachment,


----------



## rightwinger

Republicans are a bunch of pussies

They have held Congress for over six months now and have not started impeachment proceedings. Ken Starr is standing at the ready..what are they waiting for?  There are plenty of charges they can impeach on:

TelePrompTer reading
Excessive Golf
Improper birth certificate
Miscounting States

What's the matter with this group of Republicans?


----------



## Sallow

Stephanie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, *and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. *Our government has become paralyzed because of right wing radicalism..*that has lied to get into power. The Republican governors ran on an agenda of creating jobs. What do they do? Once in power..*they smashed Unions*. Not only that..they cut taxes on the wealthy.
> 
> The representatives that won in 2010, did so because they scared seniors with the idea that the Health Care Package was going to kill Medicare and cause health care to become a "rationed" mess..and that they would be forced to die.
> 
> What do they do once in power? They try to kill Medicare, try to restrict and tax abortion and block almost every meaningful bill that comes down the pike. They passed like 19 bills since their asses hit the seats and like 16 of them were for naming stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hahaha, busting the UNIONS WILL create JOBS..they will not be able to make obscene DEMANDS on a employer so they will be able to HIRE..
> And don't ya love it, ALL IN SIX months the Republicans (who are now called, right wing radicals) have been in CONTROL and this mess is ALL THEIR FAULT..you just gotta shake your head and laugh
Click to expand...


Reagan busted the Air Traffic controllers Union which resulted in a wave of Air Traffic Controller hiring..right?

That's your contention?

Really?


----------



## WillowTree

Moonglow said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dream Act is not active, it is not a law. No one is participating in the operation of the provisions of the Dream Act bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. moron, ICE is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DREAM Act legislation has not passed yet. This means that you cannot yet apply.
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions - Basic Information | DREAM Act Portal
Click to expand...


you need to study up on the topic we are talking about moron, Legislated Dream Act is not the topic of conversation. The run around the end game is. Are you realted to Don't Be Stupid?


----------



## Moonglow

LoVE said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are right on the money... that is how dictatorships start.
Click to expand...


Dictator~a.An absolute ruler.
Now that you people know, please stop abusing the word.


----------



## Moonglow

WillowTree said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. moron, ICE is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DREAM Act legislation has not passed yet. This means that you cannot yet apply.
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions - Basic Information | DREAM Act Portal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to study up on the topic we are talking about moron, Legislated Dream Act is not the topic of conversation. The run around the end game is. Are you realted to Don't Be Stupid?
Click to expand...


are you always such a foul mouthed punk? Do u talk to everyone this way or just when you hide behind your puter?

Obama has not implemented any parts of the Dream Act. No end run(stupid buzz word). Obama is doing nothing different than anyother previous president.


----------



## Jackson

NoNukes said:


> *A few weeks ago in a poll, 90% of those polled said that they liked Obama as a person. To reach 90%, many Republicans would have had to answer favorably. The Obama haters on these boards should realize that they are in the minority and quit attempting to speak for the majority of Americans.*



I find this hard to believe.  I don't hate Obama.  I hate what he is doing to this country and cannot wait until he's out of office with his crew out on the front lawn, along with the jobless.


----------



## Moonglow

spectrumc01 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
Click to expand...


ever since the inception of this govt. there has been mistrust and infighting, we are dealing with humans. What makes you think through the US of A history there has been calm and total cooperation in the government and  the"will" of the people has been followed by the letter?


----------



## Jackson

Moonglow said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ever since the inception of this govt. there has been mistrust and infighting, we are dealing with humans. What makes you think through the US of A history there has been calm and total cooperation in the government and  the"will" of the people has been followed by the letter?
Click to expand...


It's never been this bad.  We've never had blatant socialism and dictatorship knocking on our front door from the administration before.


----------



## Stephanie

Jackson said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A few weeks ago in a poll, 90% of those polled said that they liked Obama as a person. To reach 90%, many Republicans would have had to answer favorably. The Obama haters on these boards should realize that they are in the minority and quit attempting to speak for the majority of Americans.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this hard to believe.  I don't hate Obama.  I hate what he is doing to this country and cannot wait until he's out of office with his crew out on the front lawn, along with the jobless.
Click to expand...


No Kidding..90%... why the hell didn't they just make 100%...
of course it was probably a poll done on the Dailykos or sumthing..but we won't know since no link was supplied..


----------



## WillowTree

Moonglow said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DREAM Act legislation has not passed yet. This means that you cannot yet apply.
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions - Basic Information | DREAM Act Portal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you need to study up on the topic we are talking about moron, Legislated Dream Act is not the topic of conversation. The run around the end game is. Are you realted to Don't Be Stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you always such a foul mouthed punk? Do u talk to everyone this way or just when you hide behind your puter?
> 
> Obama has not implemented any parts of the Dream Act. No end run(stupid buzz word). Obama is doing nothing different than anyother previous president.
Click to expand...


You are either very stupid or a big liar.


----------



## Moonglow

Jackson said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ever since the inception of this govt. there has been mistrust and infighting, we are dealing with humans. What makes you think through the US of A history there has been calm and total cooperation in the government and  the"will" of the people has been followed by the letter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's never been this bad.  We've never had blatant socialism and dictatorship knocking on our front door from the administration before.
Click to expand...


what socialsim? Obamacare is not socialism. It is run by the private health industry, administered by private insurance companies.

Dictatorship, again you fail to see that a dictatorship is an absolute ruler, sorry Obama can't rule absolutely,because of checks and balances in the govt. system.


----------



## Moonglow

WillowTree said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need to study up on the topic we are talking about moron, Legislated Dream Act is not the topic of conversation. The run around the end game is. Are you realted to Don't Be Stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you always such a foul mouthed punk? Do u talk to everyone this way or just when you hide behind your puter?
> 
> Obama has not implemented any parts of the Dream Act. No end run(stupid buzz word). Obama is doing nothing different than anyother previous president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either very stupid or a big liar.
Click to expand...


I provided proof that there is no Dream Act in activation by the president, and all you can do is throw shyt like a monkey, good debate qualities.


----------



## Iridescence

OMG... are 'we' in for it... *cringing*


----------



## WillowTree

Moonglow said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you always such a foul mouthed punk? Do u talk to everyone this way or just when you hide behind your puter?
> 
> Obama has not implemented any parts of the Dream Act. No end run(stupid buzz word). Obama is doing nothing different than anyother previous president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are either very stupid or a big liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided proof that there is no Dream Act in activation by the president, and all you can do is throw shyt like a monkey, good debate qualities.
Click to expand...


all you proved is that you are willfully stupid. I get that.


----------



## Moonglow

WillowTree said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either very stupid or a big liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided proof that there is no Dream Act in activation by the president, and all you can do is throw shyt like a monkey, good debate qualities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you proved is that you are willfully stupid. I get that.
Click to expand...


simple ideas for simple minds. Have anymore  intellegcia dysfunctions?


----------



## Sallow

Jackson said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ever since the inception of this govt. there has been mistrust and infighting, we are dealing with humans. What makes you think through the US of A history there has been calm and total cooperation in the government and  the"will" of the people has been followed by the letter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's never been this bad.  We've never had blatant socialism and dictatorship knocking on our front door from the administration before.
Click to expand...


You must have been asleep for the Bush administration then.

That was socialism at it's worse..and a blatant attempt at theocracy.


----------



## NoNukes

WillowTree said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A few weeks ago in a poll, 90% of those polled said that they liked Obama as a person. To reach 90%, many Republicans would have had to answer favorably. The Obama haters on these boards should realize that they are in the minority and quit attempting to speak for the majority of Americans.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cryusariverwhydonchyabushhater!
Click to expand...


*Pretty stupid answer, but what should I expect from someone who put glasses and a hat on a cat?*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which people?
Click to expand...


With the democrats having a majority in Congress from 2009 until 2011 and not willing to pass the extremes legislations of obama such as cap and trade. The reason they wouldn't do it is because the people did not want it done.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
Click to expand...


How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC because we have laws that also protect the rights of the minority. You don't have that in a democracy


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Come on man,it's "Hope & Change." Why you so upset? "Hope & Change" apparently means this President can do anything he wants. Talk about a Dictatorship? This is very sad.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

spectrumc01 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
Click to expand...


Can you trust a president who has openly lied from day one?


----------



## jillian

Baby Bush used executive orders to advance his agenda 255 times.

George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables

IOKIURAR


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Care4all said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> if it were an impeachable offense to use an executive order to go around congress, then President Bush and all other presidents would have been impeached.
> 
> me thinks you're crying wolf....
Click to expand...


To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> The Dream Act is not active, it is not a law. No one is participating in the operation of the provisions of the Dream Act bill.



It's not law because it was not passed in congress. obama is tring to by-pass congress.


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> if it were an impeachable offense to use an executive order to go around congress, then President Bush and all other presidents would have been impeached.
> 
> me thinks you're crying wolf....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.
Click to expand...


Come on Republlicans...go for it

What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action


----------



## Truthseeker420

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



Because Bush set the bar too high. If Bush wasn't impeached no President should be impeached.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

mmmjvpssm said:


> *If a Republican House impeachec two of the last two Democratic Presidents you wouldn't notice a pattern. If they do impeach then the Democrats should make it a tradition too and start impeaching Republican Presidents*



It really doesn't matter if the bastard has a D or an R next to his title. if he try's to by=pass the Constitution he should be impeached and I mean removed from office.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dream Act is not active, it is not a law. No one is participating in the operation of the provisions of the Dream Act bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. moron, ICE is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DREAM Act legislation has not passed yet. This means that you cannot yet apply.
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions - Basic Information | DREAM Act Portal
Click to expand...


Stupid. that's why obama is using an executive order to make it work.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WillowTree said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either very stupid or a big liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided proof that there is no Dream Act in activation by the president, and all you can do is throw shyt like a monkey, good debate qualities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you proved is that you are willfully stupid. I get that.
Click to expand...


I agree


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ever since the inception of this govt. there has been mistrust and infighting, we are dealing with humans. What makes you think through the US of A history there has been calm and total cooperation in the government and  the"will" of the people has been followed by the letter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been this bad.  We've never had blatant socialism and dictatorship knocking on our front door from the administration before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have been asleep for the Bush administration then.
> 
> That was socialism at it's worse..and a blatant attempt at theocracy.
Click to expand...


Really Bush is no longer president?
I thought since gitmo was still open, the patriot act  was still being used the economy was in the shitter. I thought Bush was still president. Nope things are worse so Bush must not be president it must be obama at the wrecking ball.


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?
Click to expand...


You are suggesting demoralizing the Troops during two wars conducted by the Commander In Chief?? You sound like a traitor, an UnAmerican scum bag who wants to take America further into the cesspool than Bush did........................


----------



## bigrebnc1775

LibocalypseNow said:


> Come on man,it's "Hope & Change." Why you so upset? "Hope & Change" apparently means this President can do anything he wants. Talk about a Dictatorship? This is very sad.



I didnm't drink the koolaid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

shintao said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are suggesting demoralizing the Troops during two wars conducted by the Commander In Chief?? You sound like a traitor, an UnAmerican scum bag who wants to take America further into the cesspool than Bush did........................
Click to expand...


Two wars? How about three? did you forget Libya?

As for demoralizing the troops. I don't think they will be demoraled. I am pretty sure they will be dancing if obama was gone.


----------



## shintao

WillowTree said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need to study up on the topic we are talking about moron, Legislated Dream Act is not the topic of conversation. The run around the end game is. Are you realted to Don't Be Stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you always such a foul mouthed punk? Do u talk to everyone this way or just when you hide behind your puter?
> 
> Obama has not implemented any parts of the Dream Act. No end run(stupid buzz word). Obama is doing nothing different than anyother previous president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either very stupid or a big liar.
Click to expand...

You have no problem defining yourself, but you are a habitual liar, not just a big liar.


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are suggesting demoralizing the Troops during two wars conducted by the Commander In Chief?? You sound like a traitor, an UnAmerican scum bag who wants to take America further into the cesspool than Bush did........................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two wars? How about three? did you forget Libya?
> 
> As for demoralizing the troops. I don't think they will be demoraled. I am pretty sure they will be dancing if obama was gone.
Click to expand...


Then you would be a fooooooooooooooool..........LMAO!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> Baby Bush used executive orders to advance his agenda 255 times.
> 
> George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables
> 
> IOKIURAR



Did he use one to make rules when a legislation didn't pass in Congress?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

shintao said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are suggesting demoralizing the Troops during two wars conducted by the Commander In Chief?? You sound like a traitor, an UnAmerican scum bag who wants to take America further into the cesspool than Bush did........................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two wars? How about three? did you forget Libya?
> 
> As for demoralizing the troops. I don't think they will be demoraled. I am pretty sure they will be dancing if obama was gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you would be a fooooooooooooooool..........LMAO!
Click to expand...


Nope anyone who thinks the military likes obama would be the fool.


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on man,it's "Hope & Change." Why you so upset? "Hope & Change" apparently means this President can do anything he wants. Talk about a Dictatorship? This is very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnm't drink the koolaid.
Click to expand...


No sense going into your perverted drinking habits or that fleashy straw you use.........


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> if it were an impeachable offense to use an executive order to go around congress, then President Bush and all other presidents would have been impeached.
> 
> me thinks you're crying wolf....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Republlicans...go for it
> 
> What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action
Click to expand...



It's not only Republicans talking impeachment, it's a few democrats.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

shintao said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on man,it's "Hope & Change." Why you so upset? "Hope & Change" apparently means this President can do anything he wants. Talk about a Dictatorship? This is very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnm't drink the koolaid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sense going into your perverted drinking habits or that fleashy straw you use.........
Click to expand...


Shitho I'm not a blind oabam supporter I didn't drink the koolaid.


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two wars? How about three? did you forget Libya?
> 
> As for demoralizing the troops. I don't think they will be demoraled. I am pretty sure they will be dancing if obama was gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be a fooooooooooooooool..........LMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope anyone who thinks the military likes obama would be the fool.
Click to expand...


You would have to back that up for it to be true,................AND you can't dreamer...ehehehehehee!


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Republlicans...go for it
> 
> What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not only Republicans talking impeachment, it's a few democrats.
Click to expand...


However, there are a massive majority of Republicans who are not, so case closed dreamer.


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Republlicans...go for it
> 
> What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not only Republicans talking impeachment, it's a few democrats.
Click to expand...


All talk...no action

What are you waiting for?  Other than growing a set of balls


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnm't drink the koolaid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sense going into your perverted drinking habits or that fleashy straw you use.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shitho I'm not a blind oabam supporter I didn't drink the koolaid.
Click to expand...


Well blowin the bigred one, you still a foooooooooool............LMAO!!!


----------



## shintao

*U.S. Rep. Martha Robys trip to Afghanistan.  Upon returning she claimed that troop morale is high following Osama bin Ladens death.

It had an extremely positive impact on the morale of our troops, said Roby. This is a significant moment in history for the United States. With that being said, we realize there is much to do. We dont just stop because Osama bin Laden is dead.*

President Barack Obama sent an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan last year to build the force to the current 100,000. Commanders and administration officials say the push has weakened the Taliban, and a limited troop withdrawal is planned by this July.




> MULTIPLE TOURS & EXTENSIONS OF DUTYS ~ Thank you Bush!!!





The new mental health study also reaffirms the long-held view on the price paid for repeated tours of duty: mental health problems were greater for troops on their third or fourth deployment.

The military says it boosted the mental health staff in the country to one for every 646 soldiers last year compared, compared to one for every 1,123 in 2009.


----------



## shintao

I would like stay, but have to go soak in my swimming pool. ~ Later!!!!!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

shintao said:


> *U.S. Rep. Martha Robys trip to Afghanistan.  Upon returning she claimed that troop morale is high following Osama bin Ladens death.
> 
> It had an extremely positive impact on the morale of our troops, said Roby. This is a significant moment in history for the United States. With that being said, we realize there is much to do. We dont just stop because Osama bin Laden is dead.*
> 
> President Barack Obama sent an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan last year to build the force to the current 100,000. Commanders and administration officials say the push has weakened the Taliban, and a limited troop withdrawal is planned by this July.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MULTIPLE TOURS & EXTENSIONS OF DUTYS ~ Thank you Bush!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new mental health study also reaffirms the long-held view on the price paid for repeated tours of duty: mental health problems were greater for troops on their third or fourth deployment.
> 
> The military says it boosted the mental health staff in the country to one for every 646 soldiers last year compared, compared to one for every 1,123 in 2009.
Click to expand...


An d that is supposed to impress me? A Congressman spewing the propaganda? I talk with some of the trops that come home. They tell the truth when not ordered to lie.


----------



## American Horse

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



Isn't impeachment limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
The definitions of the terms  "high crimes and misdemeanrs are left up to congress.

A probable cause for impeachment might be if the president had full knowledge and approved of "Fast and Furious" illegal gun sales by the AFT, since there was no effort to arrest the purchasers, and they were used in criminal activities both in the US and Mexico.

For my part, I'd prefer there was a full airing by the media, the highest administration official who approved it or signed off on it be fired, and the president be fired come 2012.

I doubt that the media will give it a full airing, and I doubt congress as run by the Republicans have the heart to profer a vote on impeachment charges, which would be one way to get into the media, but they would not be unscathed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.



Which was ruled Constitutional in _Connecticut v. American Electric Power_(2011), no impeachable offense here. 



> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.



In _Dellums v. Bush_, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWBs military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impeach. 



> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.



Per _Plyler v Doe _(1982) undocumented children may not be denied access to public education, the EO comports to Constitutional case law, consequently there are no grounds for impeachment. 



> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



I would say your issue is with the American people, who, through their approval of Congressional action, have allowed the manifestation of the Imperial President  this has nothing to do with Obama per se, as it dates back to the Truman Presidency and is a byproduct of American fear and cowardice  where communism is replace by terrorism. 

As an aside, I assume you exhibited the same outrage during the GWB years, and also advocated his impeachment.


----------



## Too Tall

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. *Our government has become paralyzed because of right wing radicalism..*that has lied to get into power. The Republican governors ran on an agenda of creating jobs. What do they do? Once in power..*they smashed Unions*. Not only that..they cut taxes on the wealthy.
> 
> The representatives that won in 2010, did so because they scared seniors with the idea that the Health Care Package was going to kill Medicare and cause health care to become a "rationed" mess..and that they would be forced to die.
> 
> What do they do once in power? They try to kill Medicare, try to restrict and tax abortion and block almost every meaningful bill that comes down the pike. They passed like 19 bills since their asses hit the seats and like 16 of them were for naming stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha, busting the UNIONS WILL create JOBS..they will not be able to make obscene DEMANDS on a employer so they will be able to HIRE..
> And don't ya love it, ALL IN SIX months the Republicans (who are now called, right wing radicals) have been in CONTROL and this mess is ALL THEIR FAULT..you just gotta shake your head and laugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan busted the Air Traffic controllers Union which resulted in a wave of Air Traffic Controller hiring..right?
> 
> That's your contention?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


PATCO broke the law and Reagan enforced it.  The Air Traffic Controllers were eventually trained and replaced.



> On August 3, 1981 the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so,* the union violated a law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned strikes by government unions.* Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.
> 
> On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. (This ban was later rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993.) In the wake of the strike and mass firings the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, *a hard problem to fix as at the time it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller.* They were replaced initially with nonparticipating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some nonrated personnel, and in some cases by controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. Some military controllers were also used until replacements could be trained. The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal. PATCO was decertified from its right to represent workers by the Federal Labor Relations Authority on October 22, 1981. The decision was appealed.
> 
> Some former striking controllers were allowed to reapply after 1986 and were rehired; they and their replacements are now represented by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which was organized in 1987 and had no connection with PATCO


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was ruled Constitutional in _Connecticut v. American Electric Power_(2011), no impeachable offense here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In _Dellums v. Bush_, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWBs military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impeach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per _Plyler v Doe _(1982) undocumented children may not be denied access to public education, the EO comports to Constitutional case law, consequently there are no grounds for impeachment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say your issue is with the American people, who, through their approval of Congressional action, have allowed the manifestation of the Imperial President  this has nothing to do with Obama per se, as it dates back to the Truman Presidency and is a byproduct of American fear and cowardice  where communism is replace by terrorism.
> 
> As an aside, I assume you exhibited the same outrage during the GWB years, and also advocated his impeachment.
Click to expand...


1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?

2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.

3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?


----------



## Too Tall

C_Clayton_Jones states "WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply."

Where in the WPA does it specify 'ground troops'?  What else would you expect from Obama's hand picked yes men on his legal staff?

I have heard  'unnamed' WH spokesmen slyly suggesting that the CIA is on the ground in Libya and an Air Force or Naval Aviator in harms way flying over Libya is in as much danger as a soldier on the ground.


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> Republicans are a bunch of pussies
> 
> They have held Congress for over six months now and have not started impeachment proceedings. Ken Starr is standing at the ready..what are they waiting for?  There are plenty of charges they can impeach on:
> 
> TelePrompTer reading
> Excessive Golf
> Improper birth certificate
> Miscounting States
> 
> What's the matter with this group of Republicans?



Don't forget 

Mustardgate

Putting his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office

Having a beer with a cop and professor


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> if it were an impeachable offense to use an executive order to go around congress, then President Bush and all other presidents would have been impeached.
> 
> me thinks you're crying wolf....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Republlicans...go for it
> 
> What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action
Click to expand...


Truely.


----------



## rightwinger

American Horse said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't impeachment limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
> The definitions of the terms  "high crimes and misdemeanrs are left up to congress.
> 
> A probable cause for impeachment might be if the president had full knowledge and approved of "Fast and Furious" illegal gun sales by the AFT, since there was no effort to arrest the purchasers, and they were used in criminal activities both in the US and Mexico.
> 
> For my part, I'd prefer there was a full airing by the media, the highest administration official who approved it or signed off on it be fired, and the president be fired come 2012.
> 
> I doubt that the media will give it a full airing, and I doubt congress as run by the Republicans have the heart to profer a vote on impeachment charges, which would be one way to get into the media, but they would not be unscathed.
Click to expand...


I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture

But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job


----------



## Too Tall

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Republlicans...go for it
> 
> What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not only Republicans talking impeachment, it's a few democrats.
Click to expand...


No way should Obama be impeached.  As the a saying goes, I wouldn't impeach him if he was found in bed with a young boy or a dead girl.  

Can you imagine Joe Biden being the C in C?


----------



## Too Tall

rightwinger said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't impeachment limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
> The definitions of the terms  "high crimes and misdemeanrs are left up to congress.
> 
> A probable cause for impeachment might be if the president had full knowledge and approved of "Fast and Furious" illegal gun sales by the AFT, since there was no effort to arrest the purchasers, and they were used in criminal activities both in the US and Mexico.
> 
> For my part, I'd prefer there was a full airing by the media, the highest administration official who approved it or signed off on it be fired, and the president be fired come 2012.
> 
> I doubt that the media will give it a full airing, and I doubt congress as run by the Republicans have the heart to profer a vote on impeachment charges, which would be one way to get into the media, but they would not be unscathed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
> Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture
> 
> But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job
Click to expand...


I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.

Could you?

Speaking of lies, what do you think of these two?

"I*f Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,* our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For *the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear*, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


----------



## rightwinger

Too Tall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't impeachment limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
> The definitions of the terms  "high crimes and misdemeanrs are left up to congress.
> 
> A probable cause for impeachment might be if the president had full knowledge and approved of "Fast and Furious" illegal gun sales by the AFT, since there was no effort to arrest the purchasers, and they were used in criminal activities both in the US and Mexico.
> 
> For my part, I'd prefer there was a full airing by the media, the highest administration official who approved it or signed off on it be fired, and the president be fired come 2012.
> 
> I doubt that the media will give it a full airing, and I doubt congress as run by the Republicans have the heart to profer a vote on impeachment charges, which would be one way to get into the media, but they would not be unscathed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
> Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture
> 
> But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.
> 
> Could you?
Click to expand...


Shit yea...impeaching over a blow job makes more sense than for lying to start a war

Mushroom clouds?  Yea right


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> 1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?



The WH says the WPA does not apply    can you cite case law giving Congress grounds to sue?  There needs to be legal precedent to establish what the law is and what constitutes a crime. Per _Dellums v. Bush_, there is no legal standard established. There would be nothing to constitute the articles of impeachment. 

Youll say Obama violated the law by violating the WPA, Obama says it doesnt apply. If the courts refuse to address this and other issues, and make a ruling as to which party is correct, on what grounds will the House impeach? And this determination cant be made in the venue of a House impeachment proceeding because the House is an interested  and biased  party.  



> 2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.



Here there is legal precedent: _Plyler v Doe_  in order for impeachment to commence the House would need to cite case law overturning _Plyler_  and of course there isnt any. How can the president be impeached for taking action which comports to Constitutional law? 



> 3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?



Without approval from Congress or the courts: 


> *Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps*
> 
> _A government report raises new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice officials in the dark about the post-Sept. 11 program._
> July 11, 2009|Josh Meyer
> 
> The Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 surveillance efforts went beyond the widely publicized warrantless wiretapping program, a government report disclosed Friday, encompassing additional secretive activities that created "unprecedented" spying powers.
> 
> The report also raised new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice Department officials in the dark as it launched the surveillance program.
> 
> In a move that it described as "extraordinary and inappropriate," the report said the White House relied on a single, lower-level attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for assessments about the programs' legality.
> 
> Bush Surveillance | Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps - Los Angeles Times



You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if a president elects to do something via EO that Congress has elected to not do, the president has broken the law. That is clearly not the case. That because Congress decides not to do something doesnt mean the president cant. 

I understand you hate Obama and would like to see him impeached, presumably to diminish his re-election chances. But youre attempting to address issues of law, not partisan politics  that you and others hate Obama is not sufficient grounds for impeachment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.



Perjury and obstruction would be examples of impeachable offenses. 

But if such charges are brought up per partisan politics, conviction wont be secured in the Senate, as with Clinton.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was ruled Constitutional in _Connecticut v. American Electric Power_(2011), no impeachable offense here.
> 
> 
> 
> In _Dellums v. Bush_, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWBs military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impeach.
> 
> 
> 
> Per _Plyler v Doe _(1982) undocumented children may not be denied access to public education, the EO comports to Constitutional case law, consequently there are no grounds for impeachment.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say your issue is with the American people, who, through their approval of Congressional action, have allowed the manifestation of the Imperial President  this has nothing to do with Obama per se, as it dates back to the Truman Presidency and is a byproduct of American fear and cowardice  where communism is replace by terrorism.
> 
> As an aside, I assume you exhibited the same outrage during the GWB years, and also advocated his impeachment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?
> 
> 2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.
> 
> 3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a fucking idiot. He quoted actual court cases and you go as if they dont exist, because you wont change your mind, and then you ask him a question in number 3 that he already answered.
> You are one of the stupidest people on the internet. Good job moron.
Click to expand...


I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit 
1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WH says the WPA does not apply    can you cite case law giving Congress grounds to sue?  There needs to be legal precedent to establish what the law is and what constitutes a crime. Per _Dellums v. Bush_, there is no legal standard established. There would be nothing to constitute the articles of impeachment.
> 
> Youll say Obama violated the law by violating the WPA, Obama says it doesnt apply. If the courts refuse to address this and other issues, and make a ruling as to which party is correct, on what grounds will the House impeach? And this determination cant be made in the venue of a House impeachment proceeding because the House is an interested  and biased  party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here there is legal precedent: _Plyler v Doe_  in order for impeachment to commence the House would need to cite case law overturning _Plyler_  and of course there isnt any. How can the president be impeached for taking action which comports to Constitutional law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without approval from Congress or the courts:
> 
> 
> 
> *Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps*
> 
> _A government report raises new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice officials in the dark about the post-Sept. 11 program._
> July 11, 2009|Josh Meyer
> 
> The Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 surveillance efforts went beyond the widely publicized warrantless wiretapping program, a government report disclosed Friday, encompassing additional secretive activities that created "unprecedented" spying powers.
> 
> The report also raised new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice Department officials in the dark as it launched the surveillance program.
> 
> In a move that it described as "extraordinary and inappropriate," the report said the White House relied on a single, lower-level attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for assessments about the programs' legality.
> 
> Bush Surveillance | Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps - Los Angeles Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if a president elects to do something via EO that Congress has elected to not do, the president has broken the law. That is clearly not the case. That because Congress decides not to do something doesnt mean the president cant.
> 
> I understand you hate Obama and would like to see him impeached, presumably to diminish his re-election chances. But youre attempting to address issues of law, not partisan politics  that you and others hate Obama is not sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Click to expand...

FUCK OFF.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. 
Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution
Has obama consulted with congress?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Too Tall said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Republlicans...go for it
> 
> What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not only Republicans talking impeachment, it's a few democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way should Obama be impeached.  As the a saying goes, I wouldn't impeach him if he was found in bed with a young boy or a dead girl.
> 
> Can you imagine Joe Biden being the C in C?
Click to expand...


At this  point and time biden couldn't fuck it up any worse.


----------



## American Horse

rightwinger said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
> Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture
> 
> But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.
> 
> Could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit yea...impeaching over a blow job makes more sense than for lying to start a war
> 
> Mushroom clouds?  Yea right
Click to expand...

Depends on the definition of "Lie" doesn't it?  No president should be impeached for a policy initiative.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
> Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit.


In which case rational discourse is pointless, if you refuse to recognize the Constitutionally mandated authority of the courts and abide by the rule of law. 

You asked the questions and I provided you the answers. That you dont like the answers or that the answers dont comport to your subjective opinion is immaterial. Indeed, why bother asking in the first place? 

Otherwise, feel free to continue to exhibit your ignorance on the issue.


----------



## Too Tall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perjury and obstruction would be examples of impeachable offenses.
> 
> But if such charges are brought up per partisan politics, conviction wont be secured in the Senate, as with Clinton.
Click to expand...


That has been proven, but it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.  Since when is lying under oath and obstruction a partisan issue?  Scooter Libby comes to mind and Blago is going to prison.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
> Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case rational discourse is pointless, if you refuse to recognize the Constitutionally mandated authority of the courts and abide by the rule of law.
> 
> You asked the questions and I provided you the answers. That you dont like the answers or that the answers dont comport to your subjective opinion is immaterial. Indeed, why bother asking in the first place?
> 
> Otherwise, feel free to continue to exhibit your ignorance on the issue.
Click to expand...


Lest you forget Democrats did this.
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. 
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. 
Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution
Has obama consulted with congress?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a fucking idiot. He quoted actual court cases and you go as if they dont exist, because you wont change your mind, and then you ask him a question in number 3 that he already answered.
> You are one of the stupidest people on the internet. Good job moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
> Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit
> 1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
> 2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
> So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWBs military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impe*
> 
> Note the underlined part you fucking moron. Your wrong, you are always wrong, and this will it ever be that you are a waste of air.
> The president Can and has used Military force without congress since the war powers act. You have no argument, you have no facts on your side. You have your stupid ignorant opinion and that just doesnt cut it.
> 
> Oh btw dipshit, Simply stating that you are wrong and that the President can in fact use the military without approval doesnt make me a liberal. Then again a moron like you wouldnt understand these simple things.
> 
> why dont you go into your living room, drool, and jerk off to Beck feeding you your daily porn.
> 
> Fuck i take shits that have a higher brain wave level than you.
Click to expand...

 little boy go plasy with your autobots.


Court case versus Constitutional law.
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. 

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. 

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. 
Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution


----------



## Too Tall

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a fucking idiot. He quoted actual court cases and you go as if they dont exist, because you wont change your mind, and then you ask him a question in number 3 that he already answered.
> You are one of the stupidest people on the internet. Good job moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
> Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit
> 1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
> 2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
> So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWB&#8217;s military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impe*
> 
> Note the underlined part you fucking moron. Your wrong, you are always wrong, and this will it ever be that you are a waste of air.
> The president Can and has used Military force without congress since the war powers act. You have no argument, you have no facts on your side. You have your stupid ignorant opinion and that just doesnt cut it.
> 
> Oh btw dipshit, Simply stating that you are wrong and that the President can in fact use the military without approval doesnt make me a liberal. Then again a moron like you wouldnt understand these simple things.
> 
> why dont you go into your living room, drool, and jerk off to Beck feeding you your daily porn.
> 
> Fuck i take shits that have a higher brain wave level than you.
Click to expand...


On January 12 1991 Congress granted GHW Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.  At 3 AM Baghdad time on January 17,1991, Operation Desert Storm began.


----------



## Too Tall

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
> Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit
> 1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
> 2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
> So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWBs military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impe*
> 
> Note the underlined part you fucking moron. Your wrong, you are always wrong, and this will it ever be that you are a waste of air.
> The president Can and has used Military force without congress since the war powers act. You have no argument, you have no facts on your side. You have your stupid ignorant opinion and that just doesnt cut it.
> 
> Oh btw dipshit, Simply stating that you are wrong and that the President can in fact use the military without approval doesnt make me a liberal. Then again a moron like you wouldnt understand these simple things.
> 
> why dont you go into your living room, drool, and jerk off to Beck feeding you your daily porn.
> 
> Fuck i take shits that have a higher brain wave level than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> little boy go plasy with your autobots.
> 
> 
> Court case versus Constitutional law.
> PURPOSE AND POLICY
> SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
> 
> (b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
> 
> (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
> Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution
Click to expand...


I distinctly remember Libya attacking the United States.  NOT!


----------



## hellofromwarsaw

American armed forces are NOT involved in hostilities in Libya, nor are they imminently in danger of same, so stfu. tyvm...the French are taking care of it...


----------



## Too Tall

hellofromwarsaw said:


> American armed forces are NOT involved in hostilities in Libya, nor are they imminently in danger of same, so stfu. tyvm...the French are taking care of it...



An undisclosed number of CIA operatives are said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.

20 Mach 2011 Nineteen U.S. planes conducted strike operations in Libya. The planes included Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers,US Navy EA-18G Growlers, which were diverted from operations over Iraq and jammed Libyan radar and communications, and Air Force F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.

22 March 2011: One USAF F-15E taking off from Aviano crashed in Bu Marim, northwest of Benghazi. Both airmen were recovered alive by Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit  based on the USS Kearsarge. The aircraft reportedly crashed due to a mechanical failure. The rescue operation involved two Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey aircraft, two Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters, and two McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II aircraft, all launched from the USS Kearsarge. The operation involved the Harriers' dropping 500-pound (227 kg) bombs and strafing the area around the crash site before an Osprey recovered at least one of the downed aircraft's crew injuring 6 local civilians in the process.

29 March 2011The US used AC-130 gunships and A-10 Thunderbolt tankbusters against Moamar Gaddafi's troops in Libya. U.S. aircraft fired on a Libyan coast guard vessel, forcing it to limp to shore, after it launched missiles at merchant ships in the port of Misrata, U.S military officials said Tuesday.

4 April 2011: A US Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier and a US Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II flew missions near Serta and Brega respectively. 4 April also marked the last day of US armed forces taking an active role in military action,* as all American forces were placed in reserve that evening, to be used only if requested by NATO *

2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you sure NATO hasn't requested help?  I'm not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Since when is lying under oath and obstruction a partisan issue?



Its not the alleged crimes per se but what the opposition elects to do about the alleged crimes. 

For the record I believe the Presidents actions un-Constitutional  I just cant prove it as the courts refuse to get involved. 

But Congress also acted un-Constitutionally when it passed the WPA; Congress does not have the authority to abdicate its Constitutionally mandated and sole authority to declare war and cede it to the Executive. This can only be accomplished via the amendment process. 

If Congress were serious about correcting this wrong, it would repeal the WPA and enact legislation taking back its sole authority to declare war. It would then withdraw funding for this or any other military operation deemed not in the Nations interest.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw

He got 60 days before having to consult congress....since then, France is doing the fighting...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hellofromwarsaw said:


> He got 60 days before having to consult congress....since then, France is doing the fighting...



60 days have long since passed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWB&#8217;s military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impe*
> 
> Note the underlined part you fucking moron. Your wrong, you are always wrong, and this will it ever be that you are a waste of air.
> The president Can and has used Military force without congress since the war powers act. You have no argument, you have no facts on your side. You have your stupid ignorant opinion and that just doesnt cut it.
> 
> Oh btw dipshit, Simply stating that you are wrong and that the President can in fact use the military without approval doesnt make me a liberal. Then again a moron like you wouldnt understand these simple things.
> 
> why dont you go into your living room, drool, and jerk off to Beck feeding you your daily porn.
> 
> Fuck i take shits that have a higher brain wave level than you.
> 
> 
> 
> little boy go plasy with your autobots.
> 
> 
> Court case versus Constitutional law.
> PURPOSE AND POLICY
> SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
> 
> (b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
> 
> (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
> Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus christ you are a dense motherfucker.
> 
> The War Powers act takes care of this, and we have a judgement that basically settles the matter of Congress sueing the President, setting precedent that it cant happen.
> 
> You can keep on quoting whatever section you like. Your opinion does not wash away 225 + of this nations history you ignorant fuck.
> 
> War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> *The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution*; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> take the bold as evidence you fucking moron that it was passed in made into a *LAW*.A President can send troops in if the president so see's fit, and congress cant take him to court if no troops are on the ground etc.
> 
> We have the judges ruling that shows congress cant do shit in that regard, nor will a court rule on it.
> 
> So as of right now because of that Ruling with Bush SR. You have no argument. You cant remove Obama no matter how hard you attempt to you partisan hack.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)
> 
> *U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the Executive branch manage the operations within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution. It is these cited or perceived justifications made by a President when authoring Executive Orders that have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority and have been subject to legal proceedings even at various times throughout U.S. history concerning the legal validity or justification behind an order's issuance.*
> 
> you are complaining about something that has been going on since the Founding ,and since the founders according to you stupid fucks that think they are perfect, Cant be wrong.
> 
> You are ignoring Facts presented to you in order to keep your little meme going about how much you hate the current President. Had this been a Republican/conservative/socialcon/neo-con/theo-con you wouldnt be saying jack fucking shit.
> 
> In fact you would be defending them that the partisan abortion you are.
Click to expand...




> this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces


Kid go play with your transformers. Congress did not authorize action in libya, and the time limit has run out. Libya was no threat and their was no emergency.
I love smacking you up side the head.


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
> Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit
> 1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
> 2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
> So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.


----------



## EriktheRed

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?
Click to expand...


No, stupid, how 'bout we don't, since all he's really guilty of is doing things wingnuts like you don't like.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
> Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit
> 1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
> 2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
> So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.
Click to expand...

 Three stars. for your's


----------



## bigrebnc1775

EriktheRed said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, stupid, how 'bout we don't, since all he's really guilty of is doing things wingnuts like you don't like.
Click to expand...


You have me confused with what you look at in the mirror. I do not support obama which makes me one billion times smarter than all obama supporters combined.


----------



## Salt Jones

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



You are correct. Republicans in the House should vote to impeach President Obama, they should do it tonight.


----------



## Dot Com

This was a multi-national (read- "paid-for" by more than just the U.S.) peacekeeping operation rebel-dude. As opposed to unilateral wars of the previous Repub administration that were put on this great nation's credit card  .


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, stupid, how 'bout we don't, since all he's really guilty of is doing things wingnuts like you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have me confused with what you look at in the mirror. I do not support obama which makes me one billion times smarter than all obama supporters combined.
Click to expand...

You're a legend in your own mind.  Most righties are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Salt Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Republicans in the House should vote to impeach President Obama, they should do it tonight.
Click to expand...


It would appear you  have a problem with the constitutional process.


----------



## EriktheRed

bigrebnc1775 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about no. How about we impeach the little dictator want to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, stupid, how 'bout we don't, since all he's really guilty of is doing things wingnuts like you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have me confused with what you look at in the mirror. I do not support obama which makes me one billion times smarter than all obama supporters combined.
Click to expand...


Yeah, whatever you say, dipshit. BTW, you can thank your GOP friends back in the 90s for abusing the impeachment process. They might actually have a better shot at seeing this one taken out if they hadn't tried to take out Clinton like they did.


----------



## Dot Com

EriktheRed said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, stupid, how 'bout we don't, since all he's really guilty of is doing things wingnuts like you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have me confused with what you look at in the mirror. I do not support obama which makes me one billion times smarter than all obama supporters combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, whatever you say, dipshit. BTW, you can thank your GOP friends back in the 90s for abusing the impeachment process. They might actually have a better shot at seeing this one taken out if they hadn't tried to take out Clinton like they did.
Click to expand...

Gingrich was cheating on his then wife while that was going on too


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, stupid, how 'bout we don't, since all he's really guilty of is doing things wingnuts like you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have me confused with what you look at in the mirror. I do not support obama which makes me one billion times smarter than all obama supporters combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind.  Most righties are.
Click to expand...


With all the bullshit obama has done you still support him. Nothing you can say against can top your level of stupidity for supporting the bastard.


----------



## Salt Jones

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Republicans in the House should vote to impeach President Obama, they should do it tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear you  have a problem with the constitutional process.
Click to expand...


No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.

P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have me confused with what you look at in the mirror. I do not support obama which makes me one billion times smarter than all obama supporters combined.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind.  Most righties are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all the bullshit obama has done you still support him. Nothing you can say against can top your level of stupidity for supporting the bastard.
Click to expand...


I didn't care one iota for the previous occupant of the WH but I didn't resort to name-calling/disrespecting the office of the President. Democracy suits you just  fine when your candidate wins eh?


----------



## jillian

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Since when is lying under oath and obstruction a partisan issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s not the alleged crimes per se but what the opposition elects to do about the alleged crimes.
> 
> For the record I believe the President&#8217;s actions un-Constitutional &#8211; I just can&#8217;t prove it as the courts refuse to get involved.
> 
> But Congress also acted un-Constitutionally when it passed the WPA; Congress does not have the authority to abdicate its Constitutionally mandated and sole authority to declare war and cede it to the Executive. This can only be accomplished via the amendment process.
> 
> If Congress were serious about correcting this wrong, it would repeal the WPA and enact legislation &#8216;taking back&#8217; its sole authority to declare war. It would then withdraw funding for this or any other military operation deemed not in the Nation&#8217;s interest.
Click to expand...



the WPA and most of the new deal programs survived constitutional scrutiny



and once more for the obama deranged:

Baby Bush advanced his agenda 255 times by using executive orders.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is lying under oath and obstruction a partisan issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not the alleged crimes per se but what the opposition elects to do about the alleged crimes.
> 
> For the record I believe the Presidents actions un-Constitutional  I just cant prove it as the courts refuse to get involved.
> 
> But Congress also acted un-Constitutionally when it passed the WPA; Congress does not have the authority to abdicate its Constitutionally mandated and sole authority to declare war and cede it to the Executive. This can only be accomplished via the amendment process.
> 
> If Congress were serious about correcting this wrong, it would repeal the WPA and enact legislation taking back its sole authority to declare war. It would then withdraw funding for this or any other military operation deemed not in the Nations interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the WPA and most of the new deal programs survived constitutional scrutiny?
> 
> 
> 
> and once more for the obama deranged:
> 
> Baby Bush advanced his agenda 255 times by using executive orders.
> 
> George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables
Click to expand...


Let's clear this up for the obama defenders.
It's not the use of executive orders, it's the way they are used and the purpose they were used. Bush did not by-pass congress when a bill he wanted passed did not make it to his desk for his signature. obama has done that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind.  Most righties are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all the bullshit obama has done you still support him. Nothing you can say against can top your level of stupidity for supporting the bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't care one iota for the previous occupant of the WH but I didn't resort to name-calling/disrespecting the office of the President. Democracy suits you just  fine when your candidate wins eh?
Click to expand...


Respect is earned. I really don't give a fuck who you are, how rich you are what you do for a living, even the president. He's a fucking liar and does not recieve any respect from me. He's a cock sucking bastard. With him as president he disrespects the office that you claim to hold so high. obama doesn't even respect it. So why should I?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Salt Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Republicans in the House should vote to impeach President Obama, they should do it tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear you  have a problem with the constitutional process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.
> 
> P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012
Click to expand...


They say when you dream dream big.

I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear you  have a problem with the constitutional process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.
> 
> P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
Click to expand...


Hmmm....

Do you know this dude Salt Jones from another board or something?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.
> 
> P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> Do you know this dude Salt Jones from another board or something?
Click to expand...


one obama supporter is just like another carbon copy. They all use the same playbook and same tactic.


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all the bullshit obama has done you still support him. Nothing you can say against can top your level of stupidity for supporting the bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't care one iota for the previous occupant of the WH but I didn't resort to name-calling/disrespecting the office of the President. Democracy suits you just  fine when your candidate wins eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respect is earned. I really don't give a fuck who you are, how rich you are what you do for a living, even the president. He's a fucking liar and does not recieve any respect from me. He's a cock sucking bastard. With him as president he disrespects the office that you claim to hold so high. obama doesn't even respect it. So why should I?
Click to expand...


Maybe a democratic Republic doesn't suit you? You do realize that there's a conservative Court to check the President? Didn't think so


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't care one iota for the previous occupant of the WH but I didn't resort to name-calling/disrespecting the office of the President. Democracy suits you just  fine when your candidate wins eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respect is earned. I really don't give a fuck who you are, how rich you are what you do for a living, even the president. He's a fucking liar and does not recieve any respect from me. He's a cock sucking bastard. With him as president he disrespects the office that you claim to hold so high. obama doesn't even respect it. So why should I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a democratic Republic doesn't suit you? You do realize that there's a conservative Court to check the President? Didn't think so
Click to expand...


I really don't know what country you live in, but here in the United States of America we are a Constitutional Republic. Until you realize this you will be on the failed ended of history and obama.


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> Do you know this dude Salt Jones from another board or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one obama supporter is just like another carbon copy. They all use the same playbook and same tactic.
Click to expand...


You said that you recall him making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010.  How could you recall this poster making this claim when he didn't join this site until after the 2010 election and you don't know him from another board?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> Do you know this dude Salt Jones from another board or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one obama supporter is just like another carbon copy. They all use the same playbook and same tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you recall him making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010.  How could you recall this poster making this claim when he didn't join this site until after the 2010 election and you don't know him from another board?
Click to expand...


I noticed he hasn't been back to refute the claim. Butr haven't we had old members return as new memebers, those who have been banned?


----------



## Dot Com

Again Johnny Reb-dude, if the President oversteps his bounds, there are checks & balances. Ever heard of them?


----------



## Dot Com

Conservatives think that Repubs are the only ones qualified to be President.  All I need to know to refute that is the last Repub Pres  

Why not do away w/ Presidential elections altogether Johnny Reb-dude? Just install Repubs. Would that make you happy?


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one obama supporter is just like another carbon copy. They all use the same playbook and same tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that you recall him making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010.  How could you recall this poster making this claim when he didn't join this site until after the 2010 election and you don't know him from another board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed he hasn't been back to refute the claim.
Click to expand...


You haven't posted any evidence to refute.  Why is that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> Again Johnny Reb-dude, if the President oversteps his bounds, there are checks & balances. Ever heard of them?



according to the U.S. Constitution he has.


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Butr haven't we had old members return as new memebers, those who have been banned?



We have.  Perhaps you should find something that proves that he is one of those members and that under his former name he said that the GOP was dead and not going to win in 2010 like you said you recalled him saying.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that you recall him making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010.  How could you recall this poster making this claim when he didn't join this site until after the 2010 election and you don't know him from another board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed he hasn't been back to refute the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't posted any evidence to refute.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


and I'm not you want it you find it. You're so despreate to derail this thread. fuck off military fuck up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butr haven't we had old members return as new memebers, those who have been banned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have.  Perhaps you should find something that proves that he is one of those members and that under his former name he said that the GOP was dead and not going to win in 2010 like you said you recalled him saying.
Click to expand...


Fuck no I'm not searching for anythiung.


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed he hasn't been back to refute the claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't posted any evidence to refute.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I'm not you want it you find it. You're so despreate to derail this thread. fuck off military fuck up.
Click to expand...


I tried to find it but the poster in question wasn't a member of the site before the 2010 elections.  My resources for finding the what you say you recall are tapped.  Where did you see him make that claim so I can verify it?


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one obama supporter is just like another carbon copy. They all use the same playbook and same tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that you recall him making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010.  How could you recall this poster making this claim when he didn't join this site until after the 2010 election and you don't know him from another board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed he hasn't been back to refute the claim. Butr haven't we had old members return as new memebers, those who have been banned?
Click to expand...


Impossible, your computer IP addy will trip you up.


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butr haven't we had old members return as new memebers, those who have been banned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have.  Perhaps you should find something that proves that he is one of those members and that under his former name he said that the GOP was dead and not going to win in 2010 like you said you recalled him saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck no I'm not searching for anythiung.
Click to expand...


I accept your concession that you didn't recall him saying anything and that you completely made it up.


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butr haven't we had old members return as new memebers, those who have been banned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have.  Perhaps you should find something that proves that he is one of those members and that under his former name he said that the GOP was dead and not going to win in 2010 like you said you recalled him saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck no I'm not searching for anythiung.
Click to expand...

So you slander someone & claim that it's not your responsibility to prove the slander?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have.  Perhaps you should find something that proves that he is one of those members and that under his former name he said that the GOP was dead and not going to win in 2010 like you said you recalled him saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck no I'm not searching for anythiung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept your concession that you didn't recall him saying anything and that you completely made it up.
Click to expand...


You should no better than that by now. I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not searching anything for you. nor am I going to play into your hand and derail my thread. You want it you find it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have.  Perhaps you should find something that proves that he is one of those members and that under his former name he said that the GOP was dead and not going to win in 2010 like you said you recalled him saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck no I'm not searching for anythiung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you slander someone & claim that it's not your responsibility to prove the slander?
Click to expand...


Fucking drama QUEEN. No slander.


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck no I'm not searching for anythiung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your concession that you didn't recall him saying anything and that you completely made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should no better than that by now. I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not searching anything for you. nor am I going to play into your hand and derail my thread. You want it you find it.
Click to expand...


I know your continuing to dig while in a hole skills are second to none.

That said, I just told you he wasn't a member of the site before the election so he must have said it elsewhere.  Where was that?  

Did you bump into him on the street back in October and he was all like, "Yo guy, you must be that bigreb dude on USMB I keep hearing about.  Did you know that the GOP is dead and they are going to lose in November?  By the way, I will see you in march when I finally join this USMB my user name will be Salt Jones."

Did something like that happen?


----------



## Dot Com

*Another* extreme- conservative, whine-fest, thread. 

Hey reb-dude. What does the "reb" in your username stand for? I ask because you have 1775 in there too.


----------



## 007

They should simply impeach obama because his father was a British subject of Kenya, which gave him dual citizenship at birth, which disqualifies him because he isn't a "natural born citizen."

You could even throw in the fact that he is using a SS number that was issued in Connecticut, a state he nor any of his family ever been in, and one that was issued to someone already that would have been born in 1890.

The man is a walking, talking fraud, everything about him is a lie.


----------



## 007

They should simply impeach obama because his father was a British subject of Kenya, which gave him dual citizenship at birth, which disqualifies him as a "natural born citizen." Both parents must be US citizens and you must be born on US soil in order for someone to be a "natural born citizen."

You could even throw in the fact that he is using a SS number that was issued in Connecticut, a state he nor any of his family has ever been in, and one that was issued to someone already that would have been born in 1890.

The man is a walking, talking fraud, everything about him is a lie.


----------



## Dot Com

Pale Rider AND Reb-dude in the same thread!!! Conservative, Koch Bros., kool aid overload!!! lol


----------



## 007

Dot Com said:


> Pale Rider AND Reb-dude in the same thread!!! Conservative, Koch Bros., kool aid overload!!! lol



Try something other than a moronic, dip shit, dumbass, fish headed insult jerk off.


----------



## Dot Com

bigreb-dude din't answer my question, what does "bigreb" stand for?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your concession that you didn't recall him saying anything and that you completely made it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should no better than that by now. I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not searching anything for you. nor am I going to play into your hand and derail my thread. You want it you find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know your continuing to dig while in a hole skills are second to none.
> 
> That said, I just told you he wasn't a member of the site before the election so he must have said it elsewhere.  Where was that?
> 
> Did you bump into him on the street back in October and he was all like, "Yo guy, you must be that bigreb dude on USMB I keep hearing about.  Did you know that the GOP is dead and they are going to lose in November?  By the way, I will see you in march when I finally join this USMB my user name will be Salt Jones."
> 
> Did something like that happen?
Click to expand...


No I'm not digging anything. I am not your dog to fetch for you. You want it go find it. and another thing until you get oiff this digging for something that isn't there and to keep this thread from being attacked and derailed by you your on ignore, because all you have discused is a single comment made that has nothing to do with the orginal post.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order" 
Isn't this how dictators begin?


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should no better than that by now. I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not searching anything for you. nor am I going to play into your hand and derail my thread. You want it you find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know your continuing to dig while in a hole skills are second to none.
> 
> That said, I just told you he wasn't a member of the site before the election so he must have said it elsewhere.  Where was that?
> 
> Did you bump into him on the street back in October and he was all like, "Yo guy, you must be that bigreb dude on USMB I keep hearing about.  Did you know that the GOP is dead and they are going to lose in November?  By the way, I will see you in march when I finally join this USMB my user name will be Salt Jones."
> 
> Did something like that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not digging anything. I am not your dog to fetch for you. You want it go find it. and another thing until you get oiff this digging for something that isn't there and to keep this thread from being attacked and derailed by you your on ignore, because all you have discused is a single comment made that has nothing to do with the orginal post.
Click to expand...


You already conceded to making it all up.  No need to do it again.

Pussy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?


----------



## NoNukes

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should no better than that by now. I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not searching anything for you. nor am I going to play into your hand and derail my thread. You want it you find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know your continuing to dig while in a hole skills are second to none.
> 
> That said, I just told you he wasn't a member of the site before the election so he must have said it elsewhere.  Where was that?
> 
> Did you bump into him on the street back in October and he was all like, "Yo guy, you must be that bigreb dude on USMB I keep hearing about.  Did you know that the GOP is dead and they are going to lose in November?  By the way, I will see you in march when I finally join this USMB my user name will be Salt Jones."
> 
> Did something like that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not digging anything. I am not your dog to fetch for you. You want it go find it. and another thing until you get oiff this digging for something that isn't there and to keep this thread from being attacked and derailed by you your on ignore, because all you have discused is a single comment made that has nothing to do with the orginal post.
Click to expand...


"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject"

*An armed man is a coward.*


----------



## bodecea

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your concession that you didn't recall him saying anything and that you completely made it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should no better than that by now. I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not searching anything for you. nor am I going to play into your hand and derail my thread. You want it you find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know your continuing to dig while in a hole skills are second to none.
> 
> That said, I just told you he wasn't a member of the site before the election so he must have said it elsewhere.  Where was that?
> 
> Did you bump into him on the street back in October and he was all like, "Yo guy, you must be that bigreb dude on USMB I keep hearing about.  Did you know that the GOP is dead and they are going to lose in November?  By the way, I will see you in march when I finally join this USMB my user name will be Salt Jones."
> 
> Did something like that happen?
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

Dot Com said:


> *Another* extreme- conservative, whine-fest, thread.
> 
> Hey reb-dude. What does the "reb" in your username stand for? I ask because you have 1775 in there too.



That Reb uses his Nic to spit on the graves of United States soldiers from the biggest and bloodiest war in our history.


----------



## shintao

Pale Rider said:


> They should simply impeach obama because his father was a British subject of Kenya, which gave him dual citizenship at birth, which disqualifies him as a "natural born citizen." Both parents must be US citizens and you must be born on US soil in order for someone to be a "natural born citizen."
> 
> You could even throw in the fact that he is using a SS number that was issued in Connecticut, a state he nor any of his family has ever been in, and one that was issued to someone already that would have been born in 1890.
> 
> The man is a walking, talking fraud, everything about him is a lie.



How are you coming on proving any of your bullshit? And if you did, who cares?


----------



## bodecea

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've had these answered and debated.
> Now all you want is someone to come in and agree with you only so it reinforces your opinion and makes it a fact in your limited mind.
> 
> This is how the Right operates, you just made the perfect example of it.
> 
> Fucking loser
Click to expand...


Isn't it pathetic that he has to come in and applaud his own post?


----------



## bodecea

Pale Rider said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider AND Reb-dude in the same thread!!! Conservative, Koch Bros., kool aid overload!!! lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try something other than a moronic, dip shit, dumbass, fish headed insult jerk off.
Click to expand...


Ironic post of the Day!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider AND Reb-dude in the same thread!!! Conservative, Koch Bros., kool aid overload!!! lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try something other than a moronic, dip shit, dumbass, fish headed insult jerk off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic post of the Day!
Click to expand...


No you've cleared that hurdle handly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had these answered and debated.
> Now all you want is someone to come in and agree with you only so it reinforces your opinion and makes it a fact in your limited mind.
> 
> This is how the Right operates, you just made the perfect example of it.
> 
> Fucking loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it pathetic that he has to come in and applaud his own post?
Click to expand...


no just bumping it back away from the deflecters.


----------



## washamericom

if it was bush would it be illegal ?


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had these answered and debated.
> Now all you want is someone to come in and agree with you only so it reinforces your opinion and makes it a fact in your limited mind.
> 
> This is how the Right operates, you just made the perfect example of it.
> 
> Fucking loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it pathetic that he has to come in and applaud his own post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no just bumping it back away from the deflecters.
Click to expand...


So...how many dead Patriot soldiers have you spit on today?


----------



## Article 15

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had these answered and debated.
> Now all you want is someone to come in and agree with you only so it reinforces your opinion and makes it a fact in your limited mind.
> 
> This is how the Right operates, you just made the perfect example of it.
> 
> Fucking loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it pathetic that he has to come in and applaud his own post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no just bumping it back away from the deflecters.
Click to expand...


Seriously, guys, you're ruining the fantasy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it pathetic that he has to come in and applaud his own post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no just bumping it back away from the deflecters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...how many dead Patriot soldiers have you spit on today?
Click to expand...


how many graves of soldiers have you danced on?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

washamericom said:


> if it was bush would it be illegal ?



It's just different somehow.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no just bumping it back away from the deflecters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...how many dead Patriot soldiers have you spit on today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how many graves of soldiers have you danced on?
Click to expand...


Absolutely none....of course, I'm not the one toting Traitors in my nic like you are.


----------



## skookerasbil

I dont want him impeached. Im having waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fun on these pages watching the whole ideology implode like a reverse terrorist suicide bomber. I can put up with the dick for 18 more months........the more time for a whole generation to see you dont put a far left guy in the white house ever.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...how many dead Patriot soldiers have you spit on today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many graves of soldiers have you danced on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely none....of course, I'm not the one toting Traitors in my nic like you are.
Click to expand...


Yet you support obama.


----------



## Dot Com

Dot Com said:


> *Another* extreme- conservative, whine-fest, thread.
> 
> Hey reb-dude. What does the "reb" in your username stand for? I ask because you have 1775 in there too.





Dot Com said:


> bigreb-dude din't answer my question, what does "bigreb" stand for?





bodecea said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Another* extreme- conservative, whine-fest, thread.
> 
> Hey reb-dude. What does the "reb" in your username stand for? I ask because you have 1775 in there too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Reb uses his Nic to spit on the graves of United States soldiers from the biggest and bloodiest war in our history.
Click to expand...




bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...how many dead Patriot soldiers have you spit on today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many graves of soldiers have you danced on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely none....of course, I'm not the one toting Traitors in my nic like you are.
Click to expand...


answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many graves of soldiers have you danced on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely none....of course, I'm not the one toting Traitors in my nic like you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you support obama.
Click to expand...


So...you are saying Obama is a Traitor?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> if it was bush would it be illegal ?





> It's just different somehow.



And that somehow is that GWB is a republican. 

Telling.

As I already noted: talk of impeachment is partisan, it has nothing to do with the law or Constitution. that the right has cited no case law in support of their position is proof of that.


----------



## Dot Com

Dot Com said:


> answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.



If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.


----------



## Salt Jones

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear you  have a problem with the constitutional process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.
> 
> P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
Click to expand...


Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.


----------



## bodecea

Dot Com said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
Click to expand...


He spits on the graves of the REAL American soldiers who died for this country in our bloodiest war.


----------



## bodecea

Salt Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.
> 
> P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.
Click to expand...


Simply put...he's a liar who supports traitors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
Click to expand...


you're correct obama just adds more fuel to the fire.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put...he's a liar who supports traitors.
Click to expand...


Simply put you're a liar. Which has already been pointed out in other threads.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He spits on the graves of the REAL American soldiers who died for this country in our bloodiest war.
Click to expand...


everytime you take a breath you dishonor the fallen dead.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Salt Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.
> 
> P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.
Click to expand...


again with the drama queen bullshit.

Can't dfend the traitor in the white house so let's derail the thread. ain't going to happen.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.



We can assume hes a rebel from North Carolina, supposedly the first of the colonies to declare its independence, 5/20/1775. 

We can also infer from this, and its consistent with, that the poster advocates complete separation from the Union, typical of extreme rightists on the fringe of American politics, hence the angry response about the liberal courts, their rulings meaningless and easily overturned. 

Apparently these individuals reject in its entirety the body of Constitutional case law as decided by the Supreme Court. They focus instead on their own errant interpretation of the Constitution  without any basis in case law  and primary documents from the Foundation Era. 

Consequently theyve created this fantasy and dogma of the Foundation Era where all the Framers original intent was for a weak central government, which is clearly not the case.

Since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall the Court has consistently ruled in a vast majority of its cases in favor of a strong central government, _McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819) and _Gibbons v. Ogden _(1824) in particular. 

Needless to say its pointless to engage in meaningful debate with such individuals, as their blind adherence to their dogma, complete rejection of the rule of law (ignoring over 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence), and ignorance of the Foundation Era make such endeavors impossible.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> if it was bush would it be illegal ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just different somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that somehow is that GWB is a republican.
> 
> Telling.
> 
> As I already noted: talk of impeachment is partisan, it has nothing to do with the law or Constitution. that the right has cited no case law in support of their position is proof of that.
Click to expand...


Everything good or bad bush did with the approval of congress.


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're correct obama just adds more fuel to the fire.
Click to expand...

So you believe the South did not lose the War of Southern Rebellion (AKA- the Civil War)? You have no standing then smarty


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> if it was bush would it be illegal ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just different somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that somehow is that GWB is a republican.
> 
> Telling.
> 
> As I already noted: talk of impeachment is partisan, it has nothing to do with the law or Constitution. that the right has cited no case law in support of their position is proof of that.
Click to expand...


There have only been two impeachments in American history.  How much "case law" do you imagine there is on this topic?

The bottom line is this:  grounds for impeachment is a judgement call.  Anyone but a congenital Obama ass sucker would agree that the Administration spending money that Congress hasn't authorized is grounds for impeachment.


----------



## Dot Com

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can assume hes a rebel from North Carolina, supposedly the first of the colonies to declare its independence, 5/20/1775.
> 
> We can also infer from this, and its consistent with, that the poster advocates complete separation from the Union, typical of extreme rightists on the fringe of American politics, hence the angry response about the liberal courts, their rulings meaningless and easily overturned.
> 
> Apparently these individuals reject in its entirety the body of Constitutional case law as decided by the Supreme Court. They focus instead on their own errant interpretation of the Constitution  without any basis in case law  and primary documents from the Foundation Era.
> 
> Consequently theyve created this fantasy and dogma of the Foundation Era where all the Framers original intent was for a weak central government, which is clearly not the case.
> 
> Since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall the Court has consistently ruled in a vast majority of its cases in favor of a strong central government, _McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819) and _Gibbons v. Ogden _(1824) in particular.
> 
> Needless to say its pointless to engage in meaningful debate with such individuals, as their blind adherence to their dogma, complete rejection of the rule of law (ignoring over 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence), and ignorance of the Foundation Era make such endeavors impossible.
Click to expand...


Good points. I inferred as much from his Koch Bros.- inspired posts that I've read over the last couple of months. He must be one of those "the South shall rise again" reactionaries.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can assume hes a rebel from North Carolina, supposedly the first of the colonies to declare its independence, 5/20/1775.
> 
> We can also infer from this, and its consistent with, that the poster advocates complete separation from the Union, typical of extreme rightists on the fringe of American politics, hence the angry response about the liberal courts, their rulings meaningless and easily overturned.
> 
> Apparently these individuals reject in its entirety the body of Constitutional case law as decided by the Supreme Court. They focus instead on their own errant interpretation of the Constitution  without any basis in case law  and primary documents from the Foundation Era.
> 
> Consequently theyve created this fantasy and dogma of the Foundation Era where all the Framers original intent was for a weak central government, which is clearly not the case.
> 
> Since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall the Court has consistently ruled in a vast majority of its cases in favor of a strong central government, _McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819) and _Gibbons v. Ogden _(1824) in particular.
> 
> Needless to say its pointless to engage in meaningful debate with such individuals, as their blind adherence to their dogma, complete rejection of the rule of law (ignoring over 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence), and ignorance of the Foundation Era make such endeavors impossible.
Click to expand...


I'm for a Constitutional republic. obama isn't and as one Supreme Court Justice has been qouted saying
Judges legislate from the bench, which isn't Constitutional. So your talking Judical ruling means nothing if the ruling doesn't support the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're correct obama just adds more fuel to the fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe the South did not lose the War of Southern Rebellion (AKA- the Civil War)? You have no standing then smarty
Click to expand...


War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.


----------



## bripat9643

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really are a moron..
Click to expand...


He has it right.  Lincoln invaded the Southern states.

So who's the moron?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the South did not lose the War of Southern Rebellion (AKA- the Civil War)? You have no standing then smarty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really are a moron..
Click to expand...


Where was the first battle fought in the war of Northern agression? Impress me moron.


----------



## Salt Jones

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again with the drama queen bullshit.
> 
> Can't dfend the traitor in the white house so let's derail the thread. ain't going to happen.
Click to expand...


You dumb fuck. You make a lying statement, I post the obvious truth about when I joined the forum -pointing out your lie- and you say I'm trying to "derail the thread"? Pointing out your typical lies to bolster your point doesn't require "drama", it just requires logic and the ability to read, two things your dumb ass seems to be lacking.


----------



## bripat9643

Plasmaball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has it right.  Lincoln invaded the Southern states.
> 
> So who's the moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol invaded..oh man keep it up
Click to expand...


Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?


----------



## bripat9643

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was the first battle fought in the war of Northern agression? Impress me moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that would mean i agree its should be called war of Northern aggression.
Click to expand...


No it wouldn't.  You can call it whatever you like, no matter how wrong and idiotic your label is.  The question is "where was the first battle fought?"  You obviously don't want to answer the question because the answer proves you're a moron.



Plasmaball said:


> man somedays i wish the south won. less chance i have to listen to people like you.



I do wish the South had won.



Plasmaball said:


> So seeing how you view it as the war of Northern aggression, how many slaves do you wish you could own?



When you can't win on the facts, you engage in cheap ad hominems.  That appears to be your modus operandi

What a jackass.


----------



## Salt Jones

bripat9643 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has it right.  Lincoln invaded the Southern states.
> 
> So who's the moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol invaded..oh man keep it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?
Click to expand...


Does the civil war affect today's south?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Given the fact the Supreme Court ruled secession un-Constitutional in _Texas v. White_ (1869), it can be argued there was no secession, no state left the Union, and it was indeed a Civil War: one Nation, two factions at war.


----------



## bripat9643

Salt Jones said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the civil war affect today's south?
Click to expand...


Yes it does, but of what relevance is that to this discussion?


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Given the fact the Supreme Court ruled secession un-Constitutional in _Texas v. White_ (1869), it can be argued there was no secession, no state left the Union, and it was indeed a Civil War: one Nation, two factions at war.



Lincoln put 5 of the 9 justices on the court that made that decision.  The fact that a bunch of Lincoln's stooges ruled he was justified in making war on members of the union only proves that the Supreme Court is utterly corrupt.   Furthermore, that decision is so obviously flawed that only the most fanatical disciples of the Lincoln cult would call it legitimate.

If you want a detailed explanation of the problems with the decision, I'll be happy to provide you with one.


----------



## Dot Com

Salt Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again with the drama queen bullshit.
> 
> Can't dfend the traitor in the white house so let's derail the thread. ain't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck. You make a lying statement, I post the obvious truth about when I joined the forum -pointing out your lie- and you say I'm trying to "derail the thread"? Pointing out your typical lies to bolster your point doesn't require "drama", it just requires logic and the ability to read, two things your dumb ass seems to be lacking.
Click to expand...

He's a typical throw-back, Red State, base voter. He thinks the War of Southern Aggression was "thrust upon" the south


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Well, whatever

Weve at least clearly addressed the OPs questions with the fact that there are no legal grounds upon which impeachment might proceed  other than subjective partisan motives.


----------



## Dot Com

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Well, whatever
> 
> Weve at least clearly addressed the OPs questions with the fact that there are no legal grounds upon which impeachment might proceed  other than subjective partisan motives.



That we have. Too bad 'reason & logic" play no part in their agenda.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put...he's a liar who supports traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put you're a liar. Which has already been pointed out in other threads.
Click to expand...


Pointing out and PROVING are two different things.   You've been PROVEN a liar in this thread and we already know, thru your Nic, that you spit on the memory of REAL American soldiers.


So...tell us some more lies about things Salt Jones said on this forum BEFORE he was a member.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He spits on the graves of the REAL American soldiers who died for this country in our bloodiest war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everytime you take a breath you dishonor the fallen dead.
Click to expand...


Well, if you are going to talk to yourself like that...


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say when you dream dream big.
> 
> I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again with the drama queen bullshit.
> 
> Can't dfend the traitor in the white house so let's derail the thread. ain't going to happen.
Click to expand...


Here...

FBI &#8212; Homepage

Do your duty and report that traitor in the White House.   Because if you don't you are aiding and abetting treason.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can assume hes a rebel from North Carolina, supposedly the first of the colonies to declare its independence, 5/20/1775.
> 
> We can also infer from this, and its consistent with, that the poster advocates complete separation from the Union, typical of extreme rightists on the fringe of American politics, hence the angry response about the liberal courts, their rulings meaningless and easily overturned.
> 
> Apparently these individuals reject in its entirety the body of Constitutional case law as decided by the Supreme Court. They focus instead on their own errant interpretation of the Constitution  without any basis in case law  and primary documents from the Foundation Era.
> 
> Consequently theyve created this fantasy and dogma of the Foundation Era where all the Framers original intent was for a weak central government, which is clearly not the case.
> 
> Since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall the Court has consistently ruled in a vast majority of its cases in favor of a strong central government, _McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819) and _Gibbons v. Ogden _(1824) in particular.
> 
> Needless to say its pointless to engage in meaningful debate with such individuals, as their blind adherence to their dogma, complete rejection of the rule of law (ignoring over 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence), and ignorance of the Foundation Era make such endeavors impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm for a Constitutional republic. obama isn't and as one Supreme Court Justice has been qouted saying
> Judges legislate from the bench, which isn't Constitutional. So your talking Judical ruling means nothing if the ruling doesn't support the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Do your duty:

FBI &#8212; Homepage


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're correct obama just adds more fuel to the fire.
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the South did not lose the War of Southern Rebellion (AKA- the Civil War)? You have no standing then smarty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.
Click to expand...


Who fired first?   That's right, the Traitors did.


----------



## bodecea

bripat9643 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really are a moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has it right.  Lincoln invaded the Southern states.
> 
> So who's the moron?
Click to expand...


Who shot first....That's right....the Traitors did.


----------



## bodecea

bripat9643 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has it right.  Lincoln invaded the Southern states.
> 
> So who's the moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol invaded..oh man keep it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?
Click to expand...


After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked?   Is that what you support?


----------



## bodecea

Salt Jones said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol invaded..oh man keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the civil war affect today's south?
Click to expand...


Well, they have more than their share of reactionary loonies because of it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the fact the Supreme Court ruled secession un-Constitutional in _Texas v. White_ (1869), it can be argued there was no secession, no state left the Union, and it was indeed a Civil War: one Nation, two factions at war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln put 5 of the 9 justices on the court that made that decision.  The fact that a bunch of Lincoln's stooges ruled he was justified in making war on members of the union only proves that the Supreme Court is utterly corrupt.   Furthermore, that decision is so obviously flawed that only the most fanatical disciples of the Lincoln cult would call it legitimate.
> 
> If you want a detailed explanation of the problems with the decision, I'll be happy to provide you with one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time Line of The Civil War - 1861
> 
> 
> waaaa its all the north's fault...Well no, You need the south to want to leave in order for that to happen.
Click to expand...


Again where was the first battle fought?


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln put 5 of the 9 justices on the court that made that decision.  The fact that a bunch of Lincoln's stooges ruled he was justified in making war on members of the union only proves that the Supreme Court is utterly corrupt.   Furthermore, that decision is so obviously flawed that only the most fanatical disciples of the Lincoln cult would call it legitimate.
> 
> If you want a detailed explanation of the problems with the decision, I'll be happy to provide you with one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time Line of The Civil War - 1861
> 
> 
> waaaa its all the north's fault...Well no, You need the south to want to leave in order for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again where was the first battle fought?
Click to expand...


Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol invaded..oh man keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked?   Is that what you support?
Click to expand...


The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time Line of The Civil War - 1861
> 
> 
> waaaa its all the north's fault...Well no, You need the south to want to leave in order for that to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again where was the first battle fought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning
Click to expand...


An attack is not a battle try again.

So 9/11 was a battle?


----------



## EriktheRed

Pale Rider said:


> They should simply impeach obama because his father was a British subject of Kenya, which gave him dual citizenship at birth, which disqualifies him as a "natural born citizen." Both parents must be US citizens and you must be born on US soil in order for someone to be a "natural born citizen."
> 
> You could even throw in the fact that he is using a SS number that was issued in Connecticut, a state he nor any of his family has ever been in, and one that was issued to someone already that would have been born in 1890.
> 
> The man is a walking, talking fraud, everything about him is a lie.



Just can't handle his birther views getting de-bunked. So funny, it's sad...yet so sad, it's funny.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> I'm for a Constitutional republic. obama isn't and as one Supreme Court Justice has been qouted saying
> Judges legislate from the bench, which isn't Constitutional. So your talking Judical ruling means nothing if the ruling doesn't support the Constitution.


Incorrect. 

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and the rule of law. Both the government and the people are subject to the rule of law; when the people via referendum or similar process or through their elected representatives act in an un-Constitutional manner, the courts strike down such laws or measures accordingly. 

That you disagree with or dont like the rulings is immaterial, they are indeed the law of the land, per the rule of law  and you are compelled to obey the law, or dont at your own risk.


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again where was the first battle fought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
Click to expand...


Did they capture US territory when it was over?  Is that what the south calls negotiations?


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked?   Is that what you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter
Click to expand...


Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked?   Is that what you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter
Click to expand...


So...if we were to send a supply ship to re supply one of our OWN bases on our OWN federal land....that's an aggressive act of war?


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again where was the first battle fought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *An attack is not a battle *try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked?   Is that what you support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason
Click to expand...


They actually got off light.   The leadership could have (and maybe should have) been hung for treason.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again where was the first battle fought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> *So 9/11 was a battle?*
Click to expand...


Check this out...The little Traitor is trying to make a case that 9/11 was not an act of war.


----------



## rightwinger

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually got off light.   The leadership could have (and maybe should have) been hung for treason.
Click to expand...


"with malice toward none, with charity for all".  Abe Lincoln

Great American. The southern traitors would not have been as generous


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked?   Is that what you support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason
Click to expand...


Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> *So 9/11 was a battle?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check this out...The little Traitor is trying to make a case that 9/11 was not an act of war.
Click to expand...


Traitor, was 9/11 a battle or was it an attack?


----------



## Iridescence

ffs


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *An attack is not a battle *try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


was 9/11 an attack or battle?

Why are you supporting the enemy of America?
Why are you a traitor?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops.  Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
Click to expand...


Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a fucking retard.Where is SC located......
> 
> first clue. You reside in its boarders.
Click to expand...


Moron learn American history. before the war of northern aggression the individuals states considered themseleves seperate countries. It was state first then the rest.


----------



## idb

1melissa3 said:


> ffs



Brilliantly summed up!


----------



## jillian

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not the alleged crimes per se but what the opposition elects to do about the alleged crimes.
> 
> For the record I believe the Presidents actions un-Constitutional  I just cant prove it as the courts refuse to get involved.
> 
> But Congress also acted un-Constitutionally when it passed the WPA; Congress does not have the authority to abdicate its Constitutionally mandated and sole authority to declare war and cede it to the Executive. This can only be accomplished via the amendment process.
> 
> If Congress were serious about correcting this wrong, it would repeal the WPA and enact legislation taking back its sole authority to declare war. It would then withdraw funding for this or any other military operation deemed not in the Nations interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the WPA and most of the new deal programs survived constitutional scrutiny?
> 
> 
> 
> and once more for the obama deranged:
> 
> Baby Bush advanced his agenda 255 times by using executive orders.
> 
> George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clear this up for the obama defenders.
> It's not the use of executive orders, it's the way they are used and the purpose they were used. Bush did not by-pass congress when a bill he wanted passed did not make it to his desk for his signature. obama has done that.
Click to expand...


if there was something i disagreed with, i'd say so. but the level of fauxrage is really kind of funny.

the only reason bush's didn't bother you is you agreed with him.

so you can call it anything you want. but you might want to dial it down a bit.


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
Click to expand...


So your position now is that Ft Sumter was a terrorist attack by southern terrorists?

I guess you could look at it that way


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.
Click to expand...


It was federal property just like Military bases today. An attack on a federal installation is an act of war or in this case, outright treason.


----------



## Sallow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
Click to expand...


There was no Northern Aggression. The south were the first to commit treason. They were all traitorous slavers and their treachery caused the deaths of well over 600k Americans.

Lee should have been hung. His body ripped to shreds by pigs and his head put on a post until it was completely fly blown. Then his skull should have been put into excrement. Same with Jefferson Davis.

The stars and bars are suitable for toilet paper. And Sherman was way to kind to the south.

The bodies of the traitors should have lined the roads on gallows.


----------



## rightwinger

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no Northern Aggression. The south were the first to commit treason. They were all traitorous slavers and their treachery caused the deaths of well over 600k Americans.
> 
> Lee should have been hung. His body ripped to shreds by pigs and his head put on a post until it was completely fly blown. Then his skull should have been put into excrement. Same with Jefferson Davis.
> 
> The stars and bars are suitable for toilet paper. And Sherman was way to kind to the south.
> 
> The bodies of the traitors should have lined the roads on gallows.
Click to expand...


Or maybe they just could have allowed former slaves to decide what to do with them


----------



## Sallow

rightwinger said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no Northern Aggression. The south were the first to commit treason. They were all traitorous slavers and their treachery caused the deaths of well over 600k Americans.
> 
> Lee should have been hung. His body ripped to shreds by pigs and his head put on a post until it was completely fly blown. Then his skull should have been put into excrement. Same with Jefferson Davis.
> 
> The stars and bars are suitable for toilet paper. And Sherman was way to kind to the south.
> 
> The bodies of the traitors should have lined the roads on gallows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe they just could have allowed former slaves to decide what to do with them
Click to expand...


Far far to kind.

Slaves had far more grace and generosity then Confederates, who were the scum of the earth not worthy to ever be called American.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
Click to expand...


There was no war of northern aggression...that is just a silly tag that traitor supporters like you put on the South's treason in the name of slavery to make yourselves feel like victims.


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was federal property just like Military bases today. An attack on a federal installation is an act of war or in this case, outright treason.
Click to expand...


Little Traitor doesn't seem to understand that.   Who shall we blame for his lack of education?


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a fucking retard.Where is SC located......
> 
> first clue. You reside in its boarders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron learn American history. before the war of northern aggression the* individuals states considered themseleves seperate countries*. It was state first then the rest.
Click to expand...


   

It gets funnier and funnier.   We should all just stand by and let him dig his own hole of stupidity.


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An attack is not a battle try again.
> 
> So 9/11 was a battle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
Click to expand...


It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> It's not the use of executive orders, it's the way they are used and the purpose they were used. Bush did not by-pass congress when a bill he wanted passed did not make it to his desk for his signature. obama has done that.



This makes no sense  is it the EOs or not. 

Otherwise youve not provided evidence of a crime. 

Frankly, youre in way over your head because you have no idea what youre talking about. 



> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.


And South Carolina was then as it is now part of the United States, as it has been without interruption since 1788. 



> Ffs


Agreed.


----------



## Zona

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which people?
Click to expand...


Republicans.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?




Does your pussy ever stop whining?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.


Sorry, where does it say that the President must consult with all 300,000,000+ American citizens every time he issues an executive order?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
Click to expand...

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?


----------



## Sallow

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?
Click to expand...




I am sure they would have been content to carve states out of the Union.

To bad.

That's ain't the way it works.


----------



## bodecea

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?
Click to expand...


You'll have to ask the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Sallow said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> 
> 
> What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure they would have been content to carve states out of the Union.
> 
> To bad.
> 
> That's ain't the way it works.
Click to expand...


Really? Got any evidence of that other than your conjecture?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bodecea said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> 
> 
> What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to ask the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.
Click to expand...


Really? Can you name the major cities in those state that were burnt to the ground? How many campaigns did the south wage in northern territory where they were cut off from their supply lines and instead relied on pillaging the livelihoods of the local population?

The double standard. It always exists in war. In this case, the winner can burn down Atlanta, Columbus, and steal the food needed for survival from thousands of civilians - and that's OK - but the mere presence of a soutern army in the north - even if they are only there in pursuit of a union unit that was just in the south - is a war crime.

Got it.


----------



## Sallow

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure they would have been content to carve states out of the Union.
> 
> To bad.
> 
> That's ain't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Got any evidence of that other than your conjecture?
Click to expand...


This never gets old..



> Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
> 
> No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> Section 3 - Treason Note
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.



Lemme guess..

And you love the Constitution.


----------



## bodecea

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to ask the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Can you name the major cities in those state that were burnt to the ground? How many campaigns did the south wage in northern territory where they were cut off from their supply lines and instead relied on pillaging the livelihoods of the local population?
> 
> The double standard. It always exists in war. In this case,* the winner can burn down Atlanta, Columbus, and steal the food needed for survival from thousands of civilians *- and that's OK - but the mere presence of a soutern army in the north - even if they are only there in pursuit of a union unit that was just in the south - is a war crime.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...


War is hell, isn't it?   Maybe the South shouldn't have started it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Sallow said:


> And you love the Constitution.



You don't?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
Click to expand...


Rebelled against whom? You can't rebell if it never happen, and if it happen why didn't the hang the leaders?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the WPA and most of the new deal programs survived constitutional scrutiny?
> 
> 
> 
> and once more for the obama deranged:
> 
> Baby Bush advanced his agenda 255 times by using executive orders.
> 
> George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's clear this up for the obama defenders.
> It's not the use of executive orders, it's the way they are used and the purpose they were used. Bush did not by-pass congress when a bill he wanted passed did not make it to his desk for his signature. obama has done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if there was something i disagreed with, i'd say so. but the level of fauxrage is really kind of funny.
> 
> the only reason bush's didn't bother you is you agreed with him.
> 
> so you can call it anything you want. but you might want to dial it down a bit.
Click to expand...


Jillian bush did what he did with the approval of Congress. He didn't pencil whip a regulation when it's didn't pass through congress.


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rebelled against whom? You can't rebell if it never happen, and if it happen why didn't the hang the leaders?
Click to expand...


No...they didn't hang the leaders

But in the south, southern terrorists did hang freed slaves

Looks like the right side won


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your position now is that Ft Sumter was a terrorist attack by southern terrorists?
> 
> I guess you could look at it that way
Click to expand...


Does it hurt when you spin something like that when it doesn't exist?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rebelled against whom? You can't rebell if it never happen, and if it happen why didn't the hang the leaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...they didn't hang the leaders
> 
> But in the south, southern terrorists did hang freed slaves
> 
> Looks like the right side won
Click to expand...


Then there was no rebellion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was federal property just like Military bases today. An attack on a federal installation is an act of war or in this case, outright treason.
Click to expand...


Not during that time period The states allowed to feds to stay. Just like the local sheriff he can kick the feds out of his county. Thats rights You just got punked.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no Northern Aggression. The south were the first to commit treason. They were all traitorous slavers and their treachery caused the deaths of well over 600k Americans.
> 
> Lee should have been hung. His body ripped to shreds by pigs and his head put on a post until it was completely fly blown. Then his skull should have been put into excrement. Same with Jefferson Davis.
> 
> The stars and bars are suitable for toilet paper. And Sherman was way to kind to the south.
> 
> The bodies of the traitors should have lined the roads on gallows.
Click to expand...


Who sent troops to which country? It wasn't the South.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really are a simple brained man huh?
Click to expand...


still playing with those transformers? Go do some research. I suggest reading a few diaries and letters from soldiers during that time period.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no war of northern aggression...that is just a silly tag that traitor supporters like you put on the South's treason in the name of slavery to make yourselves feel like victims.
Click to expand...


Who sent troops to which country?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was federal property just like Military bases today. An attack on a federal installation is an act of war or in this case, outright treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Little Traitor doesn't seem to understand that.   Who shall we blame for his lack of education?
Click to expand...


The only traitor here is anyone that SUPPORTS THE TRAITOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a fucking retard.where is sc located......
> 
> First clue. You reside in its boarders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moron learn american history. Before the war of northern aggression the individuals states considered themseleves seperate countries. It was state first then the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus christ separate countries? No, no they didnt. Let me clue you in..the federalists won back in 1776.hence why we have a strong federal government.
> 
> 
> I cant work this shit you are posting. Its just that stupid.
Click to expand...


hardhead, what ever state they lived in was their home and their country.


----------



## sitarro

NoNukes said:


> *A few weeks ago in a poll, 90% of those polled said that they liked Obama as a person. To reach 90%, many Republicans would have had to answer favorably. The Obama haters on these boards should realize that they are in the minority and quit attempting to speak for the majority of Americans.*



Where's your link to this bull shit poll?


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebelled against whom? You can't rebell if it never happen, and if it happen why didn't the hang the leaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...they didn't hang the leaders
> 
> But in the south, southern terrorists did hang freed slaves
> 
> Looks like the right side won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there was no rebellion.
Click to expand...


Who killed more innocent Americans?

- Muslim Terrorists on 9-11
- Southern Terrorists after the Civil War

This one should be easy


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was federal property just like Military bases today. An attack on a federal installation is an act of war or in this case, outright treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not during that time period The states allowed to feds to stay. Just like the local sheriff he can kick the feds out of his county. Thats rights You just got punked.
Click to expand...


Lets see some legal precedent showing states have the right to seize federal property..


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a fucking retard.Where is SC located......
> 
> first clue. You reside in its boarders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron learn American history. before the war of northern aggression the* individuals states considered themseleves seperate countries*. It was state first then the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets funnier and funnier.   We should all just stand by and let him dig his own hole of stupidity.
Click to expand...


Robert E. Lee said it best.

Then his Virginia background and the mental discipline of years asserted themselves. He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own p437 simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."24 That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.

Robert E. Lee (by Freeman) ? Vol. I Chap. 25

Which was the opinion of most Americans. And they weren't on the government tit like a lot of Americans are today.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
Click to expand...




What rebellion? IF THERE WAS A REBELLION WERE THE LEADERS HANGED?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does your pussy ever stop whining?
Click to expand...


You have me mistaken with the image in the mirrior you look at.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, where does it say that the President must consult with all 300,000,000+ American citizens every time he issues an executive order?
Click to expand...


 why do we have a congress?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...they didn't hang the leaders
> 
> But in the south, southern terrorists did hang freed slaves
> 
> Looks like the right side won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was no rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who killed more innocent Americans?
> 
> - Muslim Terrorists on 9-11
> - Southern Terrorists after the Civil War
> 
> This one should be easy
Click to expand...




> Who killed more innocent Americans?



600,000 plus were killed by the northern aggressor's.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was federal property just like Military bases today. An attack on a federal installation is an act of war or in this case, outright treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not during that time period The states allowed to feds to stay. Just like the local sheriff he can kick the feds out of his county. Thats rights You just got punked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see some legal precedent showing states have the right to seize federal property..
Click to expand...


In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds. 
In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was no rebellion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who killed more innocent Americans?
> 
> - Muslim Terrorists on 9-11
> - Southern Terrorists after the Civil War
> 
> This one should be easy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who killed more innocent Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 600,000 plus were killed by the northern aggressor's.
Click to expand...


Isn't that just disgraceful that southern traitors were willing to see 600,000 killed just so they could maintain the rights to enslave other people?


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not during that time period The states allowed to feds to stay. Just like the local sheriff he can kick the feds out of his county. Thats rights You just got punked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see some legal precedent showing states have the right to seize federal property..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
> Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ
Click to expand...


You left out the part where they actually won the case


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
Click to expand...

tell it to his predecessors too.  Otherwise we see just another poor example of what partisan hackery can devise.  Impeachment proceedings in the midst of a budget stalemate.  Only a poor thinker can consider this wise.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who killed more innocent Americans?
> 
> - Muslim Terrorists on 9-11
> - Southern Terrorists after the Civil War
> 
> This one should be easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who killed more innocent Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 600,000 plus were killed by the northern aggressor's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that just disgraceful that southern traitors were willing to see 600,000 killed just so they could maintain the rights to enslave other people?
Click to expand...


No whats a shame is that lincoln used slavery to keep England from helping the south. It's a damn shame that lincoln only freed slaves in a country he had no authority to it in.

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit: 
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. 


Why no mention of Kentucky Maryland Delaware Missouri and D.C.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see some legal precedent showing states have the right to seize federal property..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
> Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out the part where they actually won the case
Click to expand...


I didn't realize it had went to court. The govenor signed a law in to effect invoked eminent domain  and that has been proven that a state can do it.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron learn American history. before the war of northern aggression the* individuals states considered themseleves seperate countries*. It was state first then the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets funnier and funnier.   We should all just stand by and let him dig his own hole of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert E. Lee said it best.
> 
> Then his Virginia background and the mental discipline of years asserted themselves. He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own p437 simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."24 That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.
> 
> Robert*E.*Lee (by Freeman) ? Vol.*I Chap.*25
> 
> Which was the opinion of most Americans. And they weren't on the government tit like a lot of Americans are today.
Click to expand...


Yes...a traitor's words.   
Next you'll be giving up OBL's words in justification for 9/11.


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600,000 plus were killed by the northern aggressor's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that just disgraceful that southern traitors were willing to see 600,000 killed just so they could maintain the rights to enslave other people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No whats a shame is that lincoln used slavery to keep England from helping the south. It's a damn shame that lincoln only freed slaves in a country he had no authority to it in.
> 
> Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
> Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
> 
> 
> Why no mention of Kentucky Maryland Delaware Missouri and D.C.
Click to expand...


You mean the Abe Lincoln who the South was so afraid of that they committed treason rather than allow him to be president?

The Abe Lincoln that freed the slaves?

The Abe Lincoln that the cowardly south shot when they could not win on the battlefield?


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who killed more innocent Americans?
> 
> - Muslim Terrorists on 9-11
> - Southern Terrorists after the Civil War
> 
> This one should be easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who killed more innocent Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 600,000 plus were killed by the northern aggressor's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that just disgraceful that southern traitors were willing to see 600,000 killed just so they could maintain the rights to enslave other people?
Click to expand...


And then they try to modify history to cover it up...or hope to cover it up.


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that just disgraceful that southern traitors were willing to see 600,000 killed just so they could maintain the rights to enslave other people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No whats a shame is that lincoln used slavery to keep England from helping the south. It's a damn shame that lincoln only freed slaves in a country he had no authority to it in.
> 
> Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
> Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
> 
> 
> Why no mention of Kentucky Maryland Delaware Missouri and D.C.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Abe Lincoln who the South was so afraid of that they committed treason rather than allow him to be president?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that freed the slaves?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that the cowardly south shot when they could not win on the battlefield?
Click to expand...


I cannot help but sometimes remember that the South seceded because a man they didn't want became President. Pouty little losers in an election so they, in essence, took their ball and went home....and started the bloodiest war in American history.


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
> Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part where they actually won the case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize it had went to court. The govenor signed a law in to effect invoked eminent domain  and that has been proven that a state can do it.
Click to expand...


_ Utah Democrats have slammed the eminent domain measure as a waste of money, emphasizing that the move is on shaky legal ground. Why spend taxpayer money defending legislation that likely wont withstand legal muster, opponents say.   _


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.
> 
> And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rebellion? IF THERE WAS A REBELLION WERE THE LEADERS HANGED?
Click to expand...


There was discussion about doing so, but the North had mercy....not without a LOT of disagreement as to whether they should have or not.   Maybe there was have been such issues as Jim Crow, etc. if the North had hung a few traitors.   They let the South off too easy, IMO.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rebellion? IF THERE WAS A REBELLION WERE THE LEADERS HANGED?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was discussion about doing so, but the North had mercy....not without a LOT of disagreement as to whether they should have or not.   Maybe there was have been such issues as Jim Crow, etc. if the North had hung a few traitors.   They let the South off too easy, IMO.
Click to expand...


There was a discussion, yes but the supreme court told the Fed governemt it had no standing to do so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part where they actually won the case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize it had went to court. The govenor signed a law in to effect invoked eminent domain  and that has been proven that a state can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _ Utah Democrats have slammed the eminent domain measure as a waste of money, emphasizing that the move is on shaky legal ground. Why spend taxpayer money defending legislation that likely won&#8217;t withstand legal muster, opponents say.   _
Click to expand...


Tripping all over yourself again. Did the Govenor sign the bill?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets funnier and funnier.   We should all just stand by and let him dig his own hole of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert E. Lee said it best.
> 
> Then his Virginia background and the mental discipline of years asserted themselves. He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own p437 simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."24 That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.
> 
> Robert*E.*Lee (by Freeman) ? Vol.*I Chap.*25
> 
> Which was the opinion of most Americans. And they weren't on the government tit like a lot of Americans are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...a traitor's words.
> Next you'll be giving up OBL's words in justification for 9/11.
Click to expand...


Was R.E. Lee hanged?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that just disgraceful that southern traitors were willing to see 600,000 killed just so they could maintain the rights to enslave other people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No whats a shame is that lincoln used slavery to keep England from helping the south. It's a damn shame that lincoln only freed slaves in a country he had no authority to it in.
> 
> Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
> Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
> 
> 
> Why no mention of Kentucky Maryland Delaware Missouri and D.C.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Abe Lincoln who the South was so afraid of that they committed treason rather than allow him to be president?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that freed the slaves?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that the cowardly south shot when they could not win on the battlefield?
Click to expand...


Wow the clowns are loss tonight. YOU realy don't knoiw any history of the war of northern aggression do you?


----------



## Dot Com

I saw this & it made be think about bigreb-dude:


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No whats a shame is that lincoln used slavery to keep England from helping the south. It's a damn shame that lincoln only freed slaves in a country he had no authority to it in.
> 
> Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
> Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
> 
> 
> Why no mention of Kentucky Maryland Delaware Missouri and D.C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Abe Lincoln who the South was so afraid of that they committed treason rather than allow him to be president?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that freed the slaves?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that the cowardly south shot when they could not win on the battlefield?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow the clowns are loss tonight. YOU realy don't knoiw any history of the war of northern aggression do you?
Click to expand...


Lets see what we know..

We know the South had their asses kicked and were left begging for mercy

We know southern racist terrorists continued to terrorize its own peaceful citizens and brutally killed over 3000 of them


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize it had went to court. The govenor signed a law in to effect invoked eminent domain  and that has been proven that a state can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ Utah Democrats have slammed the eminent domain measure as a waste of money, emphasizing that the move is on shaky legal ground. Why spend taxpayer money defending legislation that likely wont withstand legal muster, opponents say.   _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tripping all over yourself again. Did the Govenor sign the bill?
Click to expand...


Its your bogus link...show where Utah ended up taking federal land

Any asshole can sign a bill


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert E. Lee said it best.
> 
> Then his Virginia background and the mental discipline of years asserted themselves. He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own p437 simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."24 That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.
> 
> Robert*E.*Lee (by Freeman) ? Vol.*I Chap.*25
> 
> Which was the opinion of most Americans. And they weren't on the government tit like a lot of Americans are today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...a traitor's words.
> Next you'll be giving up OBL's words in justification for 9/11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was R.E. Lee hanged?
Click to expand...


No, but there was grounds to do so.    But I bet you think because he wasn't, there was no crime of treason.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No whats a shame is that lincoln used slavery to keep England from helping the south. It's a damn shame that lincoln only freed slaves in a country he had no authority to it in.
> 
> Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
> Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
> 
> 
> Why no mention of Kentucky Maryland Delaware Missouri and D.C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Abe Lincoln who the South was so afraid of that they committed treason rather than allow him to be president?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that freed the slaves?
> 
> The Abe Lincoln that the cowardly south shot when they could not win on the battlefield?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow the clowns are loss tonight. YOU realy don't knoiw any history of the war of northern aggression do you?
Click to expand...


Well, none of us are privy to the Fantasy in your Head...no.


----------



## Dot Com

Is bigreb-dude still going on about the War of Southern Rebellion?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
> Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ


Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.  

In _McCulloch v. Maryland_ (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land. 

Pure idiocy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...a traitor's words.
> Next you'll be giving up OBL's words in justification for 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was R.E. Lee hanged?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but there was grounds to do so.    But I bet you think because he wasn't, there was no crime of treason.
Click to expand...


The court finally heard preliminary motions in December 1868, when the defense asked for a dismissal claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already punished Davis by preventing him from holding public office in the future and that further prosecution and punishment would violate the double jeopardy restriction of the Fifth Amendment. The court divided in its official opinion and certified the question to the United States Supreme Court.Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion.

Encyclopedia Virginia: Jefferson Davis's Imprisonment


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
> Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.
> 
> In _McCulloch v. Maryland_ (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land.
> 
> Pure idiocy.
Click to expand...


Idiot this happen in 2010


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ Utah Democrats have slammed the eminent domain measure as a waste of money, emphasizing that the move is on shaky legal ground. Why spend taxpayer money defending legislation that likely wont withstand legal muster, opponents say.   _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripping all over yourself again. Did the Govenor sign the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its your bogus link...show where Utah ended up taking federal land
> 
> Any asshole can sign a bill
Click to expand...


Yes obama has signed a few.


----------



## American Cowboy

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
Click to expand...


Wow here is someone that knows nothing about our separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.


----------



## cielo42

you are paranoid


----------



## idb

American Cowboy said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow here is someone that knows nothing about our separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.
Click to expand...


Am I wrong?
Please enlighten me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

idb said:


> American Cowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow here is someone that knows nothing about our separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?
> Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...


Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

cielo42 said:


> you are paranoid



So very trusting, child like faith that the govenment will always be there to pick you up when you faLL.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The president is representative man of all the citizens of the country.  His check on Congress is the veto.  He has limited wartime authority on his own and needs Congress support to continue in long-time operations.  In the meantime, he is the constitutional and electoral choice of the people.

Whether he is violating his powers concerning Libya is up for debate and will never command an impeachment majority in the House.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> jesus christ separate countries? No, no they didnt. Let me clue you in..the federalists won back in 1776.hence why we have a strong federal government.
> 
> 
> I cant work this shit you are posting. Its just that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hardhead, what ever state they lived in was their home and their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> um no. they lived in the usa established 1776 fucktard.
Click to expand...


The states gave up sovereign nation status when they approved the Constitution.  Read Lincoln's first inaugural address for the final word on this non-issue.


----------



## bodecea

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets funnier and funnier.   We should all just stand by and let him dig his own hole of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert E. Lee said it best.
> 
> Then his Virginia background and the mental discipline of years asserted themselves. He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own p437 simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."24 That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.
> 
> Robert*E.*Lee (by Freeman) ? Vol.*I Chap.*25
> 
> Which was the opinion of most Americans. And they weren't on the government tit like a lot of Americans are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pssst he lost..
Click to expand...


The South starting shit they couldn't finish....so now stuff is made up about their Noble Cause and 'northern aggression'......pretty pathetic losers.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
> Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.
> In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.
> 
> In _McCulloch v. Maryland_ (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land.
> 
> Pure idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot this happen in 2010
Click to expand...


McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.
> 
> In _McCulloch v. Maryland_ (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land.
> 
> Pure idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot this happen in 2010
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?
Click to expand...


littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid.  The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> pssst he lost..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South starting shit they couldn't finish....so now stuff is made up about their Noble Cause and 'northern aggression'......pretty pathetic losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.
> 
> Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.
Click to expand...


Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South starting shit they couldn't finish....so now stuff is made up about their Noble Cause and 'northern aggression'......pretty pathetic losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.
> 
> Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.
Click to expand...


No, you have a nic of traitors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.
> 
> In _McCulloch v. Maryland_ (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land.
> 
> Pure idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot this happen in 2010
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?
Click to expand...


No stupid

This which is what's being discussed happen in 2010.
Utah Gov. signed bill that would kick the feds out.



> Yes, LBers, youve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.


----------



## ShackledNation

Because Congress is just as bad.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.
> 
> Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have a nic of traitors.
Click to expand...


OH yeah and the one who uses a pic of a pirate in their sig. You have no honor.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot this happen in 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid.  The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.
Click to expand...


I am a way smarter than you junior.


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Cowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow here is someone that knows nothing about our separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?
> Please enlighten me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.
Click to expand...


As I understand it;
A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.

Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.


----------



## ShackledNation

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I wrong?
> Please enlighten me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it;
> A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
> Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.
> 
> Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
> A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.
Click to expand...

All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.


----------



## idb

ShackledNation said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it;
> A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
> Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.
> 
> Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
> A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.
Click to expand...


Where are they prohibited in the Constitution?


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid.  The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a way smarter than you junior.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShackledNation said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it;
> A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
> Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.
> 
> Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
> A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  End of story.


----------



## ShackledNation

JakeStarkey said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it;
> A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
> Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
> An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.
> 
> Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
> A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  End of story.
Click to expand...

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?


----------



## idb

ShackledNation said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
Click to expand...


Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## Moonglow

U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[2]

Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShackledNation said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
Click to expand...


You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.'  Make your best case, sonny.


----------



## ShackledNation

idb said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
> The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You claim that he does not have the power, yet you give no law, SC findings, anything, other than your opinion as fact.  Your "fact" is false.  Truly, you have to have something more than your opinion on the Constitution.  Try answering Moonglow's evidencefor starters.


----------



## ShackledNation

JakeStarkey said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.'  Make your best case, sonny.
Click to expand...

That is not how our constitution works. You do not have to prove why something is not constitutional. You have to prove why it _is._ The executive order is not constitutional because...it is not in the constitution. The Constitution lists what government _can _do and says anything not listed is unconstitutional for the federal government. It does not list what government cannot do and then say everything else is allowable. When I was referring to burden of proof, I was not referring to argumentation rules. I was referring to the constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Answered above.  You have made a claim, now you have to support it.  That is how discussion is handled.  Get a moving.


----------



## ShackledNation

JakeStarkey said:


> You claim that he does not have the power, yet you give no law, SC findings, anything, other than your opinion as fact.  Your "fact" is false.  Truly, you have to have something more than your opinion on the Constitution.  Try answering Moonglow's evidencefor starters.


I give you the constitution. That supports the claim. That is the highest law of the land. And the constitution does not grant the power to issue executive orders. If you want to argue the constitutionality of something, you have to explain where it is listed.

Again, the constitution is a limiting document. It *lists powers*, not restrictions, and *anything not listed is off limits*. Executive orders are not listed.


----------



## Moonglow

ShackledNation said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
> The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.
Click to expand...


U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[2]

Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## idb

ShackledNation said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
> The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.
Click to expand...


United States Constitution
Article 2
Section 1
Clause 1


> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


----------



## idb

ShackledNation said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
> The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.
Click to expand...


Unites States Constitution
Article Two
SAection 3
Clause 4


> He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.


"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." being the relevant piece.


----------



## idb

ShackledNation said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.'  Make your best case, sonny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how our constitution works. You do not have to prove why something is not constitutional. You have to prove why it _is._ The executive order is not constitutional because...it is not in the constitution. The Constitution lists what government _can _do and says anything not listed is unconstitutional for the federal government. It does not list what government cannot do and then say everything else is allowable. When I was referring to burden of proof, I was not referring to argumentation rules. I was referring to the constitution.
Click to expand...


If something is claimed to be constitutional, and there is no previous court ruling to say otherwise, then isn't it accepted as such until it is challenged?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
> The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[2]
> 
> Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


one more time for the moron class, This thread is not about obama using the Executive Order, it is about how he's using them. The way he's using them why even have a congress?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.

Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid.  The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a way smarter than you junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


laugh junior, I know it and you are to stupid to realize it.


----------



## Annie

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.
> 
> Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> child like that has a movie that just made 500 million bucks...
> 
> calling my hobby childlike when TF's are so mainstream now is pathetic.
> 
> You have no argument so you are resorting to personal attacks,
Click to expand...




> child like that has a movie that just made 500 million bucks



Just because a movie takes in a lot of money doesn't mean it's for adults, parents give money to their children so they can go see the movie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Annie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.
Click to expand...


Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.

Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.'  Make your best case, sonny.
Click to expand...


liberal progressive code words


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a way smarter than you junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> laugh junior, I know it and you are to stupid to realize it.
Click to expand...


That's *'too'* stupid bigrednec


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc has been corrected for trying to formulate an assertion without evidence then demand others refute it.

Not all Righty Extremist Fascists are anti-critical thinking skills but most here are.  Their code talk means "I don't know, I don't what to know, and don't confuse me."


----------



## driveby

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
Click to expand...


I like that, you sure as fuck wouldn't have Obama care if that were the case......


----------



## JakeStarkey

driveby said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like that, you sure as fuck wouldn't have Obama care if that were the case......
Click to expand...


We undoubtedly would have some form of national health care.


----------



## Jack Fate

JakeStarkey said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like that, you sure as fuck wouldn't have Obama care if that were the case......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We undoubtedly would have some form of national health care.
Click to expand...


National health care is too expensive.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.'  Make your best case, sonny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liberal progressive code words
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm not surprised you shy away from that concept.


----------



## bodecea

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> laugh junior, I know it and you are to stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's *'too'* stupid bigrednec
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jack Fate said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like that, you sure as fuck wouldn't have Obama care if that were the case......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We undoubtedly would have some form of national health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National health care is too expensive.
Click to expand...


It has not been in other industrialized countries.  It's cheaper, the quality for all citizens is better, the citizens are healthier, and they live longer: than us.

It's coming, and you cannot stop it.  Get used to it.


----------



## ShackledNation

JakeStarkey said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We undoubtedly would have some form of national health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National health care is too expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has not been in other industrialized countries.  It's cheaper, the quality for all citizens is better, the citizens are healthier, and they live longer: than us.
> 
> It's coming, and you cannot stop it.  Get used to it.
Click to expand...

Pure propaganda. Our healthcare system is a disaster because of government mandates, bureaucracy, and regulation. We don't have free market healthcare. And the solution is to expand the problem.

It is not cheaper, the quality is not better, and the fact government runs healthcare is not why people are healthier.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Bush used presidential signing statements to avoid parts of bills he didn't like and planned not to follow on a regular basis too. Obama campaigned that he wouldn't do it, yet he has/is.

We didn't imbeach Bush for his war crimes or his abuse of the justice dept. or the mariade imbeachable offenses. Why would congress press Obama?

Face it. Congress is a wet noodle when it comes to utilizing their authority.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.



EOs are subject to judicial review, the limiting powers of the Constitution are wielded by the Federal courts &#8211; a citizen must prove in court that a given action by government is un-Constitutional. Neither the Executive nor Legislative branches are required to &#8216;self approve&#8217; the constitutionality of their respective actions. 

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of an EO was in _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer _(1952), striking down Truman&#8217;s effort to &#8216;nationalize&#8217; steel companies during a strike. The court determined the EO had the effect of law, and the Executive is not sanctioned by the Constitution to make law. 

Since then presidents have been careful to ensure their EOs conform to the law. 

Some argue that EO&#8217;s are authorized by Article II Section 3 of the Constitution, where the Executive is admonished to &#8216;_take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed_&#8230;&#8217;

In any event, if a citizen believes a given EO is de facto law and potentially un-Constitutional, he&#8217;s free to file suit in Federal court. And even if a given EO is struck down as un-Constitutional, it is not an impeachable offense as no law was violated.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShackledNation said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> National health care is too expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has not been in other industrialized countries.  It's cheaper, the quality for all citizens is better, the citizens are healthier, and they live longer: than us.
> 
> It's coming, and you cannot stop it.  Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pure propaganda. Our healthcare system is a disaster because of government mandates, bureaucracy, and regulation. We don't have free market healthcare. And the solution is to expand the problem.
> 
> It is not cheaper, the quality is not better, and the fact government runs healthcare is not why people are healthier.
Click to expand...


You are the one with propaganda.  Control the health care cost, keep the system put a single payer in, make them bid for contracts, and the problems are resolved.  The free market is not the answer, because all it cares about is eliminating competition and maximizing profit.

Yes, industrialized nations indeed are healthier, live longer, and the cost is cheaper.

That you don't like it doesn't mean crap.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.'  Make your best case, sonny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liberal progressive code words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your anti thinking.....we knew this.
Click to expand...


no, I'm anti progressives all should be tarred and feather.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc has been corrected for trying to formulate an assertion without evidence then demand others refute it.
> 
> Not all Righty Extremist Fascists are anti-critical thinking skills but most here are.  Their code talk means "I don't know, I don't what to know, and don't confuse me."



You got it wrong junior, your wishful thinking just isn't getting the job done. You need to take a tar and feather bath.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.'  Make your best case, sonny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liberal progressive code words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm not surprised you shy away from that concept.
Click to expand...


Know your enemy read their playbook.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, my, littledeb is drinking early.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> liberal progressive code words
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm not surprised you shy away from that concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know your enemy read their playbook.
Click to expand...


Ah, but that requires you have the ability to read....without your lips moving...and having critical thinking skills which you already have shown you frown on.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, my, littledeb is drinking early.



I wonder if he and Tommy are drinking buddies.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, my, littledeb is drinking early.



I don't drink what you drink Ms. Koolaid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, littledeb is drinking early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if he and Tommy are drinking buddies.
Click to expand...


Let's hear it for President Gunrunner obama

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwA3mmMpuok&feature=feedlik]&#x202a;ANOTHER Scandal that could DEPOSE Obama!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm not surprised you shy away from that concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know your enemy read their playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but that requires you have the ability to read....without your lips moving...and having critical thinking skills which you already have shown you frown on.
Click to expand...


If I can read your bullshit I can read your playbook.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, my, littledeb is drinking early.



Not taking sides here, but that's better than drinking all day long like you clearly do. If I am wrong about that, I got a doctor for you to see that will help you out with your delusional beliefs. You must bump your fucking head every single day then Jake dumbshit.  ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> laugh junior, I know it and you are to stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's *'too'* stupid bigrednec
Click to expand...


Now the dumb fuck idb thinks that this forum is a classroom. Wake up from your meds idiot. You need some serious help with your life.  ~BH


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bolshie is drinking with littledeb now, and is raving like a loon.

Bolshie, psst.  C'mon here.  Son, you are lamestream, not mainstream, little loser.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

JakeStarkey said:


> Bolshie is drinking with littledeb now, and is raving like a loon.
> 
> Bolshie, psst.  C'mon here.  Son, you are lamestream, not mainstream, little loser.



Hey Jake you little pedo sicko you, I don't need to drink to get the jump on a weak minded chump like you bro. None of us here do. You are as easy as they come guy. Just keep talking, So we all can continue to witness your mental illness. LMAO!!!

Jake _The Dumbshit_ Starkey! =  

Man bro, you sure bumped your head today eh dummy?  ~BH


----------



## idb

BolshevikHunter said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> laugh junior, I know it and you are to stupid to realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's *'too'* stupid bigrednec
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the dumb fuck idb thinks that this forum is a classroom. Wake up from your meds idiot. You need some serious help with your life.  ~BH
Click to expand...


Meds?!
Hmmmmm...I like your smiley...


----------



## BolshevikHunter

idb said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's *'too'* stupid bigrednec
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now the dumb fuck idb thinks that this forum is a classroom. Wake up from your meds idiot. You need some serious help with your life.  ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meds?!
> Hmmmmm...I like your smiley...
Click to expand...







 ~BH


----------



## idb

BolshevikHunter said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the dumb fuck idb thinks that this forum is a classroom. Wake up from your meds idiot. You need some serious help with your life.  ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meds?!
> Hmmmmm...I like your smiley...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~BH
Click to expand...


Not so much...


----------



## BolshevikHunter

idb said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meds?!
> Hmmmmm...I like your smiley...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so much...
Click to expand...


Oh well, Tomorrow is another day idb.  ~BH


----------



## Annie

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.
> 
> Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?
Click to expand...


Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.


----------



## Moonglow

Annie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.
> 
> Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


mental masturbation for GOP/neocons/conservatives


----------



## Annie

Moonglow said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.
> 
> Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mental masturbation for GOP/neocons/conservatives
Click to expand...


Well there's a well thought out answer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Annie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.
> 
> Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime. Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Bolshie is drinking with littledeb now, and is raving like a loon.
> 
> Bolshie, psst.  C'mon here.  Son, you are lamestream, not mainstream, little loser.



Just keep drinking that koolaid junior.


----------



## Sarah G

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bolshie is drinking with littledeb now, and is raving like a loon.
> 
> Bolshie, psst.  C'mon here.  Son, you are lamestream, not mainstream, little loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep drinking that koolaid junior.
Click to expand...



I think Rs/Teaparty have played their hand already with stupid accusations like the birther conspiracies.  They don't have anything serious to proceed with.  

America is pissed off with these people, if they try another impeachment, voters will be completely fed up with their nonsense.  Grow up and encourage your stupid leaders to get to work on jobs like they promised.  They've been listening to people like you for too long.


----------



## NoNukes

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.
> 
> Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime.* Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?
Click to expand...


*Yes it would be, if you could prove intent, which you could not. The right just wants to embarrass America by impeaching whoever you do not like. You are really pathetic.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Righty Extremist Facists can't find their collective ass with a compass, a lighted candle, a girl scout troop, and an ass sniffing dog.  They are here for grins and chuckles only.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.
> 
> Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime. Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?
Click to expand...


Then do your DUTY and report him to the FBI!   Don't just sit here and WHINE about it.


----------



## bodecea

NoNukes said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime.* Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes it would be, if you could prove intent, which you could not. The right just wants to embarrass America by impeaching whoever you do not like. You are really pathetic.*
Click to expand...


Can we imagine the Right being known for their whining fail impeachments of any president they don't like?   That would be a hoot!!!


----------



## bodecea

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your anti thinking.....we knew this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, I'm anti progressives all should be tarred and feather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a moron
Click to expand...


A traitor supporting moron who likes to think about injuring those he disagrees with politically.   That fits right in with the traitors his nic glorifies.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?



What on earth are you talking about, you obviously havent even read the EO: 


> The executive order does not grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants *or give amnesty to those already living and working in America.* What it does do is give agents in the field and ICE officials leeway in deciding the fate of immigrants based on factors that any respectable American recognizes as humane.
> 
> Obama Lays The Groundwork For Dream Act Passage With Executive Order





> To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime. Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?



How does the EO harm the nation? And yet again, if Congress elects to not enact a law, *its not a law*  the president cant violate a law that doesnt exist.


----------



## rosco63

Sarah G said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bolshie is drinking with littledeb now, and is raving like a loon.
> 
> Bolshie, psst.  C'mon here.  Son, you are lamestream, not mainstream, little loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep drinking that koolaid junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rs/Teaparty have played their hand already with stupid accusations like the birther conspiracies.  They don't have anything serious to proceed with.
> 
> America is pissed off with these people, if they try another impeachment, voters will be completely fed up with their nonsense.  Grow up and encourage your stupid leaders to get to work on jobs like they promised.  They've been listening to people like you for too long.
Click to expand...


Well my thought is they all should go half the congress and house are asleep most of the time, We are all heading for times we've have'nt seen ,like marshall law all rights taken they already have started on that yrs a go with Bush,Now with obama change will get change alright. Its time that the Americans get some courage and look at whats really going on. AND STAND, Like Obama told the middle east told the young to fight for freedom
I feeel we need to rise and really be heard. Like thier messing with the gun laws now before long will get them taken. ITS OUR COUNTRY NOT THE GOVERMENTS WE ARE INDEPENDENTS AND THATS WHAT WE SHOULD STAND FOR IF NOT US OUR CHILDERN.......


----------



## bodecea

rosco63 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep drinking that koolaid junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rs/Teaparty have played their hand already with stupid accusations like the birther conspiracies.  They don't have anything serious to proceed with.
> 
> America is pissed off with these people, if they try another impeachment, voters will be completely fed up with their nonsense.  Grow up and encourage your stupid leaders to get to work on jobs like they promised.  They've been listening to people like you for too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well my thought is they all should go half the congress and house are asleep most of the time, We are all heading for times we've have'nt seen ,like marshall law all rights taken they already have started on that yrs a go with Bush,Now with obama change will get change alright. Its time that the Americans get some courage and look at whats really going on. AND STAND, Like Obama told the middle east told the young to fight for freedom
> I feeel we need to rise and really be heard. Like thier messing with the gun laws now before long will get them taken. ITS OUR COUNTRY NOT THE GOVERMENTS WE ARE INDEPENDENTS AND THATS WHAT WE SHOULD STAND FOR IF NOT US OUR CHILDERN.......
Click to expand...


Where have you been?   Obama took our guns the first month after he took office, just like we were warned he would.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Annie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.
> 
> Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


Something that hasn't been mention is gun runner. Selling guns to the mexicans drug lords.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> rosco63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rs/Teaparty have played their hand already with stupid accusations like the birther conspiracies.  They don't have anything serious to proceed with.
> 
> America is pissed off with these people, if they try another impeachment, voters will be completely fed up with their nonsense.  Grow up and encourage your stupid leaders to get to work on jobs like they promised.  They've been listening to people like you for too long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well my thought is they all should go half the congress and house are asleep most of the time, We are all heading for times we've have'nt seen ,like marshall law all rights taken they already have started on that yrs a go with Bush,Now with obama change will get change alright. Its time that the Americans get some courage and look at whats really going on. AND STAND, Like Obama told the middle east told the young to fight for freedom
> I feeel we need to rise and really be heard. Like thier messing with the gun laws now before long will get them taken. ITS OUR COUNTRY NOT THE GOVERMENTS WE ARE INDEPENDENTS AND THATS WHAT WE SHOULD STAND FOR IF NOT US OUR CHILDERN.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have you been?   Obama took our guns the first month after he took office, just like we were warned he would.
Click to expand...


I guess operation gunrunner had nothing to do with his gun confiscation agenda.,

Two years ago when obama clinton and holder started with their talks about guns crossing the American border into mexico. Something like gun bans will take a little more effort than obamacare did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sarah G said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bolshie is drinking with littledeb now, and is raving like a loon.
> 
> Bolshie, psst.  C'mon here.  Son, you are lamestream, not mainstream, little loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep drinking that koolaid junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rs/Teaparty have played their hand already with stupid accusations like the birther conspiracies.  They don't have anything serious to proceed with.
> 
> America is pissed off with these people, if they try another impeachment, voters will be completely fed up with their nonsense.  Grow up and encourage your stupid leaders to get to work on jobs like they promised.  They've been listening to people like you for too long.
Click to expand...



obama is a daily treasure trove of bullshit. The teaparty isn't done as long as obama keeps handing us ammo to use. And that also includes the ones he appointed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NoNukes said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime.* Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes it would be, if you could prove intent, which you could not. The right just wants to embarrass America by impeaching whoever you do not like. You are really pathetic.*
Click to expand...


prove intent? The vote for amensty was no and obamna comes up with a presidental order bypassing that no. How much more intent do you want?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where's the high crimes or misdemeanors? Many if not most Americans would disagree with him, but abuse of office or crimes? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime. Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then do your DUTY and report him to the FBI!   Don't just sit here and WHINE about it.
Click to expand...


I did, but with holder in obama pocket how far do you think my call did?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your anti thinking.....we knew this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, I'm anti progressives all should be tarred and feather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a moron
Click to expand...


transformers robot in disguise.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rosco63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my thought is they all should go half the congress and house are asleep most of the time, We are all heading for times we've have'nt seen ,like marshall law all rights taken they already have started on that yrs a go with Bush,Now with obama change will get change alright. Its time that the Americans get some courage and look at whats really going on. AND STAND, Like Obama told the middle east told the young to fight for freedom
> I feeel we need to rise and really be heard. Like thier messing with the gun laws now before long will get them taken. ITS OUR COUNTRY NOT THE GOVERMENTS WE ARE INDEPENDENTS AND THATS WHAT WE SHOULD STAND FOR IF NOT US OUR CHILDERN.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?   Obama took our guns the first month after he took office, just like we were warned he would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess operation gunrunner had nothing to do with his gun confiscation agenda.,
> 
> Two years ago when obama clinton and holder started with their talks about guns crossing the American border into mexico. Something like gun bans will take a little more effort than obamacare did.
Click to expand...


"Project Gunrunner" was started in 2006, by Bush's ATF.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To by pass congress with the intent to harm the nation would be a high crime. Why do we need a congress if the president is going to pencil whip a legislation in to law when congress voted it down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then do your DUTY and report him to the FBI!   Don't just sit here and WHINE about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, but with holder in obama pocket how far do you think my call did?
Click to expand...


When did you call?   And what was your follow up on your report?  What was the Agent's name you reported Obama to?   It's very important to document these things.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then do your DUTY and report him to the FBI!   Don't just sit here and WHINE about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, but with holder in obama pocket how far do you think my call did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you call?   And what was your follow up on your report?  What was the Agent's name you reported Obama to?   It's very important to document these things.
Click to expand...


You work for the FBI don't you? If you don't why would you want to now specific's?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?   Obama took our guns the first month after he took office, just like we were warned he would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess operation gunrunner had nothing to do with his gun confiscation agenda.,
> 
> Two years ago when obama clinton and holder started with their talks about guns crossing the American border into mexico. Something like gun bans will take a little more effort than obamacare did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Project Gunrunner" was started in 2006, by Bush's ATF.
Click to expand...


Did I say bush get's a pass? Shill we discuss why obama continued to allow the illegal venture?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> transformers robot in disguise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah so?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njPUPo7tCbM]&#x202a;Transformers Robots in Disguise Episode 1-1 (HD)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, but with holder in obama pocket how far do you think my call did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you call?   And what was your follow up on your report?  What was the Agent's name you reported Obama to?   It's very important to document these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You work for the FBI don't you? If you don't why would you want to now specific's?
Click to expand...


I'm waiting to hear the particulars about your call.   You need to write down the agent's name for follow up.   What was his/her name?   When did you call?   What did they say to you?

Since this is a very important thing for you...starting this thread and all....surely you did your civic duty and reported the crimes you say Obama committed.  So tell us what happened when you called.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njPUPo7tCbM]&#x202a;Transformers Robots in Disguise Episode 1-1 (HD)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good for you for finding a clip of RID.
> 
> doesnt detract from you being stupid, but keep it up.
> 
> maybe next time you can try a clip thats more modern....
Click to expand...


Junior, it's time for you to face reality, you're a stupid fuck childish liberal that plays with transformers. You will never amount to anything because you are childish.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you call?   And what was your follow up on your report?  What was the Agent's name you reported Obama to?   It's very important to document these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You work for the FBI don't you? If you don't why would you want to now specific's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm waiting to hear the particulars about your call.   You need to write down the agent's name for follow up.   What was his/her name?   When did you call?   What did they say to you?
> 
> Since this is a very important thing for you...starting this thread and all....surely you did your civic duty and reported the crimes you say Obama committed.  So tell us what happened when you called.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Five-0​


----------



## Article 15

Hurrrrr
Derp! Derp!
(everybody's herpin' the derp)
Hurrrrr
Derp! Derp!
(hurr durr is what we say)
Hurrrrr
Derp! Derp!


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You work for the FBI don't you? If you don't why would you want to now specific's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting to hear the particulars about your call.   You need to write down the agent's name for follow up.   What was his/her name?   When did you call?   What did they say to you?
> 
> Since this is a very important thing for you...starting this thread and all....surely you did your civic duty and reported the crimes you say Obama committed.  So tell us what happened when you called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Five-0​
Click to expand...


Ah....so it IS all about just Whining, no Action for you.   Got it!


----------



## Richard-H

The real question is how to remove GOP congress people from office if they do not raise the debt limit very, very soon.

See Thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...-mass-violations-of-their-oath-of-office.html


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Richard-H said:


> The real question is how to remove GOP congress people from office if they do not raise the debt limit very, very soon.
> 
> See Thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...-mass-violations-of-their-oath-of-office.html



That would be like me having a credit card owing one million dollars on it and going to the bank and tell them to raise my credit limit on the card.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> Hurrrrr
> Derp! Derp!
> (everybody's herpin' the derp)
> Hurrrrr
> Derp! Derp!
> (hurr durr is what we say)
> Hurrrrr
> Derp! Derp!



Is that a pic of you? stupid?


----------



## Zona

I just went to post number one and ralized something...the op is an idiot. 

God bless.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Zona said:


> I just went to post number one and ralized something...the op is an idiot.
> 
> God bless.



Thanks for the compliment. Comments like that coming from you dick lips liberals tell's me I'm saying the right thing. I never want you asshats to agree with me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledeb, no patriotic American will agree with your militia nutcase stories.  You continually demonstrate that you can't think, you only communicate in fascistic code talk, and you can't argue.  Keep posting, brother.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledeb, no patriotic American will agree with your militia nutcase stories.  You continually demonstrate that you can't think, you only communicate in fascistic code talk, and you can't argue.  Keep posting, brother.



Speak of something you know about like saul alinsky. You aren't a patroit. you are like obama don't give a damn about this country.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am a patriot.  Thanks for recognizing that.  You are the Saul Alinksy of the right, for sure.  I bet Obama loves America more and worthily than you do.


----------



## Polk

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
Click to expand...


This argument is why presidential systems are inherently unstable.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Polk said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This argument is why presidential systems are inherently unstable.
Click to expand...


This argument is why president systems are inherently representative and republican.


----------



## Polk

JakeStarkey said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is why presidential systems are inherently unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This argument is why president systems are inherently representative and republican.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Polk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is why presidential systems are inherently unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is why president systems are inherently representative and republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
Click to expand...


Necessarily.  I believe in our Constitution and how the leaders of our Republic are chosen.  If Americans were so moon struck and dope addled they chose Sarah, then the system would still be representative and republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> good for you for finding a clip of RID.
> 
> doesnt detract from you being stupid, but keep it up.
> 
> maybe next time you can try a clip thats more modern....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, it's time for you to face reality, you're a stupid fuck childish liberal that plays with transformers. You will never amount to anything because you are childish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> snicker, little irrelevant internet poster
Click to expand...


snicker, littledeb is just a shittenpuppy internet wack hobbyist.  Takes all kinds.


----------



## Polk

JakeStarkey said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is why president systems are inherently representative and republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Necessarily.  I believe in our Constitution and how the leaders of our Republic are chosen.  If Americans were so moon struck and dope addled they chose Sarah, then the system would still be representative and republican.
Click to expand...


It's representative to the point where it collapses.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Polk, all human systems are inherently imperfect, but the American republican system is by the far best.


----------



## Jack Fate

JakeStarkey said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is why president systems are inherently representative and republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Necessarily.  I believe in our Constitution and how the leaders of our Republic are chosen.  If Americans were so moon struck and dope addled they chose Sarah, then the system would still be representative and republican.
Click to expand...


They chose BO.  Talk about moon struck and dope addled.........


----------



## Polk

JakeStarkey said:


> Polk, all human systems are inherently imperfect, but the American republican system is by the far best.



I disagree. I think we've had a long run of good luck.


----------



## Jack Fate

Plasmaball said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Necessarily.  I believe in our Constitution and how the leaders of our Republic are chosen.  If Americans were so moon struck and dope addled they chose Sarah, then the system would still be representative and republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They chose BO.  Talk about moon struck and dope addled.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> could be worse, could have you intellect.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.  Did that make you wet your diaper?  Poor little thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jack Fate said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> They chose BO.  Talk about moon struck and dope addled.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could be worse, could have you intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  Did that make you wet your diaper?  Poor little thing.
Click to expand...


Sad Fate!, how you doing?  I have seen you skulking through the posts but I am glad you came out.

I simply cannot accept that others here will not accept our Constitutional and republican system, even if they think it misfires on occasion.  As I said earlier, I would have accepted a "moon struck and dope addled" selection of Sarah Palin.  I still will, and then work like crazy to get rid of her in the next election.

Those who don't support our Constitutional and electoral system (although they have the right to voice their opinion) who choose to act against it, should be and will be immediately arrested and suffer the consequences, whether Muslim jihadists or Aryan white religionists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Plasmaball said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> could be worse, could have you intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  Did that make you wet your diaper?  Poor little thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, not really, but you go ahead and think it did if it makes you feel smarter.
Click to expand...


Sad Fate! will appreciate your willingness to make himself feel better.


----------



## freedombecki

Richard-H said:


> The real question is how to remove GOP congress people from office if they do not raise the debt limit very, very soon.
> 
> See Thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...-mass-violations-of-their-oath-of-office.html


You goin' for the Greek outcome?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let's go for massive reduction with a ceiling that is feasible.  If the GOP does not sign on, the American public will make it pay a horrible price in the fall next year.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> good for you for finding a clip of RID.
> 
> doesnt detract from you being stupid, but keep it up.
> 
> maybe next time you can try a clip thats more modern....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, it's time for you to face reality, you're a stupid fuck childish liberal that plays with transformers. You will never amount to anything because you are childish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> snicker, little irrelevant internet poster
Click to expand...



Right..... just like the trash you post. One thing though I can back up what I say, can you?


Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njPUPo7tCbM]&#x202a;Transformers Robots in Disguise Episode 1-1 (HD)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good for you for finding a clip of RID.
> 
> doesnt detract from you being stupid, but keep it up.
> 
> maybe next time you can try a clip thats more modern....
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> I am a patriot.  Thanks for recognizing that.  You are the Saul Alinksy of the right, for sure.  I bet Obama loves America more and worthily than you do.



No you aren't your words give you away. I am straight forword you use code words to get your message accross.

Even in this post you give yourself away.
obama hasn't shown he cares about America and what it stood for. You support him you will get what you deserve.


----------



## Salt Jones

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a patriot.  Thanks for recognizing that.  You are the Saul Alinksy of the right, for sure.  I bet Obama loves America more and worthily than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you aren't your words give you away. I am straight forword you use code words to get your message accross.
> 
> Even in this post you give yourself away.
> obama hasn't shown he cares about America and what it stood for. You support him you will get what you deserve.
Click to expand...


He's let you live.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, it's time for you to face reality, you're a stupid fuck childish liberal that plays with transformers. You will never amount to anything because you are childish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snicker, little irrelevant internet poster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> snicker, littledeb is just a shittenpuppy internet wack hobbyist.  Takes all kinds.
Click to expand...


Meaningless words with nothing to support those words, little trud boy needs some help.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Salt Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a patriot.  Thanks for recognizing that.  You are the Saul Alinksy of the right, for sure.  I bet Obama loves America more and worthily than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you aren't your words give you away. I am straight forword you use code words to get your message accross.
> 
> Even in this post you give yourself away.
> obama hasn't shown he cares about America and what it stood for. You support him you will get what you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's let you live.
Click to expand...


No one can take my life but me. I am armed 24/7 and am aware of my surroundings.


----------



## freedombecki

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's go for massive reduction with a ceiling that is feasible.  If the GOP does not sign on, the American public will make it pay a horrible price in the fall next year.



We have to do it, Jake.

Here's why: link

We'll pay the price if need be, because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If the GOP blocks it, then the Republican Party will pay the price, all of the price.  My Republican Party will have died.  We survivors will re-create the pre-Reagan party, and we will be far more responsible than the Party today.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

freedombecki said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go for massive reduction with a ceiling that is feasible.  If the GOP does not sign on, the American public will make it pay a horrible price in the fall next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to do it, Jake.
> 
> Here's why: link
> 
> We'll pay the price if need be, because it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...


What obama and the democrats are asking to do would be like me having a credit card owing one million dollars on it and going to the bank and tell them to raise my credit limit on the card


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have never had a credit card, littledeb, so your analogy is kaput.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> If the GOP blocks it, then the Republican Party will pay the price, all of the price.  My Republican Party will have died.  We survivors will re-create the pre-Reagan party, and we will be far more responsible than the Party today.



You have no common sense, you can't keep a debt with no way of paying it off and ask for more credit. This is the democrats fault.


----------



## freedombecki

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a patriot.  Thanks for recognizing that.  You are the Saul Alinksy of the right, for sure.  I bet Obama loves America more and worthily than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you aren't your words give you away. I am straight forword you use code words to get your message accross.
> 
> Even in this post you give yourself away.
> obama hasn't shown he cares about America and what it stood for. You support him you will get what you deserve.
Click to expand...


Jake is a patriot, bigreb. He feels strongly for his party's causes.

Our country allows diversity in liberals and conservatives without questioning allegiance.


----------



## Salt Jones

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you aren't your words give you away. I am straight forword you use code words to get your message accross.
> 
> Even in this post you give yourself away.
> obama hasn't shown he cares about America and what it stood for. You support him you will get what you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's let you live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can take my life but me. I am armed 24/7 and am aware of my surroundings.
Click to expand...


Those were bin Laden's last words.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You have never had a credit card, littledeb, so your analogy is kaput.



pussy boy Since your on welfare you could never have one and would never know how it feels to carry a platinum in your wallet, that is if you even have a wallet.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Salt Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's let you live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one can take my life but me. I am armed 24/7 and am aware of my surroundings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were bin Laden's last words.
Click to expand...


You can't live for ever.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

freedombecki said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a patriot.  Thanks for recognizing that.  You are the Saul Alinksy of the right, for sure.  I bet Obama loves America more and worthily than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you aren't your words give you away. I am straight forword you use code words to get your message accross.
> 
> Even in this post you give yourself away.
> obama hasn't shown he cares about America and what it stood for. You support him you will get what you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake is a patriot, bigreb. He feels strongly for his party's causes.
> 
> Our country allows diversity in liberals and conservatives without questioning allegiance.
Click to expand...


No he isn't he's a piece of shit, and would never be a part of anything the bastard is a part of. I hate progressive liberals all should be given the black flag.


----------



## freedombecki

JakeStarkey said:


> If the GOP blocks it, then the Republican Party will pay the price, all of the price.  My Republican Party will have died.  We survivors will re-create the pre-Reagan party, and we will be far more responsible than the Party today.



I don't know what they're going to do up there on the hill, Jake, but I truly didn't care for the excoriation of Republicans for opposing a 2500-page white paper Nancy Pelosi rammed through with the sly remark she made about just voting yes and don't worry about the fine print.

I'm going to support my fellow Republicans to the hilt so that that kind of stuff doesn't happen again. They're done being bullied to death by the left. I'm sorry it's not pleasant, but neither is the national debt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledeb, you would never see it coming.  As long as you don't rise up, you won't have to fear your neighbors.  As $$$ worth, you know you aren't worth a nickel to me, and that is the last I will talk about your near poverty.

This you will listen, hear?  Patriots are found from Republican to Independent to Democrat.  I don't like you whiny sneezy kind in my GOP, demonizing those with you disagree.  You are not mainstream.  Your racism is not mainstream.  Your political beliefs are not mainstream.  You will destroy the GOP if you nuts and extremists keep this up.

If that is you way, so be it.  We will simply build a new pre-Reagan party of which would have approved and let you minescule bunch of silly idjits go your merry way.  You can't do succeed because you don't have the numbers.


----------



## freedombecki

bigrebnc1775 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you aren't your words give you away. I am straight forword you use code words to get your message accross.
> 
> Even in this post you give yourself away.
> obama hasn't shown he cares about America and what it stood for. You support him you will get what you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake is a patriot, bigreb. He feels strongly for his party's causes.
> 
> Our country allows diversity in liberals and conservatives without questioning allegiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he isn't he's a piece of shit, and would never be a part of anything the bastard is a part of. I hate progressive liberals all should be given the black flag.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Jake Starkey is a very bright and a good man. He just has a strong opinion, and I'd give him some leeway. He may not be far off the mark, and his voice is an important one.
Face it, bigreb. You need to hear the different voices in America, and so do we all. If you don't listen now, you will possibly be hearing a huge groan by a very confused American public at the polls.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledeb speaks for almost nobody in numbers.  He is a racist and a militia nut who hates Obama and all of those he perceives who somehow have marginalized him and deprived him of his "due", whatever that is.

freedombecki, I applaud your desire to include littledeb in the decision making process, but he won't prove.  The rest of America is out of step, not him.


----------



## freedombecki

JakeStarkey said:


> littledeb speaks for almost nobody in numbers.  He is a racist and a militia nut who hates Obama and all of those he perceives who somehow have marginalized him and deprived him of his "due", whatever that is.
> 
> freedombecki, I applaud your desire to include littledeb in the decision making process, but he won't prove.  The rest of America is out of step, not him.



Jake, I come from a long line of military men, schoolmarms, judges, ministers, artillery specialists, native Americans, and revolutionary rabblerousers. I'm not better than a man who spent time taking genuine bologna from a master drill sergeant type in any given branch of the US military. He brings to the table strong opinions and a take-nothing-off-anyone spirit that has made the American military the best the world has ever known.

All I can say is, yes, he will prove. Just not in a way I could predict.

All I can do is pray for a spirit of brotherhood among Americans. We're going to need it if the Iran military follows through with their rhetoric about wiping out American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan with their newly-tested missiles and the type of warheads they are allegedly about a month away from clinching. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go to debkafiles dot com.

Best wishes to you in trying to do what you can to bring the dichotomous elements of our board to a meeting place. We're likely to take great casualties in the very near future, and men will be called to replace them from the body of the nation. Some will volunteer. North Carolina has a history of sending more than most states to war, because it's just in their blood to defend the country. I visited a civil war cemetary in Raleigh. I started crying when I read the ages listed on the tombstones.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

freedombecki said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake is a patriot, bigreb. He feels strongly for his party's causes.
> 
> Our country allows diversity in liberals and conservatives without questioning allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't he's a piece of shit, and would never be a part of anything the bastard is a part of. I hate progressive liberals all should be given the black flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true. Jake Starkey is a very bright and a good man. He just has a strong opinion, and I'd give him some leeway. He may not be far off the mark, and his voice is an important one.
> Face it, bigreb. You need to hear the different voices in America, and so do we all. If you don't listen now, you will possibly be hearing a huge groan by a very confused American public at the polls.
Click to expand...




> That's not true. Jake Starkey is a very bright and a good man.



All I can say is jake is not what he says he is. ask around. Watch who gives him thanks. They will be the far left progressive liberals. You haven't been here that long you'll learn.



> You need to hear the different voices in America



What the asshat says I will not listen too. If I want to listen to that I will go read the coummist manofesto He's a progressive liberal, or a troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey

freedombecki, anybody who disagrees with littledeb is a "far left progressive" liberal or a "coummist" (sic).   He is simply a Far Righty Extremest Fascist who drinks too much, who is a militia nut, who is a racist, and who drinks far too much.  But he does read everything I post.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't he's a piece of shit, and would never be a part of anything the bastard is a part of. I hate progressive liberals all should be given the black flag.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Jake Starkey is a very bright and a good man. He just has a strong opinion, and I'd give him some leeway. He may not be far off the mark, and his voice is an important one.
> Face it, bigreb. You need to hear the different voices in America, and so do we all. If you don't listen now, you will possibly be hearing a huge groan by a very confused American public at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Jake Starkey is a very bright and a good man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is jake is not what he says he is. ask around. Watch who gives him thanks. They will be the far left progressive liberals. You haven't been here that long you'll learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to hear the different voices in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the asshat says I will not listen too. If I want to listen to that I will go read the coummist manofesto He's a progressive liberal, or a troll.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true paranoid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AmerFascists like littledeb and the others are merely talking.  Not one of them would dare do anything that would get them shot down by LEO.  Not to worry.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> AmerFascists like littledeb and the others are merely talking.  Not one of them would dare do anything that would get them shot down by LEO.  Not to worry.



Well, we've seen that the Little Traitor likes to whine but won't dare report what he says is crimes....so we know he's a coward too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Jake Starkey is a very bright and a good man. He just has a strong opinion, and I'd give him some leeway. He may not be far off the mark, and his voice is an important one.
> Face it, bigreb. You need to hear the different voices in America, and so do we all. If you don't listen now, you will possibly be hearing a huge groan by a very confused American public at the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is jake is not what he says he is. ask around. Watch who gives him thanks. They will be the far left progressive liberals. You haven't been here that long you'll learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to hear the different voices in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the asshat says I will not listen too. If I want to listen to that I will go read the coummist manofesto He's a progressive liberal, or a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a dumb fucking piece of shit.
> What a waste of resources you are.
Click to expand...



*Using your post against you stupid boy go play with your transformers.*


Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njPUPo7tCbM]&#x202a;Transformers Robots in Disguise Episode 1-1 (HD)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good for you for finding a clip of RID.
> 
> doesnt detract from you being stupid, but keep it up.
> 
> maybe next time you can try a clip thats more modern....
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> snicker, little irrelevant internet poster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right..... just like the trash you post. One thing though I can back up what I say, can you?
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> good for you for finding a clip of RID.
> 
> doesnt detract from you being stupid, but keep it up.
> 
> maybe next time you can try a clip thats more modern....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i havent seen you back up shit. I've seen you run in circles in the face of facts.
> What you wanted was for people to come in here, Agree with you, validate your opinion as a fact and make you feel like a champ.
> 
> The reality is you are a hack. Just like a lot of other people with the internet. You think you matter, you dont.You dont deserve a seat at the table.You are too stupid to sit at it.
> 
> You are exactly what is wrong with this nation and are fucking it over with your stupidity.
> 
> Obama has done nothing to bring up Impeachment, but you wont see that because all you have is hate. The world has no use for people like you.
Click to expand...




> i havent seen you back up shit.



It takes a little common sens and an IQ higher than 65 to understand what you are agruing against You have neither.



> You are exactly what is wrong with this nation and are fucking it over with your stupidity.



I'm not a fucking progressive liberal. If you support obama and the rest of the statist you are the fucking problem.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Jake Starkey is a very bright and a good man. He just has a strong opinion, and I'd give him some leeway. He may not be far off the mark, and his voice is an important one.
> Face it, bigreb. You need to hear the different voices in America, and so do we all. If you don't listen now, you will possibly be hearing a huge groan by a very confused American public at the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is jake is not what he says he is. ask around. Watch who gives him thanks. They will be the far left progressive liberals. You haven't been here that long you'll learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to hear the different voices in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the asshat says I will not listen too. If I want to listen to that I will go read the coummist manofesto He's a progressive liberal, or a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true paranoid.
Click to expand...


You can't see the shit obama ad the government is doing to this country because you are just like obama. You can't help because you have a mental problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is jake is not what he says he is. ask around. Watch who gives him thanks. They will be the far left progressive liberals. You haven't been here that long you'll learn.
> 
> 
> 
> What the asshat says I will not listen too. If I want to listen to that I will go read the coummist manofesto He's a progressive liberal, or a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't see the shit obama ad the government is doing to this country because you are just like obama. You can't help because you have a mental problem.
Click to expand...


You are a fascist, a traitor, and a coward.  Your Alinksy rules for the right makes no sense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true paranoid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see the shit obama ad the government is doing to this country because you are just like obama. You can't help because you have a mental problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fascist, a traitor, and a coward.  Your Alinksy rules for the right makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Can you show one post that I have made that would make me a trator?
Can yoiu show one post that I have made that would make me a facist?
Can you show one post that I have made that would make me a coward?
I am none of the above unlike you I don't use progressive liberal code words.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true paranoid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see the shit obama ad the government is doing to this country because you are just like obama. You can't help because you have a mental problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha irony....
Click to expand...


Oh goody another stupid post from transformer boy with nothing to support his dibble.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is jake is not what he says he is. ask around. Watch who gives him thanks. They will be the far left progressive liberals. You haven't been here that long you'll learn.
> 
> 
> 
> What the asshat says I will not listen too. If I want to listen to that I will go read the coummist manofesto He's a progressive liberal, or a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't see the shit obama ad the government is doing to this country because you are just like obama. You can't help because you have a mental problem.
Click to expand...



Go ahead and tell us the "shit obama ad the government is doing to this country".


List it.  Don't just whine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see the shit obama ad the government is doing to this country because you are just like obama. You can't help because you have a mental problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fascist, a traitor, and a coward.  Your Alinksy rules for the right makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show one post that I have made that would make me a trator?
> Can yoiu show one post that I have made that would make me a facist?
> Can you show one post that I have made that would make me a coward?
> I am none of the above unlike you I don't use progressive liberal code words.
Click to expand...


littldeb, you are fascist code talker.  You hate electoral and constitutional process of the United States because it does not fit with what you want.  You are not bright enough to make your own decisions, so like a Brownshirt of Germany you are following the rowdy leaders.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fascist, a traitor, and a coward.  Your Alinksy rules for the right makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show one post that I have made that would make me a trator?
> Can yoiu show one post that I have made that would make me a facist?
> Can you show one post that I have made that would make me a coward?
> I am none of the above unlike you I don't use progressive liberal code words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> littldeb, you are fascist code talker.  You hate electoral and constitutional process of the United States because it does not fit with what you want.  You are not bright enough to make your own decisions, so like a Brownshirt of Germany you are following the rowdy leaders.
Click to expand...


I don't talk in code dipshit I call it like I see it,  

Here's the conclusion you're a troll and thats all you post here to piss people off. That is the only thing you live for because everything you have accused me of in the past have never once shown proof. You just post shit with nothing to support what you say. Maybe you should have stayed gone the last tiome I ran you off.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true paranoid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't see the shit obama ad the government is doing to this country because you are just like obama. You can't help because you have a mental problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead and tell us the "shit obama ad the government is doing to this country".
> 
> 
> List it.  Don't just whine.
Click to expand...


14 trillion dollars in debt and wanting to raise the credit limit. Are you that stupid to see he has fucked this country in which he has not lived all his life?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are a troll code talker who can't tell up from down, you little fascist.  The Board is on to what you freaks truly are like.  Just like a bunch of creepy men in creepy vans.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha irony....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody another stupid post from transformer boy with nothing to support his dibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using my hobby against me isn't going to.work.
> but you keep trying. Its like watching a retard trying to color in the lines
Click to expand...


Your Hobby? You play with children toy's?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You are a troll code talker who can't tell up from down, you little fascist.  The Board is on to what you freaks truly are like.  Just like a bunch of creepy men in creepy vans.



Then you have proof. What code words have I used?



> The Board is on to what you freaks truly are like.



So you speak for the board? Go away troll


----------



## JakeStarkey

Troll fascist code talkers who worship Alinksy's rules for radicals on the right just don't matter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Troll fascist code talkers who worship Alinksy's rules for radicals on the right just don't matter.



Proof please.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> I don't talk in code dipshit I call it like I see it,



As do I: 

Although youre none of the things you cited in post 485, you do have a comprehensive ignorance of Constitutional case law in general and the impeachment process in particular. Youre a reactionary right-wing extremist who in said ignorance has created this fantasy world of what you think the Constitution means, although this understanding has no basis in fact or reality.  

Youre a rightist partisan hack who cites no objective evidence in support of your positions (more than likely because there is no evidence to support) and the purpose of this thread was an attempt to disparage Obama that backfired on you miserably when confronted by the fact that Obama committed no impeachable offenses. 

Instead of conceding your failure like an adult you continued to indulge yourself in an infantile temper-tantrum insisting the president had indeed committed a crime by violating laws that arent even in existence. 

One can only hope this thread serves as a reminder to other conservatives and those on the right to research their facts first and get them straight before launching an attack on a hated political opponent.


----------



## yidnar

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
Click to expand...

 why isn't congress doing anything to stop him??? what would happen if he were forced from office?? we all know the answer THE RACE CARD!!! RIOTS AND CIVIL UNREST!!!and Obama's sorry ass knows it.When he looses in 2012 the American people are finally going to see how anti American certain supporters of the left wing party really are.Their will be riots and Obama knows it,and he is going to promote it.If you think that arrogant  bastard is going to leave office peacefully i've got some free health care for ya!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar is projecting far righty extremist crap on those with whom he disagrees.  yid up, yidnar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I don't talk in code dipshit I call it like I see it,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do I:
> 
> Although youre none of the things you cited in post 485, you do have a comprehensive ignorance of Constitutional case law in general and the impeachment process in particular. Youre a reactionary right-wing extremist who in said ignorance has created this fantasy world of what you think the Constitution means, although this understanding has no basis in fact or reality.
> 
> Youre a rightist partisan hack who cites no objective evidence in support of your positions (more than likely because there is no evidence to support) and the purpose of this thread was an attempt to disparage Obama that backfired on you miserably when confronted by the fact that Obama committed no impeachable offenses.
> 
> Instead of conceding your failure like an adult you continued to indulge yourself in an infantile temper-tantrum insisting the president had indeed committed a crime by violating laws that arent even in existence.
> 
> One can only hope this thread serves as a reminder to other conservatives and those on the right to research their facts first and get them straight before launching an attack on a hated political opponent.
Click to expand...




> Although youre none of the things you cited in post 485, you do have a comprehensive ignorance of Constitutional case law in general and the impeachment process in particular.


It is you who is lacking in understanding the Constitution and laws, Just like the "law professor" obama. Remember when he tried to force the bank to make CEO's give back their binding contract support bonuss? Why do we have a congress if the president can make the rules as he wishes when amensty was not passed in congress?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using my hobby against me isn't going to.work.
> but you keep trying. Its like watching a retard trying to color in the lines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Hobby? You play with children toy's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah so?
> Unlike you I don't go around plotting how to remove obama.
Click to expand...


Any enemy of the American way of life should be removed including progressive liberals.


----------



## bodecea

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using my hobby against me isn't going to.work.
> but you keep trying. Its like watching a retard trying to color in the lines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Hobby? You play with children toy's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah so?
> Unlike you I don't go around plotting how to remove obama.
Click to expand...


No, what he does is whine about Obama breaking laws...but not having the balls to actually report him for these so called crimes.

And then, when called on his lack of back bone, he talks about toys.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Hobby? You play with children toy's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so?
> Unlike you I don't go around plotting how to remove obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any enemy of the American way of life should be removed including progressive liberals.
Click to expand...


Under what laws?   Here you are whining again...how about some action.  Make some police reports...and don't forget to tell the police what crimes you want people "removed" for.


----------



## bodecea

yidnar said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why isn't congress doing anything to stop him??? what would happen if he were forced from office?? we all know the answer THE RACE CARD!!! RIOTS AND CIVIL UNREST!!!and Obama's sorry ass knows it.When he looses in 2012 the American people are finally going to see how anti American certain supporters of the left wing party really are.Their will be riots and Obama knows it,and he is going to promote it.If you think that arrogant  bastard is going to leave office peacefully i've got some free health care for ya!!
Click to expand...


Ah.  The Race Card Card again.


----------



## yidnar

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I don't talk in code dipshit I call it like I see it,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do I:
> 
> Although youre none of the things you cited in post 485, you do have a comprehensive ignorance of Constitutional case law in general and the impeachment process in particular. Youre a reactionary right-wing extremist who in said ignorance has created this fantasy world of what you think the Constitution means, although this understanding has no basis in fact or reality.
> 
> Youre a rightist partisan hack who cites no objective evidence in support of your positions (more than likely because there is no evidence to support) and the purpose of this thread was an attempt to disparage Obama that backfired on you miserably when confronted by the fact that Obama committed no impeachable offenses.
> 
> Instead of conceding your failure like an adult you continued to indulge yourself in an infantile temper-tantrum insisting the president had indeed committed a crime by violating laws that arent even in existence.
> 
> One can only hope this thread serves as a reminder to other conservatives and those on the right to research their facts first and get them straight before launching an attack on a hated political opponent.
Click to expand...

 where in the constitution does the government have the power to force bailouts on states and business???where in the constitution is government allowed to force Obama care on people that do not want it. if these are not impeachable violations like you claim they are not,then he should at least be kicked out for incompetence.He will go down as one of the worst US presidents in history all of his policies will be scrapped and very soon even his own party will abandon his sorry ass!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> why isn't congress doing anything to stop him??? what would happen if he were forced from office?? we all know the answer THE RACE CARD!!! RIOTS AND CIVIL UNREST!!!and Obama's sorry ass knows it.When he looses in 2012 the American people are finally going to see how anti American certain supporters of the left wing party really are.Their will be riots and Obama knows it,and he is going to promote it.If you think that arrogant bastard is going to leave office peacefully i've got some free health care for ya!!



A new conservative member representing the right well.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> yidnar is projecting far righty extremist crap on those with whom he disagrees.  yid up, yidnar.


 hey dumb ass you know i am right you know blacks are going to riot when he looses fair and square in 2012.name one black leader of a country that was voted out that left  peacefully.better yet name one black country that is doing well and is not a 3rd world shithole..:


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Hobby? You play with children toy's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so?
> Unlike you I don't go around plotting how to remove obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what he does is whine about Obama breaking laws...but not having the balls to actually report him for these so called crimes.
> 
> And then, when called on his lack of back bone, he talks about toys.
Click to expand...


how many homes have you broke into pirate?


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't talk in code dipshit I call it like I see it,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do I:
> 
> Although youre none of the things you cited in post 485, you do have a comprehensive ignorance of Constitutional case law in general and the impeachment process in particular. Youre a reactionary right-wing extremist who in said ignorance has created this fantasy world of what you think the Constitution means, although this understanding has no basis in fact or reality.
> 
> Youre a rightist partisan hack who cites no objective evidence in support of your positions (more than likely because there is no evidence to support) and the purpose of this thread was an attempt to disparage Obama that backfired on you miserably when confronted by the fact that Obama committed no impeachable offenses.
> 
> Instead of conceding your failure like an adult you continued to indulge yourself in an infantile temper-tantrum insisting the president had indeed committed a crime by violating laws that arent even in existence.
> 
> One can only hope this thread serves as a reminder to other conservatives and those on the right to research their facts first and get them straight before launching an attack on a hated political opponent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where in the constitution does the government have the power to force bailouts on states and business???where in the constitution is government allowed to force Obama care on people that do not want it. if these are not impeachable violations like you claim they are not,then he should at least be kicked out for incompetence.He will go down as one of the worst US presidents in history all of his policies will be scrapped and very soon even his own party will abandon his sorry ass!!
Click to expand...


The Congress and the Courts jointly make those decisions, with the Courts having the final say.

You don't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar is projecting far righty extremist crap on those with whom he disagrees.  yid up, yidnar.
> 
> 
> 
> hey dumb ass you know i am right you know blacks are going to riot when he looses fair and square in 2012.name one black leader of a country that was voted out that left  peacefully.better yet name one black country that is doing well and is not a 3rd world shithole..:
Click to expand...


Your brains have melted, just like littledebFascist's.  This is an American country, kiddo, not black or white or green or yellow or (fascist)brown.  No riot will happen.  If BHO loses, guess, what a lot of presidents did, and only the fuckin' South acted stupidly about it, stupidly enough to cause 600K deaths.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so?
> Unlike you I don't go around plotting how to remove obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any enemy of the American way of life should be removed including progressive liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah good, you keep on that, i am sure the FBI will be over shortly you fucking Psycho
Click to expand...


At least I don't play with little children toys. If I am psycho for standing up for my right  bring'em on. If standing up for your right's is psycho then I am a physco, I am as psycho as the founding fathers were.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do I:
> 
> Although you&#8217;re none of the things you cited in post 485, you do have a comprehensive ignorance of Constitutional case law in general and the impeachment process in particular. You&#8217;re a reactionary right-wing extremist who in said ignorance has created this fantasy world of what you think the Constitution means, although this &#8216;understanding&#8217; has no basis in fact or reality.
> 
> You&#8217;re a rightist partisan hack who cites no objective evidence in support of your positions (more than likely because there is no evidence to support) and the purpose of this thread was an attempt to disparage Obama that backfired on you miserably when confronted by the fact that Obama committed no impeachable offenses.
> 
> Instead of conceding your failure like an adult you continued to indulge yourself in an infantile temper-tantrum insisting the president had indeed committed a crime by violating laws that aren&#8217;t even in existence.
> 
> One can only hope this thread serves as a reminder to other conservatives and those on the right to research their facts first and get them straight before launching an attack on a hated political opponent.
> 
> 
> 
> where in the constitution does the government have the power to force bailouts on states and business???where in the constitution is government allowed to force Obama care on people that do not want it. if these are not impeachable violations like you claim they are not,then he should at least be kicked out for incompetence.He will go down as one of the worst US presidents in history all of his policies will be scrapped and very soon even his own party will abandon his sorry ass!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress and the Courts jointly make those decisions, with the Courts having the final say.
> 
> You don't.
Click to expand...

 BULL SHIT!!!!! they work for the American people and we reject this piece of walking talking lying rev Wright loving anti American piece of SHIT!!! you know he is hurting America and you love it!!It's payback time for intelligent hard working innovative people that constantly out work,out score,out produce animals like you,you think you have us reeling on the ropes,make no mistake the only thing that is reeling and about to go down for the count are socialist,affirmative action loving,pass the plait and raise THEIR TAXES not MINE,libbtards like you.and when you riot in 2012 and you will RIOT it will be the end of your political clout and party as you know it!!!: [they may make the laws but we can vote them out]                                                clap2:


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.


typical hypocritical left wing homo talking out of hiss bleeding ass.the  insurrection will start in the form of flash mobs and riots when you loose in 2012.YOU WILL LOOSE AND YOU WILL RIOT!!!and you will finally understand who the true protectors of freedom are in this country because you will earn your fate!!! talking about non violence with a picture of Palins head mounted above a fire place. if i had a picture of Obama's nappy small peanut head [small container] i would be labeled a racist ,but you know what?? i used to  fear being  labeled that [ NOT ANYMORE ]it's old and tired and the left has used it as a cowardly weapon so much people don't pay it any attention anymore we expect to be called racist for disagreeing with high spending and raising taxes,things that have nothing to do ..with race,but is slung around by libbtards who have no viable defence for their failed policies.So whats good for the goose is good for the libbs ...................that's for you.


----------



## pubrela

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
Click to expand...


Yep...dangerous precedent


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> where in the constitution does the government have the power to force bailouts on states and business???where in the constitution is government allowed to force Obama care on people that do not want it. if these are not impeachable violations like you claim they are not,then he should at least be kicked out for incompetence.He will go down as one of the worst US presidents in history all of his policies will be scrapped and very soon even his own party will abandon his sorry ass!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress and the Courts jointly make those decisions, with the Courts having the final say.
> 
> You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULL SHIT!!!!! they work for the American people and we reject this piece of walking talking lying rev Wright loving anti American piece of SHIT!!! you know he is hurting America and you love it!!It's payback time for intelligent hard working innovative people that constantly out work,out score,out produce animals like you,you think you have us reeling on the ropes,make no mistake the only thing that is reeling and about to go down for the count are socialist,affirmative action loving,pass the plait and raise THEIR TAXES not MINE,libbtards like you.and when you riot in 2012 and you will RIOT it will be the end of your political clout and party as you know it!!!: [they may make the laws but we can vote them out]                                                clap2:
Click to expand...


A very, very few of the wacks like you don't approve.  You have little or no power about it.  The nice thing is that you get to yell about it.  Yell all you want.  But you won't be voting any laws out after 2012.  You don't have the numbers.  And, oh? . . . yes, the Courts have the final say, not you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> typical hypocritical left wing homo talking out of hiss bleeding ass.the  insurrection will start in the form of flash mobs and riots when you loose in 2012.YOU WILL LOOSE AND YOU WILL RIOT!!!and you will finally understand who the true protectors of freedom are in this country because you will earn your fate!!! talking about non violence with a picture of Palins head mounted above a fire place. if i had a picture of Obama's nappy small peanut head [small container] i would be labeled a racist ,but you know what?? i used to  fear being  labeled that [ NOT ANYMORE ]it's old and tired and the left has used it as a cowardly weapon so much people don't pay it any attention anymore we expect to be called racist for disagreeing with high spending and raising taxes,things that have nothing to do ..with race,but is slung around by libbtards who have no viable defence for their failed policies.So whats good for the goose is good for the libbs ...................that's for you.
Click to expand...


Stop yelling like a fascist Brownshirt.  You Righty Extreme Fascists scare no one now, and you never will.  End of your story is already written: failure.


----------



## bodecea

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so?
> Unlike you I don't go around plotting how to remove obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any enemy of the American way of life should be removed including progressive liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah good, you keep on that, i am sure the FBI will be over shortly you fucking Psycho
Click to expand...


That would give him an excellent opportunity for him to tell them all about Obama's crimes....


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any enemy of the American way of life should be removed including progressive liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah good, you keep on that, i am sure the FBI will be over shortly you fucking Psycho
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I don't play with little children toys. If I am psycho for standing up for my right  bring'em on. If standing up for your right's is psycho then I am a physco, I am as psycho as the founding fathers were.
Click to expand...




You are fixated on other people's avatars and you translate an avatar as "playing with little children toys"....no wonder you're


----------



## bodecea

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> typical hypocritical left wing homo talking out of hiss bleeding ass.the  insurrection will start in the form of flash mobs and riots when you loose in 2012.YOU WILL LOOSE AND YOU WILL RIOT!!!and you will finally understand who the true protectors of freedom are in this country because you will earn your fate!!! talking about non violence* with a picture of Palins head mounted above a fire place*. if i had a picture of Obama's nappy small peanut head [small container] i would be labeled a racist ,but you know what?? i used to  fear being  labeled that [ NOT ANYMORE ]it's old and tired and the left has used it as a cowardly weapon so much people don't pay it any attention anymore we expect to be called racist for disagreeing with high spending and raising taxes,things that have nothing to do ..with race,but is slung around by libbtards who have no viable defence for their failed policies.So whats good for the goose is good for the libbs ...................that's for you.
Click to expand...


Who has an avatar like that, Skippy?  Your powers of observation leave a great deal to be desired, I must say.


----------



## Lasher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



To answer the question - AIPAC hasn't told Congress to move.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> typical hypocritical left wing homo talking out of hiss bleeding ass.the  insurrection will start in the form of flash mobs and riots when you loose in 2012.YOU WILL LOOSE AND YOU WILL RIOT!!!and you will finally understand who the true protectors of freedom are in this country because you will earn your fate!!! talking about non violence with a picture of Palins head mounted above a fire place. if i had a picture of Obama's nappy small peanut head [small container] i would be labeled a racist ,but you know what?? i used to  fear being  labeled that [ NOT ANYMORE ]it's old and tired and the left has used it as a cowardly weapon so much people don't pay it any attention anymore we expect to be called racist for disagreeing with high spending and raising taxes,things that have nothing to do ..with race,but is slung around by libbtards who have no viable defence for their failed policies.So whats good for the goose is good for the libbs ...................that's for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yelling like a fascist Brownshirt.  You Righty Extreme Fascists scare no one now, and you never will.  End of your story is already written: failure.
Click to expand...

 Hitler was a fascist .and even though after Pearl Harbor Roosevelt was [forced ] to finally confront Germany.the vast majority of military defenders in this country now and then are people with honorable conservative values.WE.... defeated fascism not yellow bellied left wing cowards like you!!!! do you honestly think GEN PATTON would agree with the lefts point of view??and as far as # go in the election in 2012 let me enlighten your ignorant ass on a few things.the left will get all the gay vote,the black vote,half of the Hispanic vote,the lazy welfare slob GIBBS MUH DATT vote,and white guilt ridden idiot coward votes,and acooon will help dead people vote again,and a few all the worthless pieces of tootoo wearing freak shits will vote for you.THIS IS YOUR VOTER BASE AND YOU KNOW IT"S TRUE!!!!we on the other hand will have millions of conservatives, and hard working small business owners,white veterans[which out number minority vets 8 to one and that's a damn fact !!!] the elderly[Obama wants to increase spending on medicaid but cut medicare] will turn out in mass droves,and most importantly moderate democrats and indepedents that made the shameful mistake in voting for him in the 1st place are not going to do it again.WE WILL WIN BY A LAND SLIDE!!!!the only accomplishments the looser left will have done is provided America a census on all the freaks, leaches,extreme left wing communist,and frauds we have in this country.SEE YOU AT YOUR RIOTS IN 2012 I'LL BE ONE OF THE PEOPLE KEEPING THE PIECE.  P.S.YOUR PEOPLE WILL RIOT!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.

General Patton, as right wing as he was, would put you on night guard for being so stupid.  

Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.

You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool.  Dismissed.

Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.


----------



## Lasher

JakeStarkey said:


> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.



Doesn't the Constitution mention something about  "... whenever any Form of Government becomes becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Yep...dangerous precedent



Its been around since 1789 and used by presidents of all parties  rather late to complain about it now; and of course if Obama were a republican wed hear no complaints at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the Constitution mention something about  "... whenever any Form of Government becomes becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" ?
Click to expand...


But the government is not destructive of these ends, Lasher.  You are merely pissed off you are in the minority.  This government was constitutionally and electorally validated by the We the People.  Your duty is to change it politically, not by violence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yep...dangerous precedent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been around since 1789 and used by presidents of all parties  rather late to complain about it now; and of course if Obama were a republican wed hear no complaints at all.
Click to expand...


yep


----------



## Lasher

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the Constitution mention something about  "... whenever any Form of Government becomes becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the government is not destructive of these ends, Lasher.  You are merely pissed off you are in the minority.  This government was constitutionally and electorally validated by the We the People.  Your duty is to change it politically, not by violence.
Click to expand...


To which ends are you referring?  If they are the ones in the Preamble, it says it is our right, our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for our future security; does that sound like voting for such entrenched despots as we are subjected to every election day?  To me it sounds like a call to arms just as it did to those who signed that document.


----------



## bodecea

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the Constitution mention something about  "... whenever any Form of Government becomes becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the government is not destructive of these ends, Lasher.  You are merely pissed off you are in the minority.  This government was constitutionally and electorally validated by the We the People.  Your duty is to change it politically, not by violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which ends are you referring?  *If they are the ones in the Preamble*, it says it is our right, our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for our future security; does that sound like voting for such entrenched despots as we are subjected to every election day?  To me it sounds like a call to arms just as it did to those who signed that document.
Click to expand...

The Preamble?    

You are quoting the Declaration of Independence....not the Preamble.

BTW...the Dec of Ind also says this:



> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;



You lack prudence, indeed.   You want to have a revolution over light and transient causes.....because YOU don't like the duely elected President.   Bummer.


----------



## Lasher

bodecea said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the government is not destructive of these ends, Lasher.  You are merely pissed off you are in the minority.  This government was constitutionally and electorally validated by the We the People.  Your duty is to change it politically, not by violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To which ends are you referring?  *If they are the ones in the Preamble*, it says it is our right, our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for our future security; does that sound like voting for such entrenched despots as we are subjected to every election day?  To me it sounds like a call to arms just as it did to those who signed that document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Preamble?
> 
> You are quoting the Declaration of Independence....not the Preamble.
> 
> BTW...the Dec of Ind also says this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack prudence, indeed.   You want to have a revolution over light and transient causes.....because YOU don't like the duely elected President.   Bummer.
Click to expand...


I don't know which preamble you are thinking of, old sport, but the one I refer to is the one to that very document - the Declaration of Independence. 

If it is your opinion that the troubles facing America today are light and transient, you must be living  with Alice in Wonderland.  

The "duly" elected oaf we are presently suffering under is a sham, a mountebank and a charlatan who is being used by the NWO for its nefarious purposes, and those who can't see that are blind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Lasher, you have no cause for revolution.

You are simply unhappy our candidate lost.  We try again next year.  That's how it is done.

When people stand up in our county and city Republican meetings, we let your type talk for 30 seconds then sit you down, and get about the real meaning of our meetings: how to responsibly push our party's principles without sounding like idiots.


----------



## bodecea

Lasher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> To which ends are you referring?  *If they are the ones in the Preamble*, it says it is our right, our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for our future security; does that sound like voting for such entrenched despots as we are subjected to every election day?  To me it sounds like a call to arms just as it did to those who signed that document.
> 
> 
> 
> The Preamble?
> 
> You are quoting the Declaration of Independence....not the Preamble.
> 
> BTW...the Dec of Ind also says this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack prudence, indeed.   You want to have a revolution over light and transient causes.....because YOU don't like the duely elected President.   Bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know which preamble you are thinking of, old sport, but the one I refer to is the one to that very document - the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> If it is your opinion that the troubles facing America today are light and transient, you must be living  with Alice in Wonderland.
> 
> The "duly" elected oaf we are presently suffering under is a sham, a mountebank and a charlatan who is being used by the NWO for its nefarious purposes, and those who can't see that are blind.
Click to expand...


There is only one Preamble...with a capital "P" (as you used) and that is at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution:



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




But, keep whining....it's what people like you seem to have going for you...the only thing you have had going for you the last few years....and whining is SUCH a compelling argument, don't you think?


----------



## Lasher

JakeStarkey said:


> No, Lasher, you have no cause for revolution.
> 
> You are simply unhappy our candidate lost.  We try again next year.  That's how it is done.
> 
> When people stand up in our county and city Republican meetings, we let your type talk for 30 seconds then sit you down, and get about the real meaning of our meetings: how to responsibly push our party's principles without sounding like idiots.



John Glenn was no candidate of mine, he was nominated to run against Obama for the very reason he was the weakest, wishy-washiest, most uncommitted one in the field.  Unlike you sycophants who vote for party, Lasher is not one to select the better of two evils.  If they are both evil, Lash doesn't vote for either.

Lasher would like to see someone without authority to do so try and sit Him down, Starkey.  You talk a big talk, but do you walk the walk, old bean?


----------



## Lasher

bodecea said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Preamble?
> 
> You are quoting the Declaration of Independence....not the Preamble.
> 
> BTW...the Dec of Ind also says this:
> 
> 
> 
> You lack prudence, indeed.   You want to have a revolution over light and transient causes.....because YOU don't like the duely elected President.   Bummer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know which preamble you are thinking of, old sport, but the one I refer to is the one to that very document - the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> If it is your opinion that the troubles facing America today are light and transient, you must be living  with Alice in Wonderland.
> 
> The "duly" elected oaf we are presently suffering under is a sham, a mountebank and a charlatan who is being used by the NWO for its nefarious purposes, and those who can't see that are blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one Preamble...with a capital "P" (as you used) and that is at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, keep whining....it's what people like you seem to have going for you...the only thing you have had going for you the last few years....and whining is SUCH a compelling argument, don't you think?
Click to expand...


My capitalizing "preamble" is no more indicative of ignorance than your spelling of "duly," so don't get on your high-horse with Lasher.

Most intelligent people know that when someone like you starts resorting to trying to ridicule with words such as "whining," they are admitting they realize they have little knowledge of whatever subject they are defending.  

Your obvious anger and state of being upset shows the world just how thin your thoughts are.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lasher, old bean, you are a sick head, aren't you?


----------



## Lasher

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher, old bean, you are a sick head, aren't you?



You finally realize you are no match for Lasher in the wits department, don't you, little man?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lasher, you have neither wits nor snits.  You are here for grin and chuckles.


----------



## bodecea

Lasher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know which preamble you are thinking of, old sport, but the one I refer to is the one to that very document - the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> If it is your opinion that the troubles facing America today are light and transient, you must be living  with Alice in Wonderland.
> 
> The "duly" elected oaf we are presently suffering under is a sham, a mountebank and a charlatan who is being used by the NWO for its nefarious purposes, and those who can't see that are blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Preamble...with a capital "P" (as you used) and that is at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, keep whining....it's what people like you seem to have going for you...the only thing you have had going for you the last few years....and whining is SUCH a compelling argument, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My capitalizing "preamble" is no more indicative of ignorance than your spelling of "duly," so don't get on your high-horse with Lasher.
> 
> Most intelligent people know that when someone like you starts resorting to trying to ridicule with words such as "whining," they are admitting they realize they have little knowledge of whatever subject they are defending.
> 
> *Your obvious anger and state of being upset *shows the world just how thin your thoughts are.
Click to expand...


I wish to congratulate you for perhaps the most severe case of Reflection I've seen in months here.


----------



## Lasher

bodecea said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Preamble...with a capital "P" (as you used) and that is at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, keep whining....it's what people like you seem to have going for you...the only thing you have had going for you the last few years....and whining is SUCH a compelling argument, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My capitalizing "preamble" is no more indicative of ignorance than your spelling of "duly," so don't get on your high-horse with Lasher.
> 
> Most intelligent people know that when someone like you starts resorting to trying to ridicule with words such as "whining," they are admitting they realize they have little knowledge of whatever subject they are defending.
> 
> *Your obvious anger and state of being upset *shows the world just how thin your thoughts are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish to congratulate you for perhaps the most severe case of Reflection I've seen in months here.
Click to expand...


And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport.  Don't be so angry.


----------



## bodecea

Lasher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My capitalizing "preamble" is no more indicative of ignorance than your spelling of "duly," so don't get on your high-horse with Lasher.
> 
> Most intelligent people know that when someone like you starts resorting to trying to ridicule with words such as "whining," they are admitting they realize they have little knowledge of whatever subject they are defending.
> 
> *Your obvious anger and state of being upset *shows the world just how thin your thoughts are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish to congratulate you for perhaps the most severe case of Reflection I've seen in months here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport.  Don't be so angry.
Click to expand...

And pray tell, how did I deflect?   (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)


----------



## Lasher

bodecea said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish to congratulate you for perhaps the most severe case of Reflection I've seen in months here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport.  Don't be so angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And pray tell, how did I deflect?   (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)
Click to expand...


You're really dim, aren't you, old sport?  Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect.  Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.

Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous.   Grow up.


----------



## bodecea

Lasher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport.  Don't be so angry.
> 
> 
> 
> And pray tell, how did I deflect?   (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really dim, aren't you, old sport?  Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect.  Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.
> 
> Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous.   Grow up.
Click to expand...


   You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.   



This is parody, right?


----------



## Lasher

bodecea said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And pray tell, how did I deflect?   (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're really dim, aren't you, old sport?  Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect.  Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.
> 
> Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous.   Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.
> 
> 
> 
> This is parody, right?
Click to expand...

OMG!!  What will you say next?  "I know you are, but what am I?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lasher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're really dim, aren't you, old sport?  Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect.  Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.
> 
> Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous.   Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.
> 
> 
> 
> This is parody, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG!!  What will you say next?  "I know you are, but what am I?"
Click to expand...


Lash, old spleen, you are projecting.  That's putting your inner angst and unhappiness on others.  Bodecea is having good fun with you, rightly so.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.
> 
> 
> 
> This is parody, right?
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!  What will you say next?  "I know you are, but what am I?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lash, old spleen, you are projecting.  That's putting your inner angst and unhappiness on others.  Bodecea is having good fun with you, rightly so.
Click to expand...


It's like the Onion and the old National Lampoon all rolled up into one poster.


----------



## Lasher

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!  What will you say next?  "I know you are, but what am I?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lash, old spleen, you are projecting.  That's putting your inner angst and unhappiness on others.  Bodecea is having good fun with you, rightly so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like the Onion and the old National Lampoon all rolled up into one poster.
Click to expand...


It's hard getting happy again after a lashing, isn't it old sport? LOL!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lasher is lashing himself!  Oh,my, how much fun!!


----------



## Lasher

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher is lashing himself!  Oh,my, how much fun!!



You can't read, either, can you?


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher is lashing himself!  Oh,my, how much fun!!



I bet he's into leather too....but please stay away from those ass-less chaps.....please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher is lashing himself!  Oh,my, how much fun!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet he's into leather too....but please stay away from those ass-less chaps.....please.
Click to expand...


Sweaty man ass might be Lasher's get go, bodecea!  I think he gave himself away!


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> General Patton, as right wing as he was, would put you on night guard for being so stupid.
> 
> Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool.  Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.


What????52% of the white vote???aaahhh  hhhaaa hhaaa ooohhh hooo hooo ha ha ha hee hee hee!trust me his black ass is finished !!! SEE YOU AT YOUR RIOTS!!


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> General Patton, as right wing as he was, would put you on night guard for being so stupid.
> 
> Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool.  Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.


What????52% of the white vote???aaahhh  hhhaaa hhaaa ooohhh hooo hooo ha ha ha hee hee hee!trust me his black ass is finished !!! SEE YOU AT YOUR RIOTS!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Yidnar's first lie exposed: *The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.

*Yidnar's second lie exposed: *Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.

You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.

You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.

Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Summary of the thread and some afterthoughts: 

With regard to Libya, as we know from _Dellums v. Bush_ (1990) the courts will not get involved in a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches as Congress has no objective standing. But there is something else Congress can do: it may use its constitutionally mandated authority to defund military programs. It can be inferred and argued, therefore, that by not defunding the Libya operation, Congress has given its de facto approval of the action and there would be no grounds for impeachment. Indeed, how can the president be accused of &#8216;defying&#8217; the will of the people if Congress itself refuses to acknowledge that same desire by not defunding military operations for Libya.

In the case of the Dream Act, the president clearly has settled Constitutional case law on his side. In _Plyler v. Doe _(1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that forbade undocumented children from attending public school. In _Weber v. Aetna Insurance _(1972), the Court ruled that children may not be punished for the criminal or irresponsible acts of their parents. It can be argued, therefore, that it is Congress in violation of the law by not passing the Dream Act, not the president. 

And with regard to the president&#8217;s &#8216;EPA thugs,&#8217; not only did the Court rule in _Connecticut v. American Electric Power_ (2011) that the EPA is constitutionally authorized regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was unanimous: 


> The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Monday a lawsuit by six states that were suing five major power companies for emitting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
> 
> In a victory for the utilities and President Obama's administration, the high court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency -- not the courts -- should place restrictions on such heat-trapping emissions. It reversed a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that would have allowed federal judges to issue restrictions.
> 
> "The critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation is what displaces federal common law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a decision on behalf of the court, which voted 8-0 against the states. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself, because she had sat on the appeals court panel that heard the case. Ginsburg also said the states and conservation groups can go to federal court if they object to the EPA's eventual rules.
> 
> Supreme Court backs EPA over states on climate change - Green House - USATODAY.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Summary of the thread and some afterthoughts:
> 
> With regard to Libya, as we know from _Dellums v. Bush_ (1990) the courts will not get involved in a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches as Congress has no objective standing. But there is something else Congress can do: it may use its constitutionally mandated authority to defund military programs. It can be inferred and argued, therefore, that by not defunding the Libya operation, Congress has given its de facto approval of the action and there would be no grounds for impeachment. Indeed, how can the president be accused of defying the will of the people if Congress itself refuses to acknowledge that same desire by not defunding military operations for Libya.
> 
> In the case of the Dream Act, the president clearly has settled Constitutional case law on his side. In _Plyler v. Doe _(1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that forbade undocumented children from attending public school. In _Weber v. Aetna Insurance _(1972), the Court ruled that children may not be punished for the criminal or irresponsible acts of their parents. It can be argued, therefore, that it is Congress in violation of the law by not passing the Dream Act, not the president.
> 
> And with regard to the presidents EPA thugs, not only did the Court rule in _Connecticut v. American Electric Power_ (2011) that the EPA is constitutionally authorized regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was unanimous:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Monday a lawsuit by six states that were suing five major power companies for emitting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
> 
> In a victory for the utilities and President Obama's administration, the high court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency -- not the courts -- should place restrictions on such heat-trapping emissions. It reversed a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that would have allowed federal judges to issue restrictions.
> 
> "The critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation is what displaces federal common law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a decision on behalf of the court, which voted 8-0 against the states. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself, because she had sat on the appeals court panel that heard the case. Ginsburg also said the states and conservation groups can go to federal court if they object to the EPA's eventual rules.
> 
> Supreme Court backs EPA over states on climate change - Green House - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...




> With regard to Libya, as we know from _Dellums v. Bush_ (1990)


Bush had congressional aproval or doesn't the congressional vote count?

Decision
Denied Dellums' request for an injunction against presidential military action by ruling that the dispute over massive U.S. troop build-up in the Persian Gulf region was not ready for judicial attention.
Dellums v. Bush: Great American Court Cases


What you posted in regards to the court case mneans nothing because Bush had congressional approval and according to the Decision



> was not ready for judicial attention.






> In the case of the Dream Act, the president clearly has settled Constitutional case law on his side. In _Plyler v. Doe _(1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that forbade undocumented children from attending public school.



Once again the president becomes a dictator when he can by-pass congress and create his own rules even when congress could pass what the dictator gave an dictator stamp to.I real don't give a shit how many court case's you use. 1982 How many carter appointee's were setting on the bench?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.



Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.
Click to expand...


You'll whine them to death.  We know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.
Click to expand...


If you behave and follow the law, and merely yell like a canting fascist, no one cares.  You are issuing terroristic threats to LEO here.  You know that is unlawful.  That is stupid.


----------



## Lasher

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.
> 
> 
> 
> This is parody, right?
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!  What will you say next?  "I know you are, but what am I?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lash, old spleen, you are projecting.  That's putting your inner angst and unhappiness on others.  Bodecea is having good fun with you, rightly so.
Click to expand...


You two need to rent a room.


----------



## Lasher

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher is lashing himself!  Oh,my, how much fun!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet he's into leather too....but please stay away from those ass-less chaps.....please.
Click to expand...


What are assless chaps, old chap, the sort you assless chaps wear to the gay bars?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lasher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher is lashing himself!  Oh,my, how much fun!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet he's into leather too....but please stay away from those ass-less chaps.....please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are assless chaps, old chap, the sort you assless chaps wear to the gay bars?
Click to expand...


This from Lasher who lusts after sweaty man ass.


----------



## Lasher

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet he's into leather too....but please stay away from those ass-less chaps.....please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are assless chaps, old chap, the sort you assless chaps wear to the gay bars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from Lasher who lusts after sweaty man ass.
Click to expand...


That was probably the weakest reply of the day.


----------



## Disenchanted61

Is the title to this post rhetorical?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you.  Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you behave and follow the law, and merely yell like a canting fascist, no one cares.  You are issuing terroristic threats to LEO here.  You know that is unlawful.  That is stupid.
Click to expand...


Behave? I'm an Adult, I don't behave children behave. If my rights are trampeled on I will fight back. Your Statist is showing.



> You are issuing terroristic threats to LEO here



One more time statist if they come to my  house My domain my proprety I don't give a shit who they are I will treat them like any home invader and will drop them on the first shot. That is if they come warrantless but if they have a warrant they will have a reason, they don't have one nor will they ever have one.



> You know that is unlawful.



This isn't Russia yet if they aren't welcomed by me in my domain I will drop them like a hot potato.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are assless chaps, old chap, the sort you assless chaps wear to the gay bars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from Lasher who lusts after sweaty man ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was probably the weakest reply of the day.
Click to expand...


And it was one of your last, was it not?


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you behave and follow the law, and merely yell like a canting fascist, no one cares.  You are issuing terroristic threats to LEO here.  You know that is unlawful.  That is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behave? I'm an Adult, I don't behave children behave. If my rights are trampeled on I will fight back. Your Statist is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are issuing terroristic threats to LEO here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time statist if they come to my  house My domain my proprety I don't give a shit who they are I will treat them like any home invader and will drop them on the first shot. That is if they come warrantless but if they have a warrant they will have a reason, they don't have one nor will they ever have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that is unlawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't Russia yet if they aren't welcomed by me in my domain I will drop them like a hot potato.
Click to expand...


How's that reporting Obama for breaking the law doing?


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> *Yidnar's first lie exposed: *The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> *Yidnar's second lie exposed: *Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.


 palin or bachman don't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination you stupid piece of dog shit!


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> *Yidnar's first lie exposed: *The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> *Yidnar's second lie exposed: *Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.


Fools??is that what liberals like you think American's are??FDR WAS A SOCIALIST TYRANT THAT SPENT 16 YRS IN OFFICE !!he had i repeat he had no intention of getting involved in world war 2.pearl harbor you idiot forced him to get off of his commy ass!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

FDR was certainly unlike any president before or after.  Ronnie was like a teenager, George W like a toddler.  You have no  idea about the American public's sense of isolation, or just how FDR guided the US to be ready for war.

Maybe you are not a righty extremist fascist.  Maybe you are just not very bright.


----------



## bodecea

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yidnar's first lie exposed: *The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> *Yidnar's second lie exposed: *Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.
> 
> 
> 
> Fools??is that what liberals like you think American's are??FDR WAS A SOCIALIST TYRANT THAT SPENT 16 YRS IN OFFICE !!he had i repeat he had no intention of getting involved in world war 2.pearl harbor you idiot forced him to get off of his commy ass!!
Click to expand...


He actually was not in for 16 years, he died in office.   But you seem to forget, he was ELECTED for four terms.   This was not some Hitler or Stalin who just took over.  And don't get me started on the Republicans before the war who actually admired Hitler.


----------



## Moonglow

4 etrm  elected by the people does not a tyrant make.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yidnar's first lie exposed: *The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> *Yidnar's second lie exposed: *Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.
> 
> 
> 
> Fools??is that what liberals like you think American's are??FDR WAS A SOCIALIST TYRANT THAT SPENT 16 YRS IN OFFICE !!he had i repeat he had no intention of getting involved in world war 2.pearl harbor you idiot forced him to get off of his commy ass!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He actually was not in for 16 years, he died in office.   But you seem to forget, he was ELECTED for four terms.   This was not some Hitler or Stalin who just took over.  And don't get me started on the Republicans before the war who actually admired Hitler.
Click to expand...


Henry Ford?  Charles Lindbergh?  Yidnar?


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fools??is that what liberals like you think American's are??FDR WAS A SOCIALIST TYRANT THAT SPENT 16 YRS IN OFFICE !!he had i repeat he had no intention of getting involved in world war 2.pearl harbor you idiot forced him to get off of his commy ass!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He actually was not in for 16 years, he died in office.   But you seem to forget, he was ELECTED for four terms.   This was not some Hitler or Stalin who just took over.  And don't get me started on the Republicans before the war who actually admired Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Henry Ford?  Charles Lindbergh?  Yidnar?
Click to expand...

 if we were fighting hitler today libbs would be protesting the war!!!the generals and the young men and women that fight and die for your freedom to spout out your Stalin loving anti American hatred are mostly conservatives,thats a damn fact!!!    PATON WOULD SLAP YOU!!!


----------



## konradv

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yidnar's first lie exposed: *The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> *Yidnar's second lie exposed: *Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.
> 
> 
> 
> Fools??is that what liberals like you think American's are??FDR WAS A SOCIALIST TYRANT THAT SPENT 16 YRS IN OFFICE !!he had i repeat he had no intention of getting involved in world war 2.pearl harbor you idiot forced him to get off of his commy ass!!
Click to expand...


That's right, call everyone you disagree with a commie.   I'm applying my personal corollary to Godwin's Law.  See ya, newb.


----------



## bodecea

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> He actually was not in for 16 years, he died in office.   But you seem to forget, he was ELECTED for four terms.   This was not some Hitler or Stalin who just took over.  And don't get me started on the Republicans before the war who actually admired Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford?  Charles Lindbergh?  Yidnar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if we were fighting hitler today libbs would be protesting the war!!!the generals and the young men and women that fight and die for your freedom to spout out your Stalin loving anti American hatred are mostly conservatives,thats a damn fact!!!    PATON WOULD SLAP YOU!!!
Click to expand...



Um, no.   It was the conservative Republicans who argued to keep us out of the war.   It was the conservative Republicans who admired Mussolini and Hitler for they way they ran their countries.  It was the conservative Republicans who sold scrap metal to Japan for a profit....scrap metal that came back to us as bombs and bullets.


----------



## Douger

Impeachment ? Are you Nucking Futz ? The pimps that own the congress want to give Obama a 60 million dollar bonus for being such a good " boy" as in "Hey boy".


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> He actually was not in for 16 years, he died in office.   But you seem to forget, he was ELECTED for four terms.   This was not some Hitler or Stalin who just took over.  And don't get me started on the Republicans before the war who actually admired Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford?  Charles Lindbergh?  Yidnar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if we were fighting hitler today libbs would be protesting the war!!!the generals and the young men and women that fight and die for your freedom to spout out your Stalin loving anti American hatred are mostly conservatives,thats a damn fact!!!    PATON WOULD SLAP YOU!!!
Click to expand...


The general's name is PATTON.  You describe the far right wacks today in terms of support or opposing war.  Patton would have put you on KP for a 100 years.  Hank Greenberg would have beat the crap out of you.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford?  Charles Lindbergh?  Yidnar?
> 
> 
> 
> if we were fighting hitler today libbs would be protesting the war!!!the generals and the young men and women that fight and die for your freedom to spout out your Stalin loving anti American hatred are mostly conservatives,thats a damn fact!!!    PATON WOULD SLAP YOU!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The general's name is PATTON.  You describe the far right wacks today in terms of support or opposing war.  Patton would have put you on KP for a 100 years.  Hank Greenberg would have beat the crap out of you.
Click to expand...

 libb leaders hated GEN GEORGE S PATTON and feared he would try to push communist forces out of parts of Europe. hippies spat on our soldiers coming home from Vietnam.libbs are cowardly traitors that will always be a thorn in the side of individual prosperity,freedom of speech[ accept of coarse their own],and the fundamental western European values that made this country great.WHEN THE ENEMY HAS INFILTRATED GOVERNMENT,EDUCATION,AND BUSINESS THE ONCE SERIOUS CHARGE OF TREASON IS NO LONGER FEARED BY TRAITORS!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Patton was not a conservative, guys, sorry to tell you that.  Many liberals have served honorably and faithfully just as many conservatives were cowards and fled from service in our history.  And vis versa, kiddo.

Take the John Birch Society nonsense and stuff it.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> Patton was not a conservative, guys, sorry to tell you that.  Many liberals have served honorably and faithfully just as many conservatives were cowards and fled from service in our history.  And vis versa, kiddo.
> 
> Take the John Birch Society nonsense and stuff it.


CONSERVATIVE'S  AND COWARDS IS AN OXYMORON JUST AS LIBERALISM AND BRAVERY ARE.

personal responsibility. love of country,love of god,hard work,differences  in gender,right to work ect..and the word liberalism are oxymorons.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford?  Charles Lindbergh?  Yidnar?
> 
> 
> 
> if we were fighting hitler today libbs would be protesting the war!!!the generals and the young men and women that fight and die for your freedom to spout out your Stalin loving anti American hatred are mostly conservatives,thats a damn fact!!!    PATON WOULD SLAP YOU!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.   It was the conservative Republicans who argued to keep us out of the war.   It was the conservative Republicans who admired Mussolini and Hitler for they way they ran their countries.  It was the conservative Republicans who sold scrap metal to Japan for a profit....scrap metal that came back to us as bombs and bullets.
Click to expand...


Joe Kennedy was not a republican nor was he a conservative.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> 4 etrm  elected by the people does not a tyrant make.



You're to busy playing with bart simpson to not know the difference in what the last couple of presidents HAVE DONE. A dictator can be elected by the people Germany was a democracy before hitler. Communist Russia had elections. Just because you have elections doesn't mean your leader can't and want become a dictator. All it takes is a few laws past, a few powers extend to the excutive office and there you have it a DICTATOR.


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was not a conservative, guys, sorry to tell you that.  Many liberals have served honorably and faithfully just as many conservatives were cowards and fled from service in our history.  And vis versa, kiddo.
> 
> Take the John Birch Society nonsense and stuff it.
> 
> 
> 
> CONSERVATIVE'S  AND COWARDS IS AN OXYMORON JUST AS LIBERALISM AND BRAVERY ARE.
> 
> personal responsibility. love of country,love of god,hard work,differences  in gender,right to work ect..and the word liberalism are oxymorons.
Click to expand...


Such a silly you are, just like littledebfascist.  Patton was apolitical, simply a military man who fought the enemy as hard as he could.  Joe Kennedy was a hardcore Boston Democrat right wing conservative who admired Hitler.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you behave and follow the law, and merely yell like a canting fascist, no one cares.  You are issuing terroristic threats to LEO here.  You know that is unlawful.  That is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behave? I'm an Adult, I don't behave children behave. If my rights are trampeled on I will fight back. Your Statist is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> One more time statist if they come to my  house My domain my proprety I don't give a shit who they are I will treat them like any home invader and will drop them on the first shot. That is if they come warrantless but if they have a warrant they will have a reason, they don't have one nor will they ever have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that is unlawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't Russia yet if they aren't welcomed by me in my domain I will drop them like a hot potato.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that reporting Obama for breaking the law doing?
Click to expand...


Hell for all I know the person I talked to was you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was not a conservative, guys, sorry to tell you that.  Many liberals have served honorably and faithfully just as many conservatives were cowards and fled from service in our history.  And vis versa, kiddo.
> 
> Take the John Birch Society nonsense and stuff it.
> 
> 
> 
> CONSERVATIVE'S  AND COWARDS IS AN OXYMORON JUST AS LIBERALISM AND BRAVERY ARE.
> 
> personal responsibility. love of country,love of god,hard work,differences  in gender,right to work ect..and the word liberalism are oxymorons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a silly you are, just like littledebfascist.  Patton was apolitical, simply a military man who fought the enemy as hard as he could.  Joe Kennedy was a hardcore Boston Democrat right wing conservative who admired Hitler.
Click to expand...


Patton you commie fuck would have shot your ass where you stand. He wanted to give thge germans their guns back to fight your friends the commie russians.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are drinking hard tonight, aren't you, littledebfascist?  Careful when you play with your pistol.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> You are drinking hard tonight, aren't you, littledebfascist?  Careful when you play with your pistol.


listen up homo,if you think Patton would have not stood against the socialist bull sh!t you left wing America hating cowards are trying to push you are out of your mind!!!go burn the flag,kill an unborn child,burn a bible and marry a man,.............AIDS IS A LIBERAL DISEASE........


----------



## JakeStarkey

Never burned or supported burning the flag, abortion is a private choice, read the Bible more than once yearly, and have never or wanted to marry a man.

So you are saying you are a Big Government Statists that wants to suppress freedom of speech and expression, want to tell woman what to do with their lives, force people to read the Bible, and tell people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms.

You are a Big Government Statist.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> Never burned or supported burning the flag, abortion is a private choice, read the Bible more than once yearly, and have never or wanted to marry a man.
> 
> So you are saying you are a Big Government Statists that wants to suppress freedom of speech and expression, want to tell woman what to do with their lives, force people to read the Bible, and tell people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms.
> 
> You are a Big Government Statist.


 i did not say you could not participate in those liberal activities,AND THEY ARE LIBERAL ACTIVITIES,I am just pointing out what libbs support .and do not tell me you are a Christian man of faith.LIBERAL DOCTRINE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE EVIL!!!!THERE IS NO BLACK AND WHITE FOR YOU SUBHUMAN ANIMALS IT'S ALL BEEN REDUCED TO OPINION EVEN THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO INSANE PIGS LIKE YOU......


----------



## yidnar

konradv said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yidnar's first lie exposed: *The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.
> 
> *Yidnar's second lie exposed: *Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.
> 
> You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.
> 
> You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.
> 
> Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.
> 
> 
> 
> Fools??is that what liberals like you think American's are??FDR WAS A SOCIALIST TYRANT THAT SPENT 16 YRS IN OFFICE !!he had i repeat he had no intention of getting involved in world war 2.pearl harbor you idiot forced him to get off of his commy ass!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right, call everyone you disagree with a commie.   I'm applying my personal corollary to Godwin's Law.  See ya, newb.
Click to expand...

 konrad v the damn name speaks for itself commy


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You are drinking hard tonight, aren't you, littledebfascist?  Careful when you play with your pistol.



I may drink, but at least I'm not stupid enough to post some of the out right lies and bullshit you post.


----------



## Article 15

bump for the derp brigade


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never burned or supported burning the flag, abortion is a private choice, read the Bible more than once yearly, and have never or wanted to marry a man.
> 
> So you are saying you are a Big Government Statists that wants to suppress freedom of speech and expression, want to tell woman what to do with their lives, force people to read the Bible, and tell people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms.
> 
> You are a Big Government Statist.
> 
> 
> 
> i did not say you could not participate in those liberal activities,AND THEY ARE LIBERAL ACTIVITIES,I am just pointing out what libbs support .and do not tell me you are a Christian man of faith.LIBERAL DOCTRINE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE EVIL!!!!THERE IS NO BLACK AND WHITE FOR YOU SUBHUMAN ANIMALS IT'S ALL BEEN REDUCED TO OPINION EVEN THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO INSANE PIGS LIKE YOU......
Click to expand...


You are not a Christian man of faith, you are of the great liar.  You wish to use Big Government to stop activities that are not criminal, and impose your beliefs by Big Government on the mainstream that does not want it.  You use Nazi race terms such as "subhuman animals" to define your opponents.

You are an American Fascist, no better than the Nazis of Germany.

For shame.  For shame.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> bump for the derp brigade



Thanks for telling me I am right. If you liberals would agree with me I would have to change my point of view.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never burned or supported burning the flag, abortion is a private choice, read the Bible more than once yearly, and have never or wanted to marry a man.
> 
> So you are saying you are a Big Government Statists that wants to suppress freedom of speech and expression, want to tell woman what to do with their lives, force people to read the Bible, and tell people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms.
> 
> You are a Big Government Statist.
> 
> 
> 
> i did not say you could not participate in those liberal activities,AND THEY ARE LIBERAL ACTIVITIES,I am just pointing out what libbs support .and do not tell me you are a Christian man of faith.LIBERAL DOCTRINE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE EVIL!!!!THERE IS NO BLACK AND WHITE FOR YOU SUBHUMAN ANIMALS IT'S ALL BEEN REDUCED TO OPINION EVEN THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO INSANE PIGS LIKE YOU......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a Christian man of faith, you are of the great liar.  You wish to use Big Government to stop activities that are not criminal, and impose your beliefs by Big Government on the mainstream that does not want it.  You use Nazi race terms such as "subhuman animals" to define your opponents.
> 
> You are an American Fascist, no better than the Nazis of Germany.
> 
> For shame.  For shame.
Click to expand...


Wrong only one person holds that title and that is obama.


----------



## bodecea

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are drinking hard tonight, aren't you, littledebfascist?  Careful when you play with your pistol.
> 
> 
> 
> listen up homo,if you think Patton would have not stood against the socialist bull sh!t you left wing America hating cowards are trying to push you are out of your mind!!!go burn the flag,kill an unborn child,burn a bible and marry a man,.............AIDS IS A LIBERAL DISEASE........
Click to expand...


^ Conservative Poster...


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist answers to her name now.  Good.  She can be trained.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are drinking hard tonight, aren't you, littledebfascist?  Careful when you play with your pistol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may drink, but at least I'm not stupid enough to post some of the out right lies and bullshit you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes you do
Click to expand...


ok, transformer player show the fucking post where I have lied.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist answers to her name now.  Good.  She can be trained.



Jokey hate's females or he doesn't know what a man is. He try's to use it as an insult. Why do you hate females? Are they your competition do you feel  a woman will try to still your boy friend? Jokey have no fear women only like faggots because they make good female shopping buddy's. You don't have to hate them anymore.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist, who calls names and uses foul language all the time, now plays the hypocrite card when a simple name causes such anger in him.

Such a littledeb.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes you do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, transformer player show the fucking post where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...ress-pushing-impeachment-proceedings-now.html
> first post
Click to expand...


You are a lying piece of shit, fucking stupid kid. None in that post was a lie.
Are you saying obama sent the military to libya with congressional approval?
Are you sayiung obama did not have the EPA make stricter rules because cap and trade did not pass
Are you saying obama did not give amensty to illeagals even though congress did not get harry reids dream act to pass?

If you are saying any of that is untrue then you are a bigger liar then truth don't matter rdean and jokey combined.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist, who calls names and uses foul language all the time, now plays the hypocrite card when a simple name causes such anger in him.
> 
> Such a littledeb.



Jokey using the female term as an insult means one thing he thinks it's an insulting word to use. So the woman haters uses it as an insult.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have used far, far worse words, littledeb, including the c-word to me and others.

Your hypocrisy stinks.

This is why you have no respect on the Board.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You have used far, far worse words, littledeb, including the c-word to me and others.
> 
> Your hypocrisy stinks.
> 
> This is why you have no respect on the Board.



I'm not the one using a female term as an insult you are. So that makes you the  hypocrite. Hell yes I will call a **** a ****. and don't hide behind word games like you do hypocrite.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> You are a lying piece of shit, fucking stupid kid. None in that post was a lie.



There were no lies in the OP, only a good faith exhibition of ignorance and subjective partisan tripe.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You are a lying piece of shit, fucking stupid kid. None in that post was a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were no lies in the OP, only a good faith exhibition of ignorance and subjective partisan tripe.
Click to expand...


Again everything I posted happened and those court cases you presented were shout down.

Go back I posted the information.


----------



## Moonglow

JakeStarkey said:


> You have used far, far worse words, littledeb, including the c-word to me and others.
> 
> Your hypocrisy stinks.
> 
> This is why you have no respect on the Board.



Does anybody on this board garner any respect?


----------



## Moonglow

Obama has done no high crimes or misdemeaners. You have yet to prove your hypothosis, or allegations.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> Obama has done no high crimes or misdemeaners. You have yet to prove your hypothosis, or allegations.



We still have the military in libya without congressional approval.
obama bypassed congress to give illegals citizenship even though congress with a democratic controlled congress did not pass the dream act.
Yes any other president doing this would at least havea congressdional hearing and impeachment procedingsin the works.


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



I don't think those are impeachable offenses, but you could impeach for dereliction of duty, and aiding war criminals escape prosecution. and collaborating in the inhumane war acts as Commander in Chief.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has done no high crimes or misdemeaners. You have yet to prove your hypothosis, or allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the military in libya without congressional approval.
> obama bypassed congress to give illegals citizenship even though congress with a democratic controlled congress did not pass the dream act.
> Yes any other president doing this would at least havea congressdional hearing and impeachment procedingsin the works.
Click to expand...


No high crimes or misdemeanors, littledeb, and your last statement is completely blown up by Reagan and Iran-Contra.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

shintao said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think those are impeachable offenses, but you could impeach for dereliction of duty, and aiding war criminals escape prosecution. and collaborating in the inhumane war acts as Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...


Thats why we have congressional over sight, obama has bypassed it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has done no high crimes or misdemeaners. You have yet to prove your hypothosis, or allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the military in libya without congressional approval.
> obama bypassed congress to give illegals citizenship even though congress with a democratic controlled congress did not pass the dream act.
> Yes any other president doing this would at least havea congressdional hearing and impeachment procedingsin the works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No high crimes or misdemeanors, littledeb, and your last statement is completely blown up by Reagan and Iran-Contra.
Click to expand...


Again the female insult. You are a woman hater.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the military in libya without congressional approval.
> obama bypassed congress to give illegals citizenship even though congress with a democratic controlled congress did not pass the dream act.
> Yes any other president doing this would at least havea congressdional hearing and impeachment procedingsin the works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No high crimes or misdemeanors, littledeb, and your last statement is completely blown up by Reagan and Iran-Contra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the female insult. You are a woman hater.
Click to expand...


This from the guy uses the c-word all the time.  We are all laughing at you.

Iran-Contra should have gotten Reagan impeached.

Obama has not violated the law, has committed no high crimes or misdemeanors, and is laughing at you.


----------



## Moonglow

> The report also says that &#8220;there has not been a significant operational impact on United States activities in Iraq and Afghanistan&#8221; as a result of the Libya campaign.
> 
> On the legal question, which the report spends a single paragraph addressing, the administration states that Obama believes he has participated in the Libya operation in a way &#8220;consistent&#8221; with the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973 in an attempt to constrain a president&#8217;s war-making capabilities after the undeclared conflicts in Vietnam and Korea.
> 
> The report says that &#8220;because U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of &#8216;hostilities&#8217; contemplated by the resolution,&#8221; the deadlines for congressional approval or force withdrawal do not apply.
> 
> &#8220;We&#8217;re not engaged in sustained fighting. There&#8217;s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don&#8217;t have troops on the ground. We don&#8217;t risk casualties to those troops,&#8221; said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. &#8220;None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.&#8221;


Obama administration: Libya action does not require congressional approval - The Washington Post


----------



## Moonglow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the military in libya without congressional approval.
> obama bypassed congress to give illegals citizenship even though congress with a democratic controlled congress did not pass the dream act.
> Yes any other president doing this would at least havea congressdional hearing and impeachment procedingsin the works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No high crimes or misdemeanors, littledeb, and your last statement is completely blown up by Reagan and Iran-Contra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the female insult. You are a woman hater.
Click to expand...


which word in the statement asserts an insult?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Moonglow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No high crimes or misdemeanors, littledeb, and your last statement is completely blown up by Reagan and Iran-Contra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the female insult. You are a woman hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which word in the statement asserts an insult?
Click to expand...


There isn't an insult at all except in littledeb's mind, and that's the point.  He is the one who calls people Nazis and communists and socialists and liberals and leftists and pricks and uses the c-word and n-word quite casually.

Now he is shocked, I say, shocked, that he would be treated with mild contempt.  If he is drinking tonight, watch his language load up.

littledeb, I am not insulting women, I am insulting you, cupcake.


----------



## yidnar

this says it all


----------



## Moonglow

yidnar said:


>



now there is a clear and concise posts.


----------



## Moonglow

JakeStarkey said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the female insult. You are a woman hater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which word in the statement asserts an insult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't an insult at all except in littledeb's mind, and that's the point.  He is the one who calls people Nazis and communists and socialists and liberals and leftists and pricks and uses the c-word and n-word quite casually.
> 
> Now he is shocked, I say, shocked, that he would be treated with mild contempt.  If he is drinking tonight, watch his language load up.
> 
> littledeb, I am not insulting women, I am insulting you, cupcake.
Click to expand...


Oh I noticed that. I was just trying to yank his illogical chain.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Moonglow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> which word in the statement asserts an insult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't an insult at all except in littledeb's mind, and that's the point.  He is the one who calls people Nazis and communists and socialists and liberals and leftists and pricks and uses the c-word and n-word quite casually.
> 
> Now he is shocked, I say, shocked, that he would be treated with mild contempt.  If he is drinking tonight, watch his language load up.
> 
> littledeb, I am not insulting women, I am insulting you, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I noticed that. I was just trying to yank his illogical chain.
Click to expand...


Moonglow, I know.  Cupcake is simply unable to reason.  The alcohol I truly think has saturated his brain so that the synaptic response often misfire.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has done no high crimes or misdemeaners. You have yet to prove your hypothosis, or allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the military in libya without congressional approval.
> obama bypassed congress to give illegals citizenship even though congress with a democratic controlled congress did not pass the dream act.
> Yes any other president doing this would at least havea congressdional hearing and impeachment procedingsin the works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No high crimes or misdemeanors, littledeb, and your last statement is completely blown up by Reagan and Iran-Contra.
Click to expand...

ohhh he has usurped the power of the constitution numerous times.


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has done no high crimes or misdemeaners. You have yet to prove your hypothosis, or allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still have the military in libya without congressional approval.
> obama bypassed congress to give illegals citizenship even though congress with a democratic controlled congress did not pass the dream act.
> Yes any other president doing this would at least havea congressdional hearing and impeachment procedingsin the works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No high crimes or misdemeanors, littledeb, and your last statement is completely blown up by Reagan and Iran-Contra.
Click to expand...

 not yet!!and the fact that this piece of crap has no respect for America is obvious. imagine what kind of anti American shit ha has in the workings behind closed doors!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar, you are drinking early for a Sunday night.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the female insult. You are a woman hater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which word in the statement asserts an insult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't an insult at all except in littledeb's mind, and that's the point.  He is the one who calls people Nazis and communists and socialists and liberals and leftists and pricks and uses the c-word and n-word quite casually.
> 
> Now he is shocked, I say, shocked, that he would be treated with mild contempt.  If he is drinking tonight, watch his language load up.
> 
> littledeb, I am not insulting women, I am insulting you, cupcake.
Click to expand...


I'm a man not a woman if you aren't trying to insult me what are you using a female term, and if you are trying to insult me faggot bitch why do you think using the female term is an insult? You hate women yes that must be it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> which word in the statement asserts an insult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't an insult at all except in littledeb's mind, and that's the point.  He is the one who calls people Nazis and communists and socialists and liberals and leftists and pricks and uses the c-word and n-word quite casually.
> 
> Now he is shocked, I say, shocked, that he would be treated with mild contempt.  If he is drinking tonight, watch his language load up.
> 
> littledeb, I am not insulting women, I am insulting you, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I noticed that. I was just trying to yank his illogical chain.
Click to expand...


You support obama thats all we need to know about who is and isn't illogical


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't an insult at all except in littledeb's mind, and that's the point.  He is the one who calls people Nazis and communists and socialists and liberals and leftists and pricks and uses the c-word and n-word quite casually.
> 
> Now he is shocked, I say, shocked, that he would be treated with mild contempt.  If he is drinking tonight, watch his language load up.
> 
> littledeb, I am not insulting women, I am insulting you, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I noticed that. I was just trying to yank his illogical chain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support obama thats all we need to know about who is and isn't illogical
Click to expand...


Great. Then shut the fuck up.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?


----------



## Moonglow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't an insult at all except in littledeb's mind, and that's the point.  He is the one who calls people Nazis and communists and socialists and liberals and leftists and pricks and uses the c-word and n-word quite casually.
> 
> Now he is shocked, I say, shocked, that he would be treated with mild contempt.  If he is drinking tonight, watch his language load up.
> 
> littledeb, I am not insulting women, I am insulting you, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I noticed that. I was just trying to yank his illogical chain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support obama thats all we need to know about who is and isn't illogical
Click to expand...


I support the US o A, you do not. That is illogical if you claim to be an American citizen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I noticed that. I was just trying to yank his illogical chain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You support obama thats all we need to know about who is and isn't illogical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support the US o A, you do not. That is illogical if you claim to be an American citizen.
Click to expand...


Thats your problem you think obama is America, he isn't hell he doesn't even like America.


----------



## Moonglow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support obama thats all we need to know about who is and isn't illogical
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support the US o A, you do not. That is illogical if you claim to be an American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats your problem you think obama is America, he isn't hell he doesn't even like America.
Click to expand...


Obama is our president, you should support your country. Or do you support anything but your foul stench?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ... who's the President now?



This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the US o A, you do not. That is illogical if you claim to be an American citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats your problem you think obama is America, he isn't hell he doesn't even like America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is our president, you should support your country. Or do you support anything but your foul stench?
Click to expand...


 ONE MORE TIME obama IS NOT AMERICA. Maybe you should question the son of a bitch in the white house Fuck him fuck everything he stands for, because he does not stand for America.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?   who's the President now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."
Click to expand...


Do not edit my post I will report you you when you do it, just ask jokey.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?   who's the President now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do not edit my post I will report you you when you do it, just ask jokey.
Click to expand...

*
I quoted you directly you imbecile.*


----------



## Moonglow

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not edit my post I will report you you when you do it, just ask jokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I quoted you directly you imbecile.*
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not edit my post I will report you you when you do it, just ask jokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I quoted you directly you imbecile.*
Click to expand...


*No you didn't here's my post*



bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?
Click to expand...


And here is your poit editing what I said.



OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... who's the President now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."
Click to expand...


And before we go through the meaning of edit here is the meaning of edit.

ed·it/&#712;edit/


Verb: Prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it.

Noun: A change or correction made as a result of editing


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval?



At least youre consistent in your ignorance: whether Bush or Obama, the Executive isnt subject to the Legislative, theyre two separate, co-equal branches of government. The Judicial branch is authorized to review the actions of the other two branches and enjoin any actions found un-Constitutional. That either the Legislative or Executive acts in an un-Constitutional manner doesnt mean that action is criminal, and for the Executive is not grounds for impeachment. 

You have failed altogether to provide any documented evidence whatsoever as to the presidents alleged criminal acts; in two of your listed offenses you not only failed to provide evidence of wrong-doing, but it was clearly established the Executive was in compliance with the Constitution!

With regard to Libya, the Administration says that action is not a war, what documented evidence do you have says it is? If Congress or any of the presidents many enemies had evidence Libya is a war and Obama in violation of the WPA, post the link documenting that evidence. 



> ONE MORE TIME obama IS NOT AMERICA. Maybe you should question the son of a bitch in the white house Fuck him fuck everything he stands for, because he does not stand for America.


Well take that as a no to having any objective, documented evidence.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> just out of curiosity did bush do anything without congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the president now?





oohpoopahdoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...who's the president now?
Click to expand...



direct quotation you ignorant fuck - didn't change a fucking word.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least youre consistent in your ignorance: whether Bush or Obama, the Executive isnt subject to the Legislative, theyre two separate, co-equal branches of government. The Judicial branch is authorized to review the actions of the other two branches and enjoin any actions found un-Constitutional. That either the Legislative or Executive acts in an un-Constitutional manner doesnt mean that action is criminal, and for the Executive is not grounds for impeachment.
> 
> You have failed altogether to provide any documented evidence whatsoever as to the presidents alleged criminal acts; in two of your listed offenses you not only failed to provide evidence of wrong-doing, but it was clearly established the Executive was in compliance with the Constitution!
> 
> With regard to Libya, the Administration says that action is not a war, what documented evidence do you have says it is? If Congress or any of the presidents many enemies had evidence Libya is a war and Obama in violation of the WPA, post the link documenting that evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONE MORE TIME obama IS NOT AMERICA. Maybe you should question the son of a bitch in the white house Fuck him fuck everything he stands for, because he does not stand for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well take that as a no to having any objective, documented evidence.
Click to expand...




> At least youre consistent in your ignorance: whether Bush or Obama, the Executive isnt subject to the Legislative, theyre two separate, co-equal branches of government.



It's called checks and balances. The president cannot do whatever he wants You stupid fuck. The executive branch is subject to the legislative branch and with the veto the legislative branch is subject to the executive branch, and is checked by the judicial branch That's what's called checks and balances.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just out of curiosity did bush do anything without congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the president now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oohpoopahdoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...who's the president now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> direct quotation you ignorant fuck - didn't change a fucking word.
Click to expand...


You edited the post you stupid son of a bitch by deleting part of the post. You want to quote my post do it in whole and not in part.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just out of curiosity did bush do anything without congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the president now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> direct quotation you ignorant fuck - didn't change a fucking word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You edited the post you stupid son of a bitch by deleting part of the post. You want to quote my post do it in whole and not in part.
Click to expand...


 The quotation I made was a direct quote of part of the post, it included ellipses before it to indicate it was only part of a larger sentence, and I had a link back to the full original post right next to the quote.  I've followed all applicable standards of quotation and referencing when it comes to writing in the English language. I'm sorry if you're a whiny twat.



> You edited the post you stupid son of a bitch by deleting part of the post.



I did no such thing, I don't even have the ability to edit your post, not without your password. Please stop being stupid.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?
Click to expand...


1. No
2. Yes, lots. At least one or two that were much more blatent violations of the law than Obama has committed.
3. Obama.

4. So now I have answered all of your questions and you have dodged mine. So again, Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. No
> 2. Yes, lots. At least one or two that were much more blatent violations of the law than Obama has committed.
> 3. Obama.
> 
> 4. So now I have answered all of your questions and you have dodged mine. So again, Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
Click to expand...


Proof and no bull shit link.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?   who's the President now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do not edit my post I will report you you when you do it, just ask jokey.
Click to expand...


littledeb has been reported several times for re-editing others' posts.  He is now projecting his bad actions onto othes.

littledeb, if you edit others posts again, I will report you again, and you will get your board butt kicked again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least youre consistent in your ignorance: whether Bush or Obama, the Executive isnt subject to the Legislative, theyre two separate, co-equal branches of government. The Judicial branch is authorized to review the actions of the other two branches and enjoin any actions found un-Constitutional. That either the Legislative or Executive acts in an un-Constitutional manner doesnt mean that action is criminal, and for the Executive is not grounds for impeachment.
> 
> You have failed altogether to provide any documented evidence whatsoever as to the presidents alleged criminal acts; in two of your listed offenses you not only failed to provide evidence of wrong-doing, but it was clearly established the Executive was in compliance with the Constitution!
> 
> With regard to Libya, the Administration says that action is not a war, what documented evidence do you have says it is? If Congress or any of the presidents many enemies had evidence Libya is a war and Obama in violation of the WPA, post the link documenting that evidence.
> 
> 
> Well take that as a no to having any objective, documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least youre consistent in your ignorance: whether Bush or Obama, the Executive isnt subject to the Legislative, theyre two separate, co-equal branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called checks and balances. The president cannot do whatever he wants You stupid fuck. The executive branch is subject to the legislative branch and with the veto the legislative branch is subject to the executive branch, and is checked by the judicial branch That's what's called checks and balances.
Click to expand...


So both executive and the legislative branches are subject to the checks of SCOTUS.  I don't want to hear a single word more about the 10th or the 14th Amendments, littledebfascist.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did I say bush should be given a pass? Just out of curiosity did Bush do anything without Congressional approval? Just out of curiosity, who's the President now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No
> 2. Yes, lots. At least one or two that were much more blatent violations of the law than Obama has committed.
> 3. Obama.
> 
> 4. So now I have answered all of your questions and you have dodged mine. So again, Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Proof and no bull shit link*.
Click to expand...


Wow. Still dodging eh? That's pretty weak. Usually a pretty sure sign of someone seeing only what they want to see. Obviously a bit of selective memory here. 
"We don't spy on Americans"
"Well, okay we're only listening to foreign calls going to terrorists countries"
"We dag nab it, okay we're doing all that but I'm really pissed off at those danm reporters for telling on me!"
"Hey! Let's pass the Patriot Act now!"

Just google "Bush Domestic Calls" Even with a selective memory that really wants to see bad only in LibDems, kinda hard to ignore.

You may now continue dodging or maybe even throw some insults - or you could do what almost no one does. Admit someone else was right. (not holding my breath for that one but who knows? I have actually seen some people with real character here)

Okay. Held my breath. Let it out... Guess when the proof came it was time to Cut & Run. Typical


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist has no logic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No
> 2. Yes, lots. At least one or two that were much more blatent violations of the law than Obama has committed.
> 3. Obama.
> 
> 4. So now I have answered all of your questions and you have dodged mine. So again, Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Proof and no bull shit link*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Still dodging eh? That's pretty weak. Usually a pretty sure sign of someone seeing only what they want to see. Obviously a bit of selective memory here.
> "We don't spy on Americans"
> "Well, okay we're only listening to foreign calls going to terrorists countries"
> "We dag nab it, okay we're doing all that but I'm really pissed off at those danm reporters for telling on me!"
> "Hey! Let's pass the Patriot Act now!"
> 
> Just google "Bush Domestic Calls" Even with a selective memory that really wants to see bad only in LibDems, kinda hard to ignore.
> 
> You may now continue dodging or maybe even throw some insults - or you could do what almost no one does. Admit someone else was right. (not holding my breath for that one but who knows? I have actually seen some people with real character here)
> 
> Okay. Held my breath. Let it out... Guess when the proof came it was time to Cut & Run. Typical
Click to expand...




> Wow. Still dodging eh? That's pretty weak. Usually a pretty sure sign of someone seeing only what they want to see. Obviously a bit of selective memory here.


No I am not dodging.



> "We don't spy on Americans"


It was first used for calls going to known terrorist countries. The cock sucker in the white house said he was going to repeal the patrirot act but instead he used it on all Americans within the country.



> Okay. Held my breath. Let it out... Guess when the proof came it was time to Cut & Run. Typical



One more fucking time did I say Bush get's a pass? Bush is gone and obama keeps all of Bushes polices or didn't you know that? Is gitmo closed after almost three years


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least youre consistent in your ignorance: whether Bush or Obama, the Executive isnt subject to the Legislative, theyre two separate, co-equal branches of government. The Judicial branch is authorized to review the actions of the other two branches and enjoin any actions found un-Constitutional. That either the Legislative or Executive acts in an un-Constitutional manner doesnt mean that action is criminal, and for the Executive is not grounds for impeachment.
> 
> You have failed altogether to provide any documented evidence whatsoever as to the presidents alleged criminal acts; in two of your listed offenses you not only failed to provide evidence of wrong-doing, but it was clearly established the Executive was in compliance with the Constitution!
> 
> With regard to Libya, the Administration says that action is not a war, what documented evidence do you have says it is? If Congress or any of the presidents many enemies had evidence Libya is a war and Obama in violation of the WPA, post the link documenting that evidence.
> 
> 
> Well take that as a no to having any objective, documented evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least youre consistent in your ignorance: whether Bush or Obama, the Executive isnt subject to the Legislative, theyre two separate, co-equal branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called checks and balances. The president cannot do whatever he wants You stupid fuck. The executive branch is subject to the legislative branch and with the veto the legislative branch is subject to the executive branch, and is checked by the judicial branch That's what's called checks and balances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So both executive and the legislative branches are subject to the checks of SCOTUS.  I don't want to hear a single word more about the 10th or the 14th Amendments, littledebfascist.
Click to expand...




> So both executive and the legislative branches are subject to the checks of SCOTUS.


Did I say that stupid? Do you know what checks and balances All three are supposed to check the other two, to insure they are within their Coinstitutional limits.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This line is now a classic! It basically states - "Yes, I believe in applying a double standard to the Presidency. Each President should be judged based on completely different standards that I determine, and to question that means you are lingering in the past."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not edit my post I will report you you when you do it, just ask jokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> littledeb has been reported several times for re-editing others' posts.  He is now projecting his bad actions onto othes.
> 
> littledeb, if you edit others posts again, I will report you again, and you will get your board butt kicked again.
Click to expand...


Don't start thats how I ran you off the last time. I think you should ask Intense about that.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Proof and no bull shit link*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Still dodging eh? That's pretty weak. Usually a pretty sure sign of someone seeing only what they want to see. Obviously a bit of selective memory here.
> "We don't spy on Americans"
> "Well, okay we're only listening to foreign calls going to terrorists countries"
> "We dag nab it, okay we're doing all that but I'm really pissed off at those danm reporters for telling on me!"
> "Hey! Let's pass the Patriot Act now!"
> 
> Just google "Bush Domestic Calls" Even with a selective memory that really wants to see bad only in LibDems, kinda hard to ignore.
> 
> You may now continue dodging or maybe even throw some insults - or you could do what almost no one does. Admit someone else was right. (not holding my breath for that one but who knows? I have actually seen some people with real character here)
> 
> Okay. Held my breath. Let it out... Guess when the proof came it was time to Cut & Run. Typical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not dodging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We don't spy on Americans"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was first used for calls going to known terrorist countries. The cock sucker in the white house said he was going to repeal the patrirot act but instead he used it on all Americans within the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Held my breath. Let it out... Guess when the proof came it was time to Cut & Run. Typical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more fucking time did I say Bush get's a pass? Bush is gone and obama keeps all of Bushes polices or didn't you know that? Is gitmo closed after almost three years
Click to expand...


 You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Still dodging eh? That's pretty weak. Usually a pretty sure sign of someone seeing only what they want to see. Obviously a bit of selective memory here.
> "We don't spy on Americans"
> "Well, okay we're only listening to foreign calls going to terrorists countries"
> "We dag nab it, okay we're doing all that but I'm really pissed off at those danm reporters for telling on me!"
> "Hey! Let's pass the Patriot Act now!"
> 
> Just google "Bush Domestic Calls" Even with a selective memory that really wants to see bad only in LibDems, kinda hard to ignore.
> 
> You may now continue dodging or maybe even throw some insults - or you could do what almost no one does. Admit someone else was right. (not holding my breath for that one but who knows? I have actually seen some people with real character here)
> 
> Okay. Held my breath. Let it out... Guess when the proof came it was time to Cut & Run. Typical
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not dodging.
> 
> 
> It was first used for calls going to known terrorist countries. The cock sucker in the white house said he was going to repeal the patrirot act but instead he used it on all Americans within the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Held my breath. Let it out... Guess when the proof came it was time to Cut & Run. Typical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more fucking time did I say Bush get's a pass? Bush is gone and obama keeps all of Bushes polices or didn't you know that? Is gitmo closed after almost three years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!
Click to expand...


So hard and so long? Let's see this is your second or third post in this thread which are on the same page.    So you're wrong about "You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!"
So is this your question?


> 4. So now I have answered all of your questions and you have dodged mine. So again, Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?



If it is I have already answered that question long before you asked it.

What Bush did he did with congressional approval. I also told you directly did I Bush got a pass? Now try not to side step anymore of my replies.


Like


> It was first used for calls going to known terrorist countries. The cock sucker in the white house said he was going to repeal the patrirot act but instead he used it on all Americans within the country.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not dodging.
> 
> 
> It was first used for calls going to known terrorist countries. The cock sucker in the white house said he was going to repeal the patrirot act but instead he used it on all Americans within the country.
> 
> 
> 
> One more fucking time did I say Bush get's a pass? Bush is gone and obama keeps all of Bushes polices or didn't you know that? Is gitmo closed after almost three years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So hard and so long? Let's see this is your second or third post in this thread which are on the same page.    So you're wrong about "You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!"
> So is this your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. So now I have answered all of your questions and you have dodged mine. So again, Just out of curiosity, did you state that Bush should have been impeached?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is I have already answered that question long before you asked it.
> 
> What Bush did he did with congressional approval. I also told you directly did I Bush got a pass? Now try not to side step anymore of my replies.
> 
> 
> Like
> 
> 
> 
> It was first used for calls going to known terrorist countries. The cock sucker in the white house said he was going to repeal the patrirot act but instead he used it on all Americans within the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


See, this is a simple yes or no question and yet you dodge again. Bush got busted breaking the law _without _congressional approval.
so. 
Did you call for Bush's impeachment? 

Never mind. We know better than to expect a simple Yes or No at this point. You'll dance around this all night and use phrases like "Doesn't get a pass" but you won't admit that you never called for the impeachment of Bush.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So hard and so long? Let's see this is your second or third post in this thread which are on the same page.    So you're wrong about "You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!"
> So is this your question?
> 
> 
> If it is I have already answered that question long before you asked it.
> 
> What Bush did he did with congressional approval. I also told you directly did I Bush got a pass? Now try not to side step anymore of my replies.
> 
> 
> Like
> 
> 
> 
> It was first used for calls going to known terrorist countries. The cock sucker in the white house said he was going to repeal the patrirot act but instead he used it on all Americans within the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, this is a simple yes or no question and yet you dodge again. Bush got busted breaking the law _without _congressional approval.
> so.
> Did you call for Bush's impeachment?
> 
> Never mind. We know better than to expect a simple Yes or No at this point. You'll dance around this all night and use phrases like "Doesn't get a pass" but you won't admit that you never called for the impeachment of Bush.
Click to expand...


Bush got busted? when? maybe by you liberals but everything Bush did was by congressional approval. I may not agree with what he did but he did have congress supporting him. Stop defending obama for once pull your head out of his ass the shit smell is getting to you.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So hard and so long? Let's see this is your second or third post in this thread which are on the same page.    So you're wrong about "You been dodging the question so hard and so long, you've forgotten what it was!!!"
> So is this your question?
> 
> 
> If it is I have already answered that question long before you asked it.
> 
> What Bush did he did with congressional approval. I also told you directly did I Bush got a pass? Now try not to side step anymore of my replies.
> 
> 
> Like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is a simple yes or no question and yet you dodge again. Bush got busted breaking the law _without _congressional approval.
> so.
> Did you call for Bush's impeachment?
> 
> Never mind. We know better than to expect a simple Yes or No at this point. You'll dance around this all night and use phrases like "Doesn't get a pass" but you won't admit that you never called for the impeachment of Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush got busted? when? maybe by you liberals but everything Bush did was by congressional approval. I may not agree with what he did but he did have congress supporting him. Stop defending obama for once pull your head out of his ass the shit smell is getting to you.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge! 

btw, find where I defended Obama anywhere. I didn't. I think Obama sucks. But I proved that Bush got caught listening in on domestic calls without congressional approval. Illegally. No doubt about it.
 And now you dodge, change the subject, Cut & Run whatever.

But what it comes down to it the only reason you're calling for the impeachment of Obama is because he's a LibDem.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is a simple yes or no question and yet you dodge again. Bush got busted breaking the law _without _congressional approval.
> so.
> Did you call for Bush's impeachment?
> 
> Never mind. We know better than to expect a simple Yes or No at this point. You'll dance around this all night and use phrases like "Doesn't get a pass" but you won't admit that you never called for the impeachment of Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush got busted? when? maybe by you liberals but everything Bush did was by congressional approval. I may not agree with what he did but he did have congress supporting him. Stop defending obama for once pull your head out of his ass the shit smell is getting to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge!
> 
> btw, find where I defended Obama anywhere. I didn't. I think Obama sucks. But I proved that Bush got caught listening in on domestic calls without congressional approval. Illegally. No doubt about it.
> And now you dodge, change the subject, Cut & Run whatever.
> 
> But what it comes down to it the only reason you're calling for the impeachment of Obama is because he's a LibDem.
Click to expand...


What dodge? How can I disprove something when it never happened?



> But I proved that Bush got caught listening in on domestic calls without congressional approval.



Your opinion isn't proof nice try.



> btw, find where I defended Obama anywhere. I didn't. I think Obama sucks.



You are placing to much attenton on Bush to not be defending obama. Thats an old obama defender tatic. So sheeple try again.



> But what it comes down to it the only reason you're calling for the impeachment of Obama is because he's a LibDem



He's an enemy and hater of America.


----------



## MeBelle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
Click to expand...


LOL @ giving yourself the 'clap'....

Seriously, my theory:
 a) Impeachment starts in the House, 
 b) the impeached get tried by the Senate, 
 c) to convict, 2/3rds of the Senate vote is required.

'c' is where 'a' knows it will lose.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not edit my post I will report you you when you do it, just ask jokey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> littledeb has been reported several times for re-editing others' posts.  He is now projecting his bad actions onto othes.
> 
> littledeb, if you edit others posts again, I will report you again, and you will get your board butt kicked again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't start thats how I ran you off the last time. I think you should ask Intense about that.
Click to expand...


Point directly to the thread and the post where this allegedly happened.  You can't.  You are re-editing above, littledeb, and you will get your butt kicked again.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush got busted? when? maybe by you liberals but everything Bush did was by congressional approval. I may not agree with what he did but he did have congress supporting him. Stop defending obama for once pull your head out of his ass the shit smell is getting to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge!
> 
> btw, find where I defended Obama anywhere. I didn't. I think Obama sucks. But I proved that Bush got caught listening in on domestic calls without congressional approval. Illegally. No doubt about it.
> And now you dodge, change the subject, Cut & Run whatever.
> 
> But what it comes down to it the only reason you're calling for the impeachment of Obama is because he's a LibDem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What dodge? How can I disprove something when it never happened?
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion isn't proof nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, find where I defended Obama anywhere. I didn't. I think Obama sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are placing to much attenton on Bush to not be defending obama. Thats an old obama defender tatic. So sheeple try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what it comes down to it the only reason you're calling for the impeachment of Obama is because he's a LibDem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's an enemy and hater of America.
Click to expand...


Only a mindless drone would say that someone who clearly states Obama sucks is "Defending Obama" 

It's easy to discern the those who lean Right or Left from the whackjobs. If you disagree with someone whose opinions are all fed to them by the talking heads, or ask them questions which would require admitting that "thier side" is fallible, they instantly label you and begin dodging the subject.

That's fine. We need not argue about this further. You are staring at the spinning circle and are so deep in the trance, I can already tell you where you stand on every single issue, why etc... So that saves us time with all that writing and stuff, doesn't it? 

That is the difference between us. I think for myself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist certainly needs to be told how to think.

You should  have seen his trouncing on a British propaganda film he posted sometime ago.  His own evidence and authorities contradicted him.

He is for grins and chuckles only.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist certainly needs to be told how to think.
> 
> You should  have seen his trouncing on a British propaganda film he posted sometime ago.  His own evidence and authorities contradicted him.
> 
> He is for grins and chuckles only.



of course jokey defends Hitler. Because Jokey knows obama has many trings in common with hitler when he first started. Just one more thing Jakes not called Jokey by many on this board just for the hell of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What dodge? How can I disprove something when it never happened?
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion isn't proof nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> You are placing to much attenton on Bush to not be defending obama. Thats an old obama defender tatic. So sheeple try again.
> 
> 
> 
> He's an enemy and hater of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a mindless drone would say that someone who clearly states Obama sucks is "Defending Obama"
> 
> It's easy to discern the those who lean Right or Left from the whackjobs. If you disagree with someone whose opinions are all fed to them by the talking heads, or ask them questions which would require admitting that "thier side" is fallible, they instantly label you and begin dodging the subject.
> 
> That's fine. We need not argue about this further. You are staring at the spinning circle and are so deep in the trance, I can already tell you where you stand on every single issue, why etc... So that saves us time with all that writing and stuff, doesn't it?
> 
> That is the difference between us. I think for myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? I think myou are an obama supporter you defend him way to much. Just like Jokey.
Click to expand...


I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.

Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.


----------



## IndependntLogic

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a mindless drone would say that someone who clearly states Obama sucks is "Defending Obama"
> 
> It's easy to discern the those who lean Right or Left from the whackjobs. If you disagree with someone whose opinions are all fed to them by the talking heads, or ask them questions which would require admitting that "thier side" is fallible, they instantly label you and begin dodging the subject.
> 
> That's fine. We need not argue about this further. You are staring at the spinning circle and are so deep in the trance, I can already tell you where you stand on every single issue, why etc... So that saves us time with all that writing and stuff, doesn't it?
> 
> That is the difference between us. I think for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I think myou are an obama supporter you defend him way to much. Just like Jokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.
> 
> Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.
Click to expand...


He's a parrot. Either of us could tell him his stance on virtually every issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge!
> 
> btw, find where I defended Obama anywhere. I didn't. I think Obama sucks. But I proved that Bush got caught listening in on domestic calls without congressional approval. Illegally. No doubt about it.
> And now you dodge, change the subject, Cut & Run whatever.
> 
> But what it comes down to it the only reason you're calling for the impeachment of Obama is because he's a LibDem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What dodge? How can I disprove something when it never happened?
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion isn't proof nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> You are placing to much attenton on Bush to not be defending obama. Thats an old obama defender tatic. So sheeple try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what it comes down to it the only reason you're calling for the impeachment of Obama is because he's a LibDem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's an enemy and hater of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a mindless drone would say that someone who clearly states Obama sucks is "Defending Obama"
> 
> It's easy to discern the those who lean Right or Left from the whackjobs. If you disagree with someone whose opinions are all fed to them by the talking heads, or ask them questions which would require admitting that "thier side" is fallible, they instantly label you and begin dodging the subject.
> 
> That's fine. We need not argue about this further. You are staring at the spinning circle and are so deep in the trance, I can already tell you where you stand on every single issue, why etc... So that saves us time with all that writing and stuff, doesn't it?
> 
> That is the difference between us. I think for myself.
Click to expand...


Really? I think you are an obama supporter you defend him way to much. Just like Jokey. 




> Only a mindless drone would say that someone who clearly states Obama sucks is "Defending Obama



I think Bush sucked as a President but I will defend him in certain areas and compared to obama I will defend Bush against that piece of shit in the white house. The difference between you and me is I am honest about it. You aren't



> That is the difference between us. I think for myself



I've done my research on obama started shortly after the 2004 DNC convention. So I know more about him than any conservative media outlet has mentioned about him


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a mindless drone would say that someone who clearly states Obama sucks is "Defending Obama"
> 
> It's easy to discern the those who lean Right or Left from the whackjobs. If you disagree with someone whose opinions are all fed to them by the talking heads, or ask them questions which would require admitting that "thier side" is fallible, they instantly label you and begin dodging the subject.
> 
> That's fine. We need not argue about this further. You are staring at the spinning circle and are so deep in the trance, I can already tell you where you stand on every single issue, why etc... So that saves us time with all that writing and stuff, doesn't it?
> 
> That is the difference between us. I think for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I think myou are an obama supporter you defend him way to much. Just like Jokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.
> 
> Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.
Click to expand...


If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I think myou are an obama supporter you defend him way to much. Just like Jokey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.
> 
> Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.
Click to expand...


You are projecting that hate again, Ms LittleFascist Parrot.  Stop squawking.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I think myou are an obama supporter you defend him way to much. Just like Jokey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.
> 
> Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a parrot. Either of us could tell him his stance on virtually every issue.
Click to expand...


Exactly what am I supposed to be parroting? I do not get a chance to listen to limbugh Beck or any other conservative source, I work do you?



> Either of us could tell him his stance on virtually every issue



You are a mirror image of jokey. You are going to have a rough time here, Jokey had to leave for a short time. He was fed up with the beat down he got.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Parrot continues to squawk and can't stand the beat downs he has been getting here since his first day.

You don't work.  You search for silly videos all day, Ms littledebfascist.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a mindless drone would say that someone who clearly states Obama sucks is "Defending Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bush sucked as a President but I will defend him in certain areas and compared to obama I will defend Bush against that piece of shit in the white house. The difference between you and me is I am honest about it. You aren't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the difference between us. I think for myself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've done my research on obama started shortly after the 2004 DNC convention. So I know more about him than any conservative media outlet has mentioned about him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well isn't that sweet of you! How nice.
> 
> You're a parrot. I never defended Obama but simply asked you a question to test your objectivity. Laughable results.
> Would you like to know your position on a dozen political issues? I can tell you.
> Want to know my position on a dozen political issues? You can't tell me.
> Simple. Youre a parrot, I think for myself.
> But it's cool, the world needs people to regurgitate talk radio...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I think myou are an obama supporter you defend him way to much. Just like Jokey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.
> 
> Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.
Click to expand...


You've really descended into the abyss haven't you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.
> 
> Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are projecting that hate again, Ms LittleFascist Parrot.  Stop squawking.
Click to expand...


This is how you can tell jokey is flustered, if you use certain words like projecting he will also used them. Like a child who can't think for himself he must copy what someone else says.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn't that sweet of you! How nice.
> 
> You're a parrot. I never defended Obama but simply asked you a question to test your objectivity. Laughable results.
> Would you like to know your position on a dozen political issues? I can tell you.
> Want to know my position on a dozen political issues? You can't tell me.
> Simple. Youre a parrot, I think for myself.
> But it's cool, the world needs people to regurgitate talk radio...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never defended Obama but simply asked you a question to test your objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed I answered your question.
> 
> Bush never used the military without congressional approval, Bush never gave a excutive order just because his aganda did not pass in congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Youre a parrot, I think for myself.
> But it's cool, the world needs people to regurgitate talk radio
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What am I supposed to be parroting again? I do my research, saying someone doesn't think for themself doesn't make it true. You're new here you don't know me at all I am one of the most informed posters here.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I defend America and its values.  Where the President does that, I support  him, and I don't where he fails.
> 
> Your problem is that you can't think and you lead with hatred not love of country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've really descended into the abyss haven't you?
Click to expand...


Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've really descended into the abyss haven't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.
Click to expand...


littldebfascist knows that America will take care of him first if he acts stupidly.

She is getting ready to explode, and when little miss fascist goes off, it is a wonder to behold!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Bush never used the military without congressional approval



Neither has Obama*, and after all these posts youve still provided no evidence to the contrary. 



> Bush never gave a excutive order just because his aganda did not pass in congress.



And if he had hed not be subject to impeachment. 



> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.



Id rather hed take care of America than you. 

Please. 






*for the record, in my opinion Obamas action in Libya is un-Constitutional  *in my opinion. *That means I have the evidence to come to that conclusion but the evidence is lacking in that I cant prove it in court. Indeed, I cant even get it into court because per _Dellums v Bush_ the courts refuse to hear a case concerning a conflict between the Legislative and Executive. 

Thats what our little friend the OP fails to understand: you cant impeach a president for something the courts havent determined to be a crime. 

And thats why, among other reasons, there are no  and will never be  impeachment proceedings.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed I answered your question.
> 
> Bush never used the military without congressional approval, Bush never gave a excutive order just because his aganda did not pass in congress.
> 
> 
> 
> What am I supposed to be parroting again? I do my research, saying someone doesn't think for themself doesn't make it true. You're new here you don't know me at all I am one of the most informed posters here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt you're very informed as to why Rush is Right. And I don't doubt that you have done all the research necessary to prove that all the thoughts fed to you by FOX etc... are absolutely correct.
> So why don't you pick a dozen political issues and tell me my position on each one of them.
> You can't. I can. It's that simple. You are informed exactly the way those who tell you what to think, want you to be informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've really descended into the abyss haven't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and *I will take care of America*.
Click to expand...


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you support obama you are the one that hates America. You arew the one filled with hatred for America, but you must project your hate onto someone else. I ain't buying you shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've really descended into the abyss haven't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.
Click to expand...


"Bigrednec, you're doing a hell of a job."


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt you're very informed as to why Rush is Right. And I don't doubt that you have done all the research necessary to prove that all the thoughts fed to you by FOX etc... are absolutely correct.
> So why don't you pick a dozen political issues and tell me my position on each one of them.
> You can't. I can. It's that simple. You are informed exactly the way those who tell you what to think, want you to be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work I don't listen to limbaugh. You see that actualy gives your liberal views away. You think people don't workl and they can sit around listening to limbaugh.
> 
> Again I think for myself, I don't need fat man to tell me what to say or think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't. I can. It's that simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know me. I think you project to much hidding that insecurity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you pick a dozen political issues and tell me my position on each one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know you but from your defending of obama I would say your a die hard liberal. I really don't care where you stand maybe if your middle of the road the obama bus will run your ass over.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've really descended into the abyss haven't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Bigrednec, you're doing a hell of a job."
Click to expand...


I have my guns been going to the range and plenty of ammo


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Bigrednec, you're doing a hell of a job."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have my guns been going to the range and plenty of ammo
Click to expand...


Me too...I'll hold the South Pacific while you move on Washington DC.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bush never used the military without congressional approval
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither has Obama*, and after all these posts youve still provided no evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never gave a excutive order just because his aganda did not pass in congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if he had hed not be subject to impeachment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Id rather hed take care of America than you.
> 
> Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *for the record, in my opinion Obamas action in Libya is un-Constitutional  *in my opinion. *That means I have the evidence to come to that conclusion but the evidence is lacking in that I cant prove it in court. Indeed, I cant even get it into court because per _Dellums v Bush_ the courts refuse to hear a case concerning a conflict between the Legislative and Executive.
> 
> Thats what our little friend the OP fails to understand: you cant impeach a president for something the courts havent determined to be a crime.
> 
> And thats why, among other reasons, there are no  and will never be  impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...



Maybe you should know more about your case work.
Decision
Denied Dellums' request for an injunction against presidential military action by ruling that the dispute over massive U.S. troop build-up in the Persian Gulf region was not ready for judicial attention

Dellums v. Bush: Great American Court Cases
One more time Bush Sr. went to congress before invading Iraq and got it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've really descended into the abyss haven't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> littldebfascist knows that America will take care of him first if he acts stupidly.
> 
> She is getting ready to explode, and when little miss fascist goes off, it is a wonder to behold!
Click to expand...


Again using the female term as an insult. Why do you hate women?


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take care of New Zeland and I will take care of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> littldebfascist knows that America will take care of him first if he acts stupidly.
> 
> She is getting ready to explode, and when little miss fascist goes off, it is a wonder to behold!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again using the female term as an insult. Why do you hate women?
Click to expand...


Jake has quite the inability to debate.  A proud member of the left.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist and auto continue to show they have nothing to offer, typical of far right reactionaries pretending to be conservatives.  They, along with Yidnar, Frank, Lars, and the rest of the usual suspects are good only for grins and chuckles.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist and auto continue to show they have nothing to offer, typical of far right reactionaries pretending to be conservatives.  They, along with Yidnar, Frank, Lars, and the rest of the usual suspects are good only for grins and chuckles.



LOL   IF THE TRUTH HURTS THAT MUCH. TAKE SOME ADVIL.


Weve seen the pinnacles of your intellect. Making the low spots absolutely frightening.

Stalin would be very proud of you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Auto, that is so pathetically weak, only good for grins and chuckles.  Come back when you have something worthwhile.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Auto, that is so pathetically weak, only good for grins and chuckles.  Come back when you have something worthwhile.



You havent posted up all day.  Look dont be embarrassed. if you need help, your a leftie its obvious to everyone else.


----------



## Stashman

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



*The sad thing is that impeachment was talked about among the American citizens concerning our last three presidents. What's even sadder than that is that  it doesn't ever get done, though its the will of the people.
*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littldebfascist knows that America will take care of him first if he acts stupidly.
> 
> She is getting ready to explode, and when little miss fascist goes off, it is a wonder to behold!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again using the female term as an insult. Why do you hate women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake has quite the inability to debate.  A proud member of the left.
Click to expand...


Exactly, he's a loser


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Stashman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The sad thing is that impeachment was talked about among the American citizens concerning our last three presidents. What's even sadder than that is that  it doesn't ever get done, though its the will of the people.
> *
Click to expand...

Clinton was impeached, he wasn't removed from office though.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bush should have been impeached; he wasn't.

Obama won't be impeached.

littledebfascist impeaches himself every time he posts.


----------



## LilOlLady

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



Cannot impeach the President just because he is black and you are a racist.
Don't you know if they could they would have long ago.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work I don't listen to limbaugh. You see that actualy gives your liberal views away. You think people don't workl and they can sit around listening to limbaugh.
> 
> *Again I think for myself, I don't need fat man to tell me what to say or think.*
> 
> *You do not know me.* I think you project to much hidding that insecurity.
> 
> *I don't know you but from your defending of obama I would say your a die hard liberal*. I really don't care where you stand maybe if your middle of the road the obama bus will run your ass over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your thoughts being fed to you by RW Pundits - I own you, or rather they do.
> 
> Here are your opinions as they have been fed to you:
> 
> * You are pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * You think Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * You favor the Ryan Plan.
> * You are for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way.
> * You are pro-life.
> * You feel we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * You are anti-union.
> * You feel that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * You think ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * You think more power should be given to the states.
> * You think easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> * The odds are 3:1 in favor that you would be against gay marriage and possibly even gays serving openly in the military.
> * Shall I continue?
> 
> Seriously, I watch FOX news. It's not like I don't already know all your opinions. LOL! Dude, you're a whackjob! You're not quite a HatGuy but you're definitely a whackjob - as per the definitions on another post, anyway.
> 
> Show me where I "defended Obama"! LOL!!! Go ahead, show me. Oops.... Like I said, as per the definition on another post: whackjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your thoughts being fed to you by RW Pundits - I own you, or rather they do.
> 
> Here are your opinions as they have been fed to you:
> 
> * You are pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * You think Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * You favor the Ryan Plan.
> * You are for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way.
> * You are pro-life.
> * You feel we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * You are anti-union.
> * You feel that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * You think ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * You think more power should be given to the states.
> * You think easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> * The odds are 3:1 in favor that you would be against gay marriage and possibly even gays serving openly in the military.
> * Shall I continue?
> 
> Seriously, I watch FOX news. It's not like I don't already know all your opinions. LOL! Dude, you're a whackjob! You're not quite a HatGuy but you're definitely a whackjob - as per the definitions on another post, anyway.
> 
> Show me where I "defended Obama"! LOL!!! Go ahead, show me. Oops.... Like I said, as per the definition on another post: whackjob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your thoughts being fed to you by RW Pundits - I own you, or rather they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I WORK I do not get the chance to listen to rush limbaugh glen beck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are your opinions as they have been fed to you:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know me you're speaking of your opinion on those issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very pro gun and everybody whould own one and open carry. Cops are not legally bound to protect anyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freddy mac and fannie mae enough said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You favor the Ryan Plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't I dont even favor Boehner plan. Since the cut's will not take affect immediately the will start after the next election and no congress is bound by the previous congress when it comes to spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm against raising taxes because you don't raise taxes when you have a failed economy
> And when congress stop spend my money like it's theirs no new taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are pro-life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always been pro life long before talk radio became a name brand. From the days of my youth and I'm 49
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You feel we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't depend on the government I am self sufficient and self-reliant I'm a prepper TGhe government is way to big and should kill most of it's departments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are anti-union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've worked with union members and have lost jobs because of a mandate union clause, so hell yes I am very anti union. they are full of lazy people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You feel that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most even most democrats said Iraq was justified. Shall I name names of those democrats who were for going to Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government works for us not the other way around It can not mandate that ANYONE BUY A PRODUCT IF THEY DON'T WANT NOR NEED IT. Would you object if the government made a law that stated everyone over the age of 18 must own a gun and have to buy a certain type at a certain store and maintain at least 5000 rounds for that gun and also have mandated firearm training at the governments set price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think more power should be given to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong didn't the staes create the fedral government? The states government had a check on the federal government until the 17th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has worked in the past But it works better when more conservative government is in control. Oh and Bush wasn't a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The odds are 3:1 in favor that you would be against gay marriage and possibly even gays serving openly in the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't care what faggots do as long as it doesn't effect me
> 
> Your openning post is where you were defending ob ama
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

LilOlLady said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot impeach the President just because he is black and you are a racist.
> Don't you know if they could they would have long ago.
Click to expand...


What exactly does a half black obama have to do with anything? I have black relatives who don't like him.


----------



## Moonglow

China is a right to union nation, everyone has a union, yet they are kickin' our azz.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot impeach the President just because he is black and you are a racist.
> Don't you know if they could they would have long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly does a half black obama have to do with anything? I have black relatives who don't like him.
Click to expand...


Oh well, then.   That settles it, doesn't it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Moonglow said:


> China is a right to union nation, everyone has a union, yet they are kickin' our azz.



Cheap labor in china compared to over pay lazy asses.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot impeach the President just because he is black and you are a racist.
> Don't you know if they could they would have long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly does a half black obama have to do with anything? I have black relatives who don't like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well, then.   That settles it, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


I don't know I wasn't the one who mentioned his race. No I guess not as long as you liberals hang onto that raism they you live on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist is one of the biggest racists on the board and uses the c-word to describe people he does not like.

Worthless, worthless attitude.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know me you're speaking of your opinion on those issues.
> 
> *Um no. I was just letting you know all your opinions as fed to you by the Pundits. With whackjobs of either the Lib or Conserv persuasion, it's easy to run about 85 - 90% right as the below demonstrates.*
> 
> Very pro gun and everybody whould own one and open carry. Cops are not legally bound to protect anyone
> 
> *1 out of 1*
> 
> Freddy mac and fannie mae enough said.
> 
> *2 for 2*
> 
> No I don't I don&#8217;t even favor Boehner plan. Since the cut's will not take affect immediately the will start after the next election and no congress is bound by the previous congress when it comes to spending
> 
> Ah but if it were bound? We'll table this until we know.
> 
> I'm against raising taxes because you don't raise taxes when you have a failed economy
> And when congress stop spend my money like it's theirs no new taxes.
> 
> *3 for 3*
> 
> I've always been pro life long before talk radio became a name brand. From the days of my youth and I'm 49
> 
> *4 for 4*
> 
> I don't depend on the government I am self sufficient and self-reliant I'm a prepper TGhe government is way to big and should kill most of it's departments
> 
> *5 for 5*
> 
> I've worked with union members and have lost jobs because of a mandate union clause, so hell yes I am very anti union. they are full of lazy people
> 
> *6 for 6*
> 
> Most even most democrats said Iraq was justified. Shall I name names of those democrats who were for going to Iraq?
> 
> *7 for 7*
> 
> The government works for us not the other way around It can not mandate that ANYONE BUY A PRODUCT IF THEY DON'T WANT NOR NEED IT. Would you object if the government made a law that stated everyone over the age of 18 must own a gun and have to buy a certain type at a certain store and maintain at least 5000 rounds for that gun and also have mandated firearm training at the governments set price.
> 
> *8 for 8*
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong didn't the staes create the fedral government? The states government had a check on the federal government until the 17th amendment.
> 
> *9 for 9!*
> 
> It has worked in the past But it works better when more conservative government is in control. Oh and Bush wasn't a conservative.
> 
> *10 for 10!!!*
> 
> I really don't care what faggots do as long as it doesn't effect me
> 
> *Well, I would say the use of the word faggots would at least be at least an indicator of your um, well nm.*
> Your openning post is where you were defending ob ama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My opening post was only a question. It neither defended not attacked Obama. It was the whackjob mentality that made it such (see definition in other post).
> 
> So basically, I've been able to tell you all your opinions in advance. The only reason you can't do that with me is because I actually think for myself. Like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist is one of the biggest racists on the board and uses the c-word to describe people he does not like.
> 
> Worthless, worthless attitude.



Jaker you are a worn out whore, I have a new play toy. Later


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist is one of the biggest racists on the board and uses the c-word to describe people he does not like.
> 
> Worthless, worthless attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jaker you are a worn out whore, I have a new play toy. Later
Click to expand...


  You are what you are, littledebfascist, the whole board knows it.  Go service your new interest.


----------



## yidnar

Moonglow said:


> China is a right to union nation, everyone has a union, yet they are kickin' our azz.


 now you want slave labor????libtards would love that.it seems they aren't satisfied with 50% of your work earnings being paid out IE....state,local,federal taxes. I mean 50% of working peoples labor is slave labor to the gubment massa.you think the unions in China are like the Unions here????ohh the unions here would love that kind of power.  FUNNY HOW PEOPLE THAT DON"T PAY WANT OTHERS TO.....THE SHAMELESS ADOLESCENT NERVE LIBBS HAVE IS ASTOUNDING TO SAY THE LEAST!!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opening post was only a question. It neither defended not attacked Obama. It was the whackjob mentality that made it such (see definition in other post).
> 
> So basically, I've been able to tell you all your opinions in advance. The only reason you can't do that with me is because I actually think for myself. Like I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 for 10!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope
> 
> I said No I don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You favor the Ryan Plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't I dont even favor Boehner plan. Since the cut's will not take affect immediately the will start after the next election and no congress is bound by the previous congress when it comes to spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but if it were bound? We'll table this until we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you remember what happen right after the 2010 elections? The dems tried to do a budget  that would go through 2011 instead of doing one for 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm against raising taxes because you don't raise taxes when you have a failed economy
> And when congress stop spend my money like it's theirs no new taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 for 3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong I did not say I was aginst rasing taxes, I said
> 
> 
> 
> And when congress stop spend my money like it's theirs no new taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So actually thats not saying I am against taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 out of 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freddy mac and fannie mae enough said.
> 
> You take off thoise liberal blinders and you will see I'm correct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 for 3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been pro life long before talk radio became a name brand. From the days of my youth and I'm 49
> 
> OH so being pro life all my life means I can't think for myself?
> 
> You're getting real close to that liberal identifier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are anti-union.
> 5 for 5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave my reasons why I'm anti union My reason would mean I think for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think more power should be given to the states.
> 
> 9 for 9!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal know thyself So my comment make you feel I can't think for myself? My comment was from the founding of America, It's part of America's history
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong didn't the staes create the fedral government? The states government had a check on the federal government until the 17th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far you have proven yourself to be a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> You think ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> 
> 7 for 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So thius comment makes you feel that I can't think for myself?
> 
> 
> 
> The government works for us not the other way around It can not mandate that ANYONE BUY A PRODUCT IF THEY DON'T WANT NOR NEED IT. Would you object if the government made a law that stated everyone over the age of 18 must own a gun and have to buy a certain type at a certain store and maintain at least 5000 rounds for that gun and also have mandated firearm training at the governments set price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being correct is a signe that a person can think for themself and that you are getting very close to identifing as a liberal.
> 
> You got the pro gun part because of my signature.
> 
> So you will have to recorrect your score You missed most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason you can't do that with me is because I actually think for myself. Like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you like using the word critical thinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist is one of the biggest racists on the board and uses the c-word to describe people he does not like.
> 
> Worthless, worthless attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jaker you are a worn out whore, I have a new play toy. Later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are what you are, littledebfascist, the whole board knows it.  Go service your new interest.
Click to expand...


They know it because I don't play with wordsa like you do. But here's a hint, most here know what you are even though you wear a painted face thatv you think will hide your liberalism


----------



## JakeStarkey

IndependentLogic, excellent excellent job.

littledebfascist just validated all of your points.  She doesn't think for herself.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> IndependentLogic, excellent excellent job.
> 
> littledebfascist just validated all of your points.  She doesn't think for herself.



I just proved him wrong when he said he was 10 for 10 but nothing new one liberal pating another liberal on the back.


----------



## idb

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot impeach the President just because he is black and you are a racist.
> Don't you know if they could they would have long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly does a half black obama have to do with anything? I have black relatives who don't like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well, then.   That settles it, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


To be fair, I don't think bigrednec is racist.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> IndependentLogic, excellent excellent job.
> 
> littledebfascist just validated all of your points.  She doesn't think for herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved him wrong when he said he was 10 for 10 but nothing new one liberal pating another liberal on the back.
Click to expand...


See the thing is, you're such a drone it's almost too easy. I even predicted you would dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run.

Dodges? 
Well uh... er.... I'm didn't say I'm against raising taxes! I uh, er,... sh1t. Uh, Oh Yeah! I got it now! I'm not against taxes WHEN I feel they are spending the money um, they way I think they should! (i.e. NEVER!) in other words, he's owned and he knows it but like any little mindless drone, he comes up with bullsh1t dodges to try to wiggle out of the obvious.

Now, want to se ol' Reb Cut & Run? Watch!

Okay Reb. Pick a dozen issues and tell me MY stance on them! Since I am this "Liberal" you claim I am, it should be easy! Go ahead. Tell me my "Liberal" views on teh same issues.

(Time for Reb to Dodge or Cut & Run)...


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly does a half black obama have to do with anything? I have black relatives who don't like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, then.   That settles it, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know I wasn't the one who mentioned his race. No I guess not as long as you liberals hang onto that raism they you live on.
Click to expand...


Ah, the Race Card Card.


----------



## IndependntLogic

JakeStarkey said:


>



Told ya ol' Reb would Cut & Run from that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Told ya ol' Reb would Cut & Run from that.
Click to expand...


You must be one of those government assisted freeloaders . DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THEY HAVE A JOB? I have to sleep  so I can get up the next day and go to work.


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Told ya ol' Reb would Cut & Run from that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be one of those government assisted freeloaders . DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THEY HAVE A JOB? I have to sleep  so I can get up the next day and go to work.
Click to expand...


Did he wake you up?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist is one of the biggest racists on the board and uses the c-word to describe people he does not like.
> 
> Worthless, worthless attitude.



You are a fucking god damn liar. when you die I hope you suffer to the very last breath.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> IndependentLogic, excellent excellent job.
> 
> littledebfascist just validated all of your points.  She doesn't think for herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved him wrong when he said he was 10 for 10 but nothing new one liberal pating another liberal on the back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the thing is, you're such a drone it's almost too easy. I even predicted you would dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run.
> 
> Dodges?
> Well uh... er.... I'm didn't say I'm against raising taxes! I uh, er,... sh1t. Uh, Oh Yeah! I got it now! I'm not against taxes WHEN I feel they are spending the money um, they way I think they should! (i.e. NEVER!) in other words, he's owned and he knows it but like any little mindless drone, he comes up with bullsh1t dodges to try to wiggle out of the obvious.
> 
> Now, want to se ol' Reb Cut & Run? Watch!
> 
> Okay Reb. Pick a dozen issues and tell me MY stance on them! Since I am this "Liberal" you claim I am, it should be easy! Go ahead. Tell me my "Liberal" views on teh same issues.
> 
> (Time for Reb to Dodge or Cut & Run)...
Click to expand...




> See the thing is, you're such a drone it's almost too easy. I even predicted you would dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run.



Who's fucking dodgeing? The only one you were a 100% correct on was the pro Gun and that's only because of my signature.


I also asked you why you thought someone who was prolife couldn't think for themself? I also gave you me personal exprience to why I don't like unions, and that for some reason makes you think a person can't think for themself, because of their personal exprience?  And about the states, The states created the Fedearal government. The states aren't given anything. It was the states who gave the power to the fed and now it's time to take it back.


Who's fucking running? Not me nor have I changed the subject.



> Okay Reb. Pick a dozen issues and tell me MY stance on them! Since I am this "Liberal" you claim I am, it should be easy! Go ahead. Tell me my "Liberal" views on teh same issues.



I really don't care what your stance is but just from this discussion and the way you have been tap dancing and not reading what has been posted to your question, you have all the traits of a die hard liberals.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Reb. Pick a dozen issues and tell me MY stance on them! Since I am this "Liberal" you claim I am, it should be easy! Go ahead. Tell me my "Liberal" views on teh same issues.
> 
> (Time for Reb to Dodge or Cut & Run)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the thing is, you're such a drone it's almost too easy. I even predicted you would dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's fucking dodgeing? The only one you were a 100% correct on was the pro Gun and that's only because of my signature.
> 
> 
> I also asked you why you thought someone who was prolife couldn't think for themself? I also gave you me personal exprience to why I don't like unions, and that for some reason makes you think a person can't think for themself, because of their personal exprience?  And about the states, The states created the Fedearal government. The states aren't given anything. It was the states who gave the power to the fed and now it's time to take it back.
> 
> 
> Who's fucking running? Not me nor have I changed the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Reb. Pick a dozen issues and tell me MY stance on them! Since I am this "Liberal" you claim I am, it should be easy! Go ahead. Tell me my "Liberal" views on teh same issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! This little weakling is SO owned! I am enjoying the sh1t out of his attempts at dodging the obvious! It's not that I was right about every issue, it's that uh, er, not EXACTLY right in the way Reb says is uh, right enough. So let's see...
> * He admitted he is pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * He admitted he thinks Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * He admitted favors the Ryan Plan over the Dem plan.
> * He admitted he is for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way (um unless Congress magically starts spending money exactly how he thinks they should).
> * He admitted he is are pro-life.
> * He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * He admitted he is anti-union.
> * He admitted he feels that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * He admitted he thinks ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * He admitted he thinks more power should be given to the states.
> * He admitted he thinks easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> 10 for 10 People! Mindless drone
> 
> Then he writes "*you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*"
> But can he back up his bullsh1t? Of course not. I have invited him to take a guess on my stance on any issues because if it isn't your positions on issues that make you Liberal or Conservative, what is it?
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> See the definition of whackjob below
Click to expand...


----------



## Full-Auto

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's fucking dodgeing? The only one you were a 100% correct on was the pro Gun and that's only because of my signature.
> 
> 
> I also asked you why you thought someone who was prolife couldn't think for themself? I also gave you me personal exprience to why I don't like unions, and that for some reason makes you think a person can't think for themself, because of their personal exprience?  And about the states, The states created the Fedearal government. The states aren't given anything. It was the states who gave the power to the fed and now it's time to take it back.
> 
> 
> Who's fucking running? Not me nor have I changed the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> * you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! This little weakling is SO owned! I am enjoying the sh1t out of his attempts at dodging the obvious! It's not that I was right about every issue, it's that uh, er, not EXACTLY right in the way Reb says is uh, right enough. So let's see...
> * He admitted he is pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * He admitted he thinks Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * He admitted favors the Ryan Plan over the Dem plan.
> * He admitted he is for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way (um unless Congress magically starts spending money exactly how he thinks they should).
> * He admitted he is are pro-life.
> * He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * He admitted he is anti-union.
> * He admitted he feels that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * He admitted he thinks ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * He admitted he thinks more power should be given to the states.
> * He admitted he thinks easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> 10 for 10 People! Mindless drone
> 
> Then he writes "*you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*"
> But can he back up his bullsh1t? Of course not. I have invited him to take a guess on my stance on any issues because if it isn't your positions on issues that make you Liberal or Conservative, what is it?
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> See the definition of whackjob below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well blowhard  list all of my views.  This should be fun.
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's fucking dodgeing? The only one you were a 100% correct on was the pro Gun and that's only because of my signature.
> 
> 
> I also asked you why you thought someone who was prolife couldn't think for themself? I also gave you me personal exprience to why I don't like unions, and that for some reason makes you think a person can't think for themself, because of their personal exprience?  And about the states, The states created the Fedearal government. The states aren't given anything. It was the states who gave the power to the fed and now it's time to take it back.
> 
> 
> Who's fucking running? Not me nor have I changed the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> * you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! This little weakling is SO owned! I am enjoying the sh1t out of his attempts at dodging the obvious! It's not that I was right about every issue, it's that uh, er, not EXACTLY right in the way Reb says is uh, right enough. So let's see...
> * He admitted he is pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * He admitted he thinks Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * He admitted favors the Ryan Plan over the Dem plan.
> * He admitted he is for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way (um unless Congress magically starts spending money exactly how he thinks they should).
> * He admitted he is are pro-life.
> * He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * He admitted he is anti-union.
> * He admitted he feels that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * He admitted he thinks ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * He admitted he thinks more power should be given to the states.
> * He admitted he thinks easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> 10 for 10 People! Mindless drone
> 
> Then he writes "*you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*"
> But can he back up his bullsh1t? Of course not. I have invited him to take a guess on my stance on any issues because if it isn't your positions on issues that make you Liberal or Conservative, what is it?
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> See the definition of whackjob below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're fucking lying or you can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he is pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats no secert read my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he thinks Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freddie and Fannie are pet projects of the democrats freddie and fannie was what got the economy on the down turn. No secert there either unless you can't think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted favors the Ryan Plan over the Dem plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoiu need to re-read my comment to this statement either you can't read or willingly lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he is for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way (um unless Congress magically starts spending money exactly how he thinks they should).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who in their right mind wants to pay more taxes? Liberals are big fans of taxes unless they're paying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to much government way to much federal government control. Do you like big government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he is are pro-life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucky for you your mother was also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would view the current government as a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he is anti-union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I doubt you have never worked with union people on a non union job you would be clueless. I gave my reason for being anti union p[eronal reasons. That would mean I can think for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he feels that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said at firest most Americans even a large portion of congressional democrats thought going to Iraq was a good thing.
> 
> What was obama's reason for going to libya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he thinks ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think it is or you would not mention obamacare. So are you pro obamacare?
> 
> Do you think the government should force people to buy something they don't want nor need? Who you complain if the government forced anyone over the age of 18 to buy a gun go to firearm training every 6 months at a set government price, buy and keep a minum of 1000 rounds of ammo at a set government price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he thinks more power should be given to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who created the federal government? I'll answer for you. The states did. Now how can the fed's give something which they have no power to give? The states already have the power to do it. All they have to do is show some back bone and take it back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admitted he thinks easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's nothing new it worked when Reagan was president I was a working tax payer when Reagan was president so I should know. Just how old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 for 10 People! Mindless drone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But can he back up his bullsh1t? Of course not. I have invited him to take a guess on my stance on any issues because if it isn't your positions on issues that make you Liberal or Conservative, what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you weren';tr asshat. This post of your's shows just how liberal you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are maybe you're just to stupid to relize it. Then again you maybe a statist. They have them in both parties.
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! This little weakling is SO owned! I am enjoying the sh1t out of his attempts at dodging the obvious! It's not that I was right about every issue, it's that uh, er, not EXACTLY right in the way Reb says is uh, right enough. So let's see...
> * He admitted he is pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * He admitted he thinks Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * He admitted favors the Ryan Plan over the Dem plan.
> * He admitted he is for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way (um unless Congress magically starts spending money exactly how he thinks they should).
> * He admitted he is are pro-life.
> * He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * He admitted he is anti-union.
> * He admitted he feels that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * He admitted he thinks ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * He admitted he thinks more power should be given to the states.
> * He admitted he thinks easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> 10 for 10 People! Mindless drone
> 
> Then he writes "*you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*"
> But can he back up his bullsh1t? Of course not. I have invited him to take a guess on my stance on any issues because if it isn't your positions on issues that make you Liberal or Conservative, what is it?
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> See the definition of whackjob below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well blowhard  list all of my views.  This should be fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? He was wrong when he tried mine.
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, then.   That settles it, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know I wasn't the one who mentioned his race. No I guess not as long as you liberals hang onto that raism they you live on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the Race Card Card.
Click to expand...


I wasn't playing it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist is one of the biggest racists on the board and uses the c-word to describe people he does not like.
> 
> Worthless, worthless attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking god damn liar. when you die I hope you suffer to the very last breath.
Click to expand...


You lie even before God.  Oh, my.  Anyone can search the board and find your language, over and over and over.  The worst sexist and racist is the one who denies it in the face of the truth, such as you.  May God have mercy on you, because you sure aren't.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! This little weakling is SO owned! I am enjoying the sh1t out of his attempts at dodging the obvious! It's not that I was right about every issue, it's that uh, er, not EXACTLY right in the way Reb says is uh, right enough. So let's see...
> * He admitted he is pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * He admitted he thinks Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * He admitted favors the Ryan Plan over the Dem plan.
> * He admitted he is for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way (um unless Congress magically starts spending money exactly how he thinks they should).
> * He admitted he is are pro-life.
> * He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * He admitted he is anti-union.
> * He admitted he feels that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * He admitted he thinks ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * He admitted he thinks more power should be given to the states.
> * He admitted he thinks easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> 10 for 10 People! Mindless drone
> 
> Then he writes "*you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*"
> But can he back up his bullsh1t? Of course not. I have invited him to take a guess on my stance on any issues because if it isn't your positions on issues that make you Liberal or Conservative, what is it?
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> See the definition of whackjob below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking lying or you can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats no secert read my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> Freddie and Fannie are pet projects of the democrats freddie and fannie was what got the economy on the down turn. No secert there either unless you can't think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Yoiu need to re-read my comment to this statement either you can't read or willingly lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Who in their right mind wants to pay more taxes? Liberals are big fans of taxes unless they're paying them.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to much government way to much federal government control. Do you like big government?
> 
> 
> 
> Lucky for you your mother was also.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would view the current government as a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Since I doubt you have never worked with union people on a non union job you would be clueless. I gave my reason for being anti union p[eronal reasons. That would mean I can think for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> I said at firest most Americans even a large portion of congressional democrats thought going to Iraq was a good thing.
> 
> What was obama's reason for going to libya?
> 
> 
> 
> You must think it is or you would not mention obamacare. So are you pro obamacare?
> 
> Do you think the government should force people to buy something they don't want nor need? Who you complain if the government forced anyone over the age of 18 to buy a gun go to firearm training every 6 months at a set government price, buy and keep a minum of 1000 rounds of ammo at a set government price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the federal government? I'll answer for you. The states did. Now how can the fed's give something which they have no power to give? The states already have the power to do it. All they have to do is show some back bone and take it back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nothing new it worked when Reagan was president I was a working tax payer when Reagan was president so I should know. Just how old are you?
> 
> 
> No you weren';tr asshat. This post of your's shows just how liberal you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are maybe you're just to stupid to relize it. Then again you maybe a statist. They have them in both parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now see. That was fun. You just admitted I was at least 9 out of 10 again with one being disputable.
> Then you called me a Liberal again and again, dodged and Cut & Ran i.e. you call me a Liberal without having a fucking clue as to my position on the issues above. See defintion of whackjob below
Click to expand...


----------



## IndependntLogic

Full-Auto said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! This little weakling is SO owned! I am enjoying the sh1t out of his attempts at dodging the obvious! It's not that I was right about every issue, it's that uh, er, not EXACTLY right in the way Reb says is uh, right enough. So let's see...
> * He admitted he is pro-gun, anti gun laws of just about any kind.
> * He admitted he thinks Obama and the Dems are the primary (and almost exclusive) cause of our current debt crisis.
> * He admitted favors the Ryan Plan over the Dem plan.
> * He admitted he is for Cut Cap & Trade and against raising taxes on anyone in any way (um unless Congress magically starts spending money exactly how he thinks they should).
> * He admitted he is are pro-life.
> * He admitted he feels we have too much government and that many parts of it are downright unconstitutional.
> * He admitted he is anti-union.
> * He admitted he feels that Iraq was justified but that Libya is illegal.
> * He admitted he thinks ObamaCare is awful and UnConstitutional.
> * He admitted he thinks more power should be given to the states.
> * He admitted he thinks easing taxes and regulations would help create more jobs.
> 
> 10 for 10 People! Mindless drone
> 
> Then he writes "*you have all the traits of a die hard liberals*"
> But can he back up his bullsh1t? Of course not. I have invited him to take a guess on my stance on any issues because if it isn't your positions on issues that make you Liberal or Conservative, what is it?
> So I'm a diehard Liberal um "just because". You know, because um, well let's see um... Ooops! full-of-sh1t-o-meter flying in the red folks!
> 
> See the definition of whackjob below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well blowhard  list all of my views.  This should be fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With Reb it was easy - Just turn on Glenn Beck and you'll see what he thinks. I mean if it comes down to a simple yes or no answer, I was 100% with him. Unless he would say "No" to being pro-life, pro-gun etc... Which we know he wouldn't. And really, the only reason I played with him a bit, was because he came out guns blazing, apply labels like a complete @ssh0le, so I put him in his place. Generally, I'm just fine with differing views but I'm not a doormat when people give me shit. Are you? I doubt it.
> I haven't seen enough of your posts to venture a guess and I suspect you're not as two-dimensional as Reb...
Click to expand...


----------



## yidnar

IndependntLogic said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well blowhard  list all of my views.  This should be fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Reb it was easy - Just turn on Glenn Beck and you'll see what he thinks. I mean if it comes down to a simple yes or no answer, I was 100% with him. Unless he would say "No" to being pro-life, pro-gun etc... Which we know he wouldn't. And really, the only reason I played with him a bit, was because he came out guns blazing, apply labels like a complete @ssh0le, so I put him in his place. Generally, I'm just fine with differing views but I'm not a doormat when people give me shit. Are you? I doubt it.
> I haven't seen enough of your posts to venture a guess and I suspect you're not as two-dimensional as Reb...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> With Reb it was easy - Just turn on Glenn Beck and you'll see what he thinks. I mean if it comes down to a simple yes or no answer, I was 100% with him. Unless he would say "No" to being pro-life, pro-gun etc... Which we know he wouldn't. And really, the only reason I played with him a bit, was because he came out guns blazing, apply labels like a complete @ssh0le, so I put him in his place. Generally, I'm just fine with differing views but I'm not a doormat when people give me shit. Are you? I doubt it.
> I haven't seen enough of your posts to venture a guess and I suspect you're not as two-dimensional as Reb...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yid, gently but firmly, this makes no sense.  Do you have something you want to say.
> 
> SAY IT, PLEASE
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking lying or you can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats no secert read my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> Freddie and Fannie are pet projects of the democrats freddie and fannie was what got the economy on the down turn. No secert there either unless you can't think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Yoiu need to re-read my comment to this statement either you can't read or willingly lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Who in their right mind wants to pay more taxes? Liberals are big fans of taxes unless they're paying them.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to much government way to much federal government control. Do you like big government?
> 
> 
> 
> Lucky for you your mother was also.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would view the current government as a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Since I doubt you have never worked with union people on a non union job you would be clueless. I gave my reason for being anti union p[eronal reasons. That would mean I can think for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> I said at firest most Americans even a large portion of congressional democrats thought going to Iraq was a good thing.
> 
> What was obama's reason for going to libya?
> 
> 
> 
> You must think it is or you would not mention obamacare. So are you pro obamacare?
> 
> Do you think the government should force people to buy something they don't want nor need? Who you complain if the government forced anyone over the age of 18 to buy a gun go to firearm training every 6 months at a set government price, buy and keep a minum of 1000 rounds of ammo at a set government price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who created the federal government? I'll answer for you. The states did. Now how can the fed's give something which they have no power to give? The states already have the power to do it. All they have to do is show some back bone and take it back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nothing new it worked when Reagan was president I was a working tax payer when Reagan was president so I should know. Just how old are you?
> 
> 
> No you weren';tr asshat. This post of your's shows just how liberal you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are maybe you're just to stupid to relize it. Then again you maybe a statist. They have them in both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now see. That was fun. You just admitted I was at least 9 out of 10 again with one being disputable.
> Then you called me a Liberal again and again, dodged and Cut & Ran i.e. you call me a Liberal without having a fucking clue as to my position on the issues above. See defintion of whackjob below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I call it as I see you're either a liberal or statist.
> 
> And again wasn't it a good thing your mother was pro life?
> Liberals are so fucking transparent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you called me a Liberal again and again, dodged and Cut & Ran i.e. you call me a Liberal without having a fucking clue as to my position on the issues above. See defintion of whackjob below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One fucking things for sure kido you like to spike the ball and say you won long before the game starts.
> 
> Listen up junior I don't run I don't dodge stop spiking the ball and calling yourself the winner. Now let me be very clear I am not a whackjob liberals such as you and jokey are.
Click to expand...


----------



## idb

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now see. That was fun. You just admitted I was at least 9 out of 10 again with one being disputable.
> Then you called me a Liberal again and again, dodged and Cut & Ran i.e. you call me a Liberal without having a fucking clue as to my position on the issues above. See defintion of whackjob below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I call it as I see you're either a liberal or statist.
> 
> And again wasn't it a good thing your mother was pro life?
> Liberals are so fucking transparent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you called me a Liberal again and again, dodged and Cut & Ran i.e. you call me a Liberal without having a fucking clue as to my position on the issues above. See defintion of whackjob below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One fucking things for sure kido you like to spike the ball and say you won long before the game starts.
> 
> Listen up junior I don't run I don't dodge stop spiking the ball and calling yourself the winner. Now let me be very clear I am not a whackjob liberals such as you and jokey are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I am not...*you* are!!!"
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist is a moonbat wing nut.  No other way to describe her.  She can't argue logically, and much of the time the screen drips with her spittle.  She is only one step about the Guatamas here.


----------



## KissMy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> *Isn't this how dictators begin?*



He is a *"Dick Tater"*


----------



## HenryBHough

Nobody's pushing impeachment because everybody's unhappy when the circus leaves town.


----------



## idb

KissMy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> *Isn't this how dictators begin?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a *"Dick Tater"*
Click to expand...


Hey!
That looks just like a...


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now see. That was fun. You just admitted I was at least 9 out of 10 again with one being disputable.
> Then you called me a Liberal again and again, dodged and Cut & Ran i.e. you call me a Liberal without having a fucking clue as to my position on the issues above. See defintion of whackjob below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I call it as I see you're either a liberal or statist.
> 
> And again wasn't it a good thing your mother was pro life?
> Liberals are so fucking transparent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you called me a Liberal again and again, dodged and Cut & Ran i.e. you call me a Liberal without having a fucking clue as to my position on the issues above. See defintion of whackjob below
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One fucking things for sure kido you like to spike the ball and say you won long before the game starts.
> 
> Listen up junior I don't run I don't dodge stop spiking the ball and calling yourself the winner. Now let me be very clear I am not a whackjob liberals such as you and jokey are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - Dude, it's like playing chess with a 4 year old. I almost feel guilt here - you're SO easy! And so funny
> 
> You are full of shit. Proof? You call me a Liberal but dodge or Cut & Run like the little b1tch you are, when it comes to backing up your bullsh1t. That's the problem with being a little b1tch. People call you on your bs and you're a deer in the headlights, not knowing what to say
> So why am I a Liberal? What are the views I have that make me a Liberal?
> 
> (LOL - it is now time for the weak little b1tch to try to dodge out of his bs claims with excuses again )
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I call it as I see you're either a liberal or statist.
> 
> And again wasn't it a good thing your mother was pro life?
> Liberals are so fucking transparent
> 
> 
> 
> One fucking things for sure kido you like to spike the ball and say you won long before the game starts.
> 
> Listen up junior I don't run I don't dodge stop spiking the ball and calling yourself the winner. Now let me be very clear I am not a whackjob liberals such as you and jokey are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL - Dude, it's like playing chess with a 4 year old. I almost feel guilt here - you're SO easy! And so funny
> 
> You are full of shit. Proof? You call me a Liberal but dodge or Cut & Run like the little b1tch you are, when it comes to backing up your bullsh1t. That's the problem with being a little b1tch. People call you on your bs and you're a deer in the headlights, not knowing what to say
> So why am I a Liberal? What are the views I have that make me a Liberal?
> 
> (LOL - it is now time for the weak little b1tch to try to dodge out of his bs claims with excuses again )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, it's like playing chess with a 4 year old. I almost feel guilt here - you're SO easy! And so funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spiking the football and declaring a victory when the game hasn't even started is kind of childish if you ask me. What are you going to do next take your ball and go home if you don't get your way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit. Proof? You call me a Liberal but dodge or Cut & Run like the little b1tch you are, when it comes to backing up your bullsh1t. That's the problem with being a little b1tch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats with this cut and run shit? I have not left this thread, I'm still here? Do you have a point to your little rant?
> 
> As for you being a liberal you attack this thread like a well trained talking point liberal.
> 
> Now what exactly was your point?
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist is a moonbat wing nut.  No other way to describe her.  She can't argue logically, and much of the time the screen drips with her spittle.  She is only one step about the Guatamas here.



Jokey hate's women because he will use the female term as a way of insulting a man.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit. Proof? You call me a Liberal but dodge or Cut & Run like the little b1tch you are, when it comes to backing up your bullsh1t. That's the problem with being a little b1tch.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats with this cut and run shit? I have not left this thread, I'm still here? Do you have a point to your little rant?
> 
> As for you being a liberal you attack this thread like a well trained talking point liberal.
> 
> Now what exactly was your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me dumb this down SO much, that even you can get it.
> 
> 1. You have claimed I am a Liberal - a "talking point Liberal" even.
> 2. You have not back up your claims.
> 3. You just throw little tantrums and stomp your whackjob feeties like a little b1tch, every time you are challenged to back up you bullshit with anything.
> 
> So let's make it even simpler! Just yes or no questions. Think you can handle those? (We know you can't so put on your little ballet slippers and prepare do dance around).
> 
> 1. Is it a person's views on various political issues that determines whether they are Liberal or Conservative? (the only other option would be "just cuz you say so, dammit! )? Yes or No?
> 2. Is my position on Obama, that he is a good president?
> 3. Is my position on ObamaCare that it is a good thing?
> 4. Is my position on unions that they are necessary to protect the working class of our nation?
> 5. Is my position on taxes that raising them on the rich would help solve our problems?
> 6. Is my position on guns that people should not be able to own them or that more laws on CCW etc... would reduce gun violence?
> 7. Is my position on Libya, Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan, that Obama is doing the right thing?
> 8. Is my position on Harsh Interrogation that it should never be used?
> 9. Is my position on abortion that it should be illegal?
> 10. Is my position on religion that Christians are treated more than fair and equitibly in this country?
> 11. Is my position on federal government that it is fine how it is and should not be cut drastically?
> 12. Is my position on ACORN that it was performing a public service and too much was made of it?
> 13. Is my position on Git-Mo and its prisoners that it should be closed and the prisoners given the same rights accorded others per the Constitution?
> 14. Is my position on Affirmative Action that it is necessary to insure equal opportunites for all?
> 15. Is my position on Global Warming that it is a fact?
> 16. Is my position on nuclear power that we should end it?
> 17. Is my position that our current problems are all Bush's fault?
> 
> So okay Sweetheart! C'mon Rebbie! here's your chance! What are my positons on all those "Talking Point Liberal" issues? (Hint, there are both Yes's and No's). Time to prove that you're not full of shit! Or of course, time to dodge around the questions and come up with more bullshit excuses....
> Joke, I put the odds at 5:1 he won't just answer
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay let me dumb this down SO much, that even you can get it.
> 
> 1. You have claimed I am a Liberal - a "talking point Liberal" even.
> 2. You have not back up your claims.
> 3. You just throw little tantrums and stomp your whackjob feeties like a little b1tch, every time you are challenged to back up you bullshit with anything.
> 
> So let's make it even simpler! Just yes or no questions. Think you can handle those? (We know you can't so put on your little ballet slippers and prepare do dance around).
> 
> 1. Is it a person's views on various political issues that determines whether they are Liberal or Conservative? (the only other option would be "just cuz you say so, dammit! )? Yes or No?
> 2. Is my position on Obama, that he is a good president?
> 3. Is my position on ObamaCare that it is a good thing?
> 4. Is my position on unions that they are necessary to protect the working class of our nation?
> 5. Is my position on taxes that raising them on the rich would help solve our problems?
> 6. Is my position on guns that people should not be able to own them or that more laws on CCW etc... would reduce gun violence?
> 7. Is my position on Libya, Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan, that Obama is doing the right thing?
> 8. Is my position on Harsh Interrogation that it should never be used?
> 9. Is my position on abortion that it should be illegal?
> 10. Is my position on religion that Christians are treated more than fair and equitibly in this country?
> 11. Is my position on federal government that it is fine how it is and should not be cut drastically?
> 12. Is my position on ACORN that it was performing a public service and too much was made of it?
> 13. Is my position on Git-Mo and its prisoners that it should be closed and the prisoners given the same rights accorded others per the Constitution?
> 14. Is my position on Affirmative Action that it is necessary to insure equal opportunites for all?
> 15. Is my position on Global Warming that it is a fact?
> 16. Is my position on nuclear power that we should end it?
> 17. Is my position that our current problems are all Bush's fault?
> 
> So okay Sweetheart! C'mon Rebbie! here's your chance! What are my positons on all those "Talking Point Liberal" issues? (Hint, there are both Yes's and No's). Time to prove that you're not full of shit! Or of course, time to dodge around the questions and come up with more bullshit excuses....
> Joke, I put the odds at 5:1 he won't just answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear I really don't give a shit what your position is, you can say any thing on a discussion board, but what get's me is that you have tried evewrything to side track this thread just like any good liberal would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joke, I put the odds at 5:1 he won't just answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The joke is in your hand when you jack off and in the mirror when you sneek up on it.
> 
> ONE MORE TIME FOR THOSE WHO CAN READ STUPID LOGIC IS TRING EVERYTHING HE CAN DO TO SIDE TRACK THIS THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist simply is too predictable, can't answer without the Rush crib sheets, and he is a stain on the far right.  Of course, better off for the rest of America that we all know exactly where he is positioned politically.


----------



## IndependntLogic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear I really don't give a shit what your position is, you can say any thing on a discussion board, but what get's me is that you have tried evewrything to side track this thread just like any good liberal would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! I TOLD you he would Cut & Run! And people wonder why the whackjobs on the net are not taken seriously.
> So let's see,  Reb says I'm a Liberal -
> & not because of my stance on political issues - all of which I can prove from posts that were up _before_ this thread started
> * Nope. I'm a liberal because I didn't completely agree with Reb in every possible way, on one single issue.
> * See definition of whackjob below.
> Many laughs on the net.
> Very few posters worth taking seriously though. Mostly entertainment (Although I have learned some things from the non-whackjobs like Joe Six Pack).
> 
> Okay so all Reb is going to do is throw his little tantrums, label anyone disagreeing with him on anything and dodge any direct questions or facts. We're done here. Whackjobbery idisputably proven. Buh bye now...
> 
> Oops - almost forgot. Reb, even though you're a bit "extreme" when it comes to anyone disagreeing with you, I do admire your passion for your country and that you actually give a shit. Most Americans don't even care. Cheers & God Bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist simply is too predictable, can't answer without the Rush crib sheets, and he is a stain on the far right.  Of course, better off for the rest of America that we all know exactly where he is positioned politically.


jokey when the fall comes I will laugh my ass off at shit stains like you.  I'm prepared, and if it doesn't come I will never go hungry.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IndependntLogic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! I TOLD you he would Cut & Run! And people wonder why the whackjobs on the net are not taken seriously.
> So let's see,  Reb says I'm a Liberal -
> & not because of my stance on political issues - all of which I can prove from posts that were up _before_ this thread started
> * Nope. I'm a liberal because I didn't completely agree with Reb in every possible way, on one single issue.
> * See definition of whackjob below.
> Many laughs on the net.
> Very few posters worth taking seriously though. Mostly entertainment (Although I have learned some things from the non-whackjobs like Joe Six Pack).
> 
> Okay so all Reb is going to do is throw his little tantrums, label anyone disagreeing with him on anything and dodge any direct questions or facts. We're done here. Whackjobbery idisputably proven. Buh bye now...
> 
> Oops - almost forgot. Reb, even though you're a bit "extreme" when it comes to anyone disagreeing with you, I do admire your passion for your country and that you actually give a shit. Most Americans don't even care. Cheers & God Bless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm a liberal because I didn't completely agree with Reb in every possible way, on one single issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK let's clear this up, just because you disagreed with me does not make you a liberal, it's how you went about it. You used liberal tatics.
> 
> I've disagreed with a few conservatives here.
> 
> And as far as being an extremeist. I am a God fearing gun toting card carry right wing extremeist.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist simply is too predictable, can't answer without the Rush crib sheets, and he is a stain on the far right.  Of course, better off for the rest of America that we all know exactly where he is positioned politically.
> 
> 
> 
> jokey when the fall comes I will laugh my ass off at shit stains like you.  I'm prepared, and if it doesn't come I will never go hungry.
Click to expand...


Son, credit and money and no debt are king, queen, and crown prince.

Sonny, I am royalty in times of economic disaster.  Be nice and I will let you stay in your trailer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist simply is too predictable, can't answer without the Rush crib sheets, and he is a stain on the far right.  Of course, better off for the rest of America that we all know exactly where he is positioned politically.
> 
> 
> 
> jokey when the fall comes I will laugh my ass off at shit stains like you.  I'm prepared, and if it doesn't come I will never go hungry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, credit and money and no debt are king, queen, and crown prince.
> 
> Sonny, I am royalty in times of economic disaster.  Be nice and I will let you stay in your trailer.
Click to expand...


Sure jokey, remember i'LL BE LAUGHING.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are laughing at you, littledebfascist.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> We are laughing at you, littledebfascist.



And many at you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't want to marry you, Full-Auto, or the reactionaries of the far right.  The laughter of the fools of the far right matters not at all to me.  Obama will now veto for sure a bill that does not do what is best for the country, then take it to the voters.  The far right will be shattered for this generation, and we start over without your nonsense.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't want to marry you, Full-Auto, or the reactionaries of the far right.  The laughter of the fools of the far right matters not at all to me.  Obama will now veto for sure a bill that does not do what is best for the country, then take it to the voters.  The far right will be shattered for this generation, and we start over without your nonsense.



Thats good because I find you........ Well I wont go there.  I am just pointing out your rhetoric doesnt match your alleged beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tea Party rhetoric does not match constitutional values or American fair play or Christian duty.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Tea Party rhetoric does not match constitutional values or American fair play or Christian duty.



I wasnt aware that spending the grandchildrens money was a constitutional value.

Where did you get that idea?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party rhetoric does not match constitutional values or American fair play or Christian duty.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that spending the grandchildrens money was a constitutional value.  Where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...


Reactionary goobldygook is not real Republicanism.


----------



## HenryBHough

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party rhetoric does not match constitutional values or American fair play or Christian duty.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that spending the grandchildrens money was a constitutional value.  Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reactionary goobldygook is not real Republicanism.
Click to expand...


Was the question THAT hard?


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party rhetoric does not match constitutional values or American fair play or Christian duty.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that spending the grandchildrens money was a constitutional value.  Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reactionary goobldygook is not real Republicanism.
Click to expand...


You are one screaming borrow borrow.

Dont get uptight for pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Full-Auto

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that spending the grandchildrens money was a constitutional value.  Where did you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary goobldygook is not real Republicanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the question THAT hard?
Click to expand...


Ive already given you reps.  They must hate you.  LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

HenryB lives in la la land, and is here for only grins and chuckles.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryB lives in la la land, and is here for only grins and chuckles.



We all need those


----------



## JakeStarkey

That we do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Tea Party rhetoric does not match constitutional values or American fair play or Christian duty.



Christian duty?

One of those duties is owing nobody anything, one of those duties is not allowing anything come between you and God.

Seem's the government you support has done that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist is now God's prophet!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that spending the grandchildrens money was a constitutional value.  Where did you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary goobldygook is not real Republicanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the question THAT hard?
Click to expand...


I tried to rep you but I must spread the reps around before doing it again.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist is now God's prophet!



Holy fucking shit I'm a prophet!? Sorry Jokey I'm not I just tell it like it is. If you like quoting versus you should at least know what you're talking about. It's in the bible what I said.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Show us, littledebfascist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Show us, littledebfascist.



Why do I have to show you what you are tring to use as support? You statist like to use the Bible Jesus and God only when it suits your purpoose of intrapment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We who believe in We the People republican government as followers of God and the Word.

You are not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> We who believe in We the People republican government as followers of God and the Word.
> 
> You are not.



Well then if you are a follower of the word as you claim you should at least know what you're talking asbout.

What I said is in the Bible check it out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have posted an assertion without evidence then demand rebuttal using evidence.

You are laughable, and you are wrong.


----------



## HenryBHough

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryB lives in la la land, and is here for only grins and chuckles.



Amazingly perceptive for a Liberal!

Won't be long and you'll be accepting Your Kenyan President for what He is - rather than what He'd like you to believe.

_It'll blow yer mind_.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Our president is far more American than you guys.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Our president is far more American than you guys.



If you can accept obama as president after all he has done then thats your choice, but can you live with that choice?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You have posted an assertion without evidence then demand rebuttal using evidence.
> 
> You are laughable, and you are wrong.



I do not claim to be a "follower of the word" Do you really want someone who doesn't claim to be a "follower of the word" to show your lying ass up?

Here
 owe no man anything
NIV
Romans 13:8
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

King James Bible
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Put nothing between you and God
Exodus 20:3
you shall have no other gods before me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You do not even understand the scriptures.  The debt is the debt of love that each human owes the other, and that debt is taken care of by service to others.  We do that by private charity and public assistance.  So say We the People.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our president is far more American than you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can accept obama as president* after all he has done *then thats your choice, but can you live with that choice?
Click to expand...


Oh yes...those imaginary crimes you want him impeached for but you are too afraid to report him for.......


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our president is far more American than you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can accept obama as president* after all he has done *then thats your choice, but can you live with that choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes...those imaginary crimes you want him impeached for but you are too afraid to report him for.......
Click to expand...


Thats fine if you want to accept what he's done, but will you be able to live with the aftermath? But of course you will blamne anyone else but your perious Nobama


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yeah, I can live with anyone who is qualified to be president has been selected constitutionally and by electoral process.  Obama is qualified.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can accept obama as president* after all he has done *then thats your choice, but can you live with that choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes...those imaginary crimes you want him impeached for but you are too afraid to report him for.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats fine if you want to accept what he's done, but will you be able to live with the aftermath? But of course you will blamne anyone else but your perious Nobama
Click to expand...


Please explain to us what Obama has done now that has you clutching your pearls and whining.....but NOT reporting him?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Yeah, I can live with anyone who is qualified to be president has been selected constitutionally and by electoral process.  Obama is qualified.



He maybe " qualified" but is he capable? so far he hasn't shown it, he's failed
Even his own words condemn him

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said.
PolitiFact | Bachmann said Obama voted against the debt limit when he was a senator


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes...those imaginary crimes you want him impeached for but you are too afraid to report him for.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats fine if you want to accept what he's done, but will you be able to live with the aftermath? But of course you will blamne anyone else but your perious Nobama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain to us what Obama has done now that has you clutching your pearls and whining.....but NOT reporting him?
Click to expand...


I'm sure you were the one I talked to four weeks ago.


----------



## HenryBHough

JakeStarkey said:


> Yeah, I can live with anyone who is qualified to be president has been selected constitutionally and by electoral process.



Please get back to us when we have such a President.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can live with anyone who is qualified to be president has been selected constitutionally and by electoral process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please get back to us when we have such a President.
Click to expand...


Henry with the information we have been given Nobama was elected in accordence to the Constitution. Now it hasn't been proven that the information given is truthful or not.


----------



## Full-Auto

Nobama

On AR receivers across the nation.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats fine if you want to accept what he's done, but will you be able to live with the aftermath? But of course you will blamne anyone else but your perious Nobama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us what Obama has done now that has you clutching your pearls and whining.....but NOT reporting him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you were the one I talked to four weeks ago.
Click to expand...


In your paranoia....sure.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us what Obama has done now that has you clutching your pearls and whining.....but NOT reporting him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you were the one I talked to four weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your paranoia....sure.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one that has a zip code from that area. But then again, I also do not live in the state called nothing is wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> Nobama
> 
> On AR receivers across the nation.



I'd buy one just for that reason.


----------



## JakeStarkey

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can live with anyone who is qualified to be president has been selected constitutionally and by electoral process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please get back to us when we have such a President.
Click to expand...


Barak Obama has been such and will be again if you folks keep playing into his hands.

You guys are just stupid, I guess.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can live with anyone who is qualified to be president has been selected constitutionally and by electoral process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please get back to us when we have such a President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barak Obama has been such and will be again if you folks keep playing into his hands.
> 
> You guys are just stupid, I guess.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yep, you are stupid.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, you are stupid.



You did make to the third grade.

All of us here at usmb   SALUTE!!


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did make to the third grade.
> 
> All of us here at usmb   SALUTE!!
Click to expand...


Jokey's a little lost finding an answer for his usage of the bible and not knowing what it is he's talking about.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can live with anyone who is qualified to be president has been selected constitutionally and by electoral process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please get back to us when we have such a President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barak Obama has been such and will be again if you folks keep playing into his hands.
> 
> You guys are just stupid, I guess.
Click to expand...


You think most of America will re-elect a president who show's sign's of failed leadership?

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said.


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please get back to us when we have such a President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barak Obama has been such and will be again if you folks keep playing into his hands.
> 
> You guys are just stupid, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think most of America will re-elect a president who show's sign's of failed leadership?
> 
> "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said.
Click to expand...


----------



## Shiiro601229

Congress should not have the authority to make decisions that affect the entire country. By virtue of being elected individually, to serve individual districts or states, with individual differing interests, members of Congress should forfeit the right to do anything other than petition the federal government for funding of projects within their respective jurisdictions. AKA, the ONLY thing Congress should be allowed to do is ask for money for pork projects. As the system is currently set up, the President is the only governmental position that requires the vote of of the entire country, and thus should be the ONLY one to govern with regards to issues that affect the entire country. If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. That way the true will of the people of the United States will be fairly represented. I must say, that Obama represents the opinions of a much greater number of people than the Tea Party does, and that any politician that actually believes in what the Tea Party preaches, is sorely out of touch with reality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Shiiro601229 said:


> Congress should not have the authority to make decisions that affect the entire country. By virtue of being elected individually, to serve individual districts or states, with individual differing interests, members of Congress should forfeit the right to do anything other than petition the federal government for funding of projects within their respective jurisdictions. AKA, the ONLY thing Congress should be allowed to do is ask for money for pork projects. As the system is currently set up, the President is the only governmental position that requires the vote of of the entire country, and thus should be the ONLY one to govern with regards to issues that affect the entire country. If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. That way the true will of the people of the United States will be fairly represented. I must say, that Obama represents the opinions of a much greater number of people than the Tea Party does, and that any politician that actually believes in what the Tea Party preaches, is sorely out of touch with reality.



So in other words what you are saying is that you want a dictatorship, with no checks and balances. Is this correct?


----------



## JakeStarkey

If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.



What? are you drunk or still on those sex change drugs?


----------



## Shiiro601229

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Shiiro601229 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress should not have the authority to make decisions that affect the entire country. By virtue of being elected individually, to serve individual districts or states, with individual differing interests, members of Congress should forfeit the right to do anything other than petition the federal government for funding of projects within their respective jurisdictions. AKA, the ONLY thing Congress should be allowed to do is ask for money for pork projects. As the system is currently set up, the President is the only governmental position that requires the vote of of the entire country, and thus should be the ONLY one to govern with regards to issues that affect the entire country. If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. That way the true will of the people of the United States will be fairly represented. I must say, that Obama represents the opinions of a much greater number of people than the Tea Party does, and that any politician that actually believes in what the Tea Party preaches, is sorely out of touch with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words what you are saying is that you want a dictatorship, with no checks and balances. Is this correct?
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.



No, what I'm saying, is that at the moment, the system is currently flawed. In that the only one who can truly claim to have a mandate from the country as a whole is the president, and, getting on topic with the thread, Obama shouldn't be anywhere remotely near getting impeached because ultimately, he's the only one who can legitimately claim that he has the best interests of the country at heart, because he's the only one who represents the entire country. I think that my original post was a bit off topic, but more than anything, I think that the current structure undermines the authority of the legislative branch, and unintentionally gives the President scarcely limited powers with regards to issues not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. I think that there should be a third body of Congress that represents the entire country, so that the President doesn't have the only national mandate... Sorry if it's a bit confusing to understand, and I know it's kind of off topic, but Obama hasn't really done anything to warrant impeachment until he starts to outright claim that the executive is more powerful than any of the other branches (even though it may well be).

Most important sentence from first post:
"If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country."


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? are you drunk or still on those sex change drugs?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ok, I get it now.  However, the President is the national tribune, the national representation of the electorate's republican will, of all American whether individuals want that person or not.

It is what it is, and it has worked for more than 200 years.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Shiiro601229 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shiiro601229 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress should not have the authority to make decisions that affect the entire country. By virtue of being elected individually, to serve individual districts or states, with individual differing interests, members of Congress should forfeit the right to do anything other than petition the federal government for funding of projects within their respective jurisdictions. AKA, the ONLY thing Congress should be allowed to do is ask for money for pork projects. As the system is currently set up, the President is the only governmental position that requires the vote of of the entire country, and thus should be the ONLY one to govern with regards to issues that affect the entire country. If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. That way the true will of the people of the United States will be fairly represented. I must say, that Obama represents the opinions of a much greater number of people than the Tea Party does, and that any politician that actually believes in what the Tea Party preaches, is sorely out of touch with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words what you are saying is that you want a dictatorship, with no checks and balances. Is this correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I'm saying, is that at the moment, the system is currently flawed. In that the only one who can truly claim to have a mandate from the country as a whole is the president, and, getting on topic with the thread, Obama shouldn't be anywhere remotely near getting impeached because ultimately, he's the only one who can legitimately claim that he has the best interests of the country at heart, because he's the only one who represents the entire country. I think that my original post was a bit off topic, but more than anything, I think that the current structure undermines the authority of the legislative branch, and unintentionally gives the President scarcely limited powers with regards to issues not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. I think that there should be a third body of Congress that represents the entire country, so that the President doesn't have the only national mandate... Sorry if it's a bit confusing to understand, and I know it's kind of off topic, but Obama hasn't really done anything to warrant impeachment until he starts to outright claim that the executive is more powerful than any of the other branches (even though it may well be).
> 
> Most important sentence from first post:
> "If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country."
Click to expand...




> No, what I'm saying, is that at the moment, the system is currently flawed.



It's called checks and balences. It's what the founders started with. When you start twiking the Constitution you get changes like the 17th amendment, 16th amendment.

If it wasn't for the 17th amendment we would never have had all the social programs nor would the government be so big.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The 17th Amendment makes state parties responsible to the voters instead of to the majority party in the Senate.


----------



## RagZ

Congress isn't attempting to impeach him because there's no use nor reason. The chances of it actually succeeding, for one, is miniscule. Two, there are so many more important issues than a giant bit of political theater this would be. We just got done with the debt ceiling, we still have next years budget to debate, we have entitlements that need to be looked at, Afghanistan which may be drawing down, Libya which is going to be god knows what, and more. Congress chasing after an impeachment that almost surely will fail simply to try and tarnish Obama's reputation would be a disservice to their consitutents.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Four mouths in Congress and littledebfascist here are chasing after an impeachment that will not even possibley happen.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Four mouths in Congress and littledebfascist here are chasing after an impeachment that will not even possibley happen.



Probably not, Holder is doing a wonderful job at obstruction.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, boy.

Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.

Holder has nothing to do with it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> The 17th Amendment makes state parties responsible to the voters instead of to the majority party in the Senate.



And that was what the founders of this country did not want. The states were to be the other part of checks and balences. The people were to get their vote and say in the house of Representives. Not the senate. If the people had a beef with the senate they would go to their state elected officals.

Jokey chasing your tail again? Class is dismissed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

RagZ said:


> Congress isn't attempting to impeach him because there's no use nor reason. The chances of it actually succeeding, for one, is miniscule. Two, there are so many more important issues than a giant bit of political theater this would be. We just got done with the debt ceiling, we still have next years budget to debate, we have entitlements that need to be looked at, Afghanistan which may be drawing down, Libya which is going to be god knows what, and more. Congress chasing after an impeachment that almost surely will fail simply to try and tarnish Obama's reputation would be a disservice to their consitutents.





> Congress chasing after an impeachment that almost surely will fail simply to try and tarnish Obama's reputation would be a disservice to their consitutents



Nobama tarnish   his reputation long ago. That dog has been put to sleep long ago.



> Two, there are so many more important issues than a giant bit of political theater this would be.



How about the constitution? That shouldn't be in your political theater 



> Libya which is going to be god knows what



We are helping the people we are still fighting in Iraq.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, boy.
> 
> Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.
> 
> Holder has nothing to do with it.



Nonsense he has everything to do with it.  Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control.  What did he mean?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, boy.
> 
> Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.
> 
> Holder has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense he has everything to do with it.  Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
> How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control.  What did he mean?
Click to expand...


Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control 

Gun owner registration  bans on semi-automatic firearms  adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control - Gun Owners Of America

If it happens I will not comply.


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, boy.
> 
> Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.
> 
> Holder has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense he has everything to do with it.  Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
> How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control.  What did he mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control
> 
> Gun owner registration  bans on semi-automatic firearms  adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.
> 
> Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control - Gun Owners Of America
> 
> If it happens I will not comply.
Click to expand...


That could easily be defeated in court.   Congress tried to give away their authority with the line item veto.  Same rules apply here. All someone has to do is file the suit.




WHAT GUNS?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense he has everything to do with it.  Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
> How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control.  What did he mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control
> 
> Gun owner registration  bans on semi-automatic firearms  adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.
> 
> Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control - Gun Owners Of America
> 
> If it happens I will not comply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That could easily be defeated in court.   Congress tried to give away their authority with the line item veto.  Same rules apply here. All someone has to do is file the suit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT GUNS?
Click to expand...




Depends on the judge.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Holder has nothing to do with it.

Congress votes an indictment of impeachment.  It will not do so.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Holder has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Congress votes an indictment of impeachment.  It will not do so.



Well you have proven forward thinking is beyond your capability.

They probably wont as both parties cover for each other.  You wont see any arrests until after the election and only if repubs take the white house.

Before the last election the left was all about the rule of law. Now not so much!


----------



## HenryBHough

JakeStarkey said:


> Holder has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Congress votes an indictment of impeachment.  It will not do so.



Patience, grasshopper.  

1.  Congress moves slowly as glaciers grind granite.

2.  Our Kenyan President keeps providing additional rope so those writing the articles are having a hard time keeping up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

HenryBHough, our Kenyan poster, continues to act silly.


----------



## HenryBHough

I believe my avatar suggests less Kenyan genetics than that of another.  Far less, too, than the current occupant of the (former) White House.  But, alas, who can trust avatars or "Presidents"?


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryBHough, our Kenyan poster, continues to act silly.


like it or not Obama is reeling on the ropes.if things don't change for the better his own party will start distancing themselves from him.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The House wont consider Articles of Impeachment because there is no evidence of a crime. They also know theres no chance of conviction in the Senate. 

A future GOP DOJ wont indict Obama for the same reason the Obama DOJ wont indict GWB, to avoid establishing a precedent that could be used against it by a future administration.


----------



## HenryBHough

yidnar said:


> like it or not Obama is reeling on the ropes.if things don't change for the better his own party will start distancing themselves from him.



"Will"?  Nay, "HAS".  Of course Pelosi would love to run but would her Chinese masters allow anything so obvious?  Examine the family business and how it has benefited from recent legislation if in doubt.  Hillary?  Maybe!  But the most serious potential primary opponent is Mitt Romney; certainly to have more appeal to the far left than the discredited Kenya.


----------



## Full-Auto

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The House wont consider Articles of Impeachment because there is no evidence of a crime. They also know theres no chance of conviction in the Senate.
> 
> A future GOP DOJ wont indict Obama for the same reason the Obama DOJ wont indict GWB, to avoid establishing a precedent that could be used against it by a future administration.



Not yet!!  due to obstruction. Which is another crime BTW


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The House wont consider Articles of Impeachment because there is no evidence of a crime. They also know theres no chance of conviction in the Senate.
> 
> A future GOP DOJ wont indict Obama for the same reason the Obama DOJ wont indict GWB, to avoid establishing a precedent that could be used against it by a future administration.



Libya libya libya libya.
So far everything obama has done has been close to the edge, you can turn and look away and say nothing wrong here. But junior something is wrong


----------



## bitterlyclingin

BigReb, did the Bolshies wait til someone from inside the Duma unlocked the door and gracefully let them in? Not at all! "Grab the battering ram and lets go!" The same with the Czar, the Czarina, and all their little kiddies. "Stop arguing !" "Get down the well!!" Its only been 94 years and they haven't changed a bit.


----------



## bodecea

Funny how no one is reporting all of the President's "crimes" to the proper authorities.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Everyone of these loonies, bodecea, probably have criminal records of one sort or another.

Not one of them has reported anything because there is nothing to report.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Libya libya libya libya.
> So far everything obama has done has been close to the edge, you can turn and look away and say nothing wrong here. But junior something is wrong



However many times you repeat it, doesnt make it a crime. 

And theres no more wrong going on than was occurring with GWB, or Clinton, or GHWB, or Reagan, etcetc

Indeed, for you and others on the right, the only thing wrong with Obama is hes a democrat. 



> Funny how no one is reporting all of the President's "crimes" to the proper authorities.



Or at least listing them in a thread about the subject.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Libya libya libya libya.
> So far everything obama has done has been close to the edge, you can turn and look away and say nothing wrong here. But junior something is wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However many times you repeat it, doesnt make it a crime.
> 
> And theres no more wrong going on than was occurring with GWB, or Clinton, or GHWB, or Reagan, etcetc
> 
> Indeed, for you and others on the right, the only thing wrong with Obama is hes a democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how no one is reporting all of the President's "crimes" to the proper authorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or at least listing them in a thread about the subject.
Click to expand...




> And theres no more wrong going on than was occurring with GWB, or Clinton, or GHWB, or Reagan, etcetc



You sound like the kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, seconds after his older brother got a cookie. Well he done it. Those president's are gone, my concern is now and what this bastard is doing.

One more time your court case evidence was shot down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyone of these loonies, bodecea, probably have criminal records of one sort or another.
> 
> Not one of them has reported anything because there is nothing to report.



The wacko is you. We know you are a big obama supporter. I honestly believe you would die for the basatard.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> Funny how no one is reporting all of the President's "crimes" to the proper authorities.



I keep telling you you must have been the idiot I talked with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist has spoken with no one.


----------



## Stashman

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



Unfortunately both the congress and the president are just tools for the real power elite that runs this country, and apparently there not being told to do so. If you think about it folks were yelling for impeachment of Bush as well and that didn't happen either due to the same reason.


----------



## Full-Auto

bodecea said:


> Funny how no one is reporting all of the President's "crimes" to the proper authorities.



Do you have difficulty understanding he runs the justice dept, or are you just playing stupid?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Article II, Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution.

Read up on impeachment, Full Auto.  Stop convincing us just how ignorant you are truly.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Article II, Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution.
> 
> Read up on impeachment, Full Auto.  Stop convincing us just how ignorant you are truly.



I dont need to read up.  

ONCE THE OBSTRUCTION IS GONE AND A FEW ARE LOOKING AT LIFE, THE CANARIES WILL SING.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full Auto, the DoJ has nothing to do with this.  It is a Congressional and Senate issue from start to finish.  Tske your thumbs out of your ears and listen.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Full Auto, the DoJ has nothing to do with this.  It is a Congressional and Senate issue from start to finish.  Tske your thumbs out of your ears and listen.



Are you trying to be intentionally stupid?  You must be!

I realize a complicated thought process is beyond your capability.

More information needs to come out. But that is being intentionally obstructed. Established lawmakers will not convict on a simple signature or vote. So we wait.

Was that dumb ed down enough for you or do I need to dumb it down more for your comprehension?


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of these loonies, bodecea, probably have criminal records of one sort or another.
> 
> Not one of them has reported anything because there is nothing to report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wacko is you. We know you are a big obama supporter. I honestly believe you would die for the basatard.
Click to expand...


So...how's the reporting Obama for crimes doing?


----------



## JakeStarkey

they have not reported anything


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Auto, the DoJ has nothing to do with this.  It is a Congressional and Senate issue from start to finish.  Tske your thumbs out of your ears and listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be intentionally stupid?  You must be!
> 
> I realize a complicated thought process is beyond your capability.
> 
> More information needs to come out. But that is being intentionally obstructed. Established lawmakers will not convict on a simple signature or vote. So we wait.
> 
> Was that dumb ed down enough for you or do I need to dumb it down more for your comprehension?
Click to expand...




Jokey doesn't try, it comes  natural.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of these loonies, bodecea, probably have criminal records of one sort or another.
> 
> Not one of them has reported anything because there is nothing to report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wacko is you. We know you are a big obama supporter. I honestly believe you would die for the basatard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...how's the reporting Obama for crimes doing?
Click to expand...


I did my part 2 months ago, why do you keep asking. And obama is still president isn't he? I guess you weren't doing your job.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littldebfascist has not reported to anyone.

Full Auto does not understand DoJ has nothing to do with the impeachment process. The staffs of Congress do the research, the interviews, etc, in order to write up indictments.

You two guys are simply loony.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littldebfascist has not reported to anyone.
> 
> Full Auto does not understand DoJ has nothing to do with the impeachment process. The staffs of Congress do the research, the interviews, etc, in order to write up indictments.
> 
> You two guys are simply loony.



See jokey thats your problem you don't know shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I know that you are full of it.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> I know that you are full of it.



I even spelled it out for you Yet you remain stuck on stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you are full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even spelled it out for you Yet you remain stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...


Fool Auto does not know that Article II Section 4 controls how impeachment works, not the DoJ.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you are full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even spelled it out for you Yet you remain stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fool Auto does not know that Article II Section 4 controls how impeachment works, not the DoJ.
Click to expand...


Lets not get into your reading comprehension issues.

I dont have all night


----------



## JakeStarkey

Deflection, Fool Auto, and you are wrong, yet again.  Tell us how the DoJ controls impeachment, as somehow your hero AG Holder is stopping it.  You are both mentally malignant and feeble.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Deflection, Fool Auto, and you are wrong, yet again.  Tell us how the DoJ controls impeachment, as somehow your hero AG Holder is stopping it.  You are both mentally malignant and feeble.



I know you are trying desperately to unseat Truthmatters, but your not as smart as him.

Wait maybe you did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you are full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even spelled it out for you Yet you remain stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fool Auto does not know that Article II Section 4 controls how impeachment works, not the DoJ.
Click to expand...


But what you fail to see is what offenses are subject to impeachment.

Maybe helping America's enemy is not treason to you but it is to most Americans.
And yes obama is helping the people we are still fighting in Iraq.


----------



## St.Blues

Screw impeachment... He's a dead politician.. He thinks he can buy the election.
Laughable! Leave him right where he is.

Blues


----------



## HenryBHough

If I understand it correctly, in order to be impeached a "president" must first actually be _legally_ elected to the office.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The far right fool Kenyans -- henry, fool auto, and othrers -- here are silly.


----------



## HenryBHough

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right fool Kenyans -- henry, fool auto, and othrers -- here are silly.



Yes, silly with laughter at the antics of the cleverly disguised Marxists!

I know we shouldn't laugh - it only encourages - as we'll see in the response......


----------



## Paulie

spectrumc01 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our government has become paralyzed because of a lack of trust, and it isn't getting any better.  Neither side trusts the other side to do anything.  This lack of trust is now extending to the voting public.  No one trusts politicians, the government, or the system to do anything good, and if that is the case isn't it time to do away with it and put something in place the people trust in?
Click to expand...


You guys are all talking out your fucking asses.  No matter how much horse shit you talk about no trust, as soon as election day comes you're going to step into the booth and vote for whatever you deem to be the lesser of 2 evils, even if you already know you don't trust the one you're voting for.

You're all a bunch of fucking sheep.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

St.Blues said:


> Screw impeachment... He's a dead politician.. He thinks he can buy the election.
> Laughable! Leave him right where he is.
> 
> Blues



Careful with those trigger words obama defenders with go off half cocked. We really don't want a a dead hero to the liberals. I want everybody to get a belly full of what obama is dishing out, I want them to get so full they finally become sick and don't want asnymore of Nobama bullshit soup.


----------



## St.Blues

bigrebnc1775 said:


> St.Blues said:
> 
> 
> 
> Screw impeachment... He's a dead politician.. He thinks he can buy the election.
> Laughable! Leave him right where he is.
> 
> Blues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful with those trigger words obama defenders with go off half cocked. We really don't want a a dead hero to the liberals. I want everybody to get a belly full of what obama is dishing out, I want them to get so full they finally become sick and don't want asnymore of Nobama bullshit soup.
Click to expand...


They'll learn.. I agree. Then again. Liberals are so engrained in the notion of utopia.
I kinda get the feeling they are beyond reform.
Of course they don't know they are useful idiots either...... So hopefully you are right!

Blues


----------



## bigrebnc1775

St.Blues said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> St.Blues said:
> 
> 
> 
> Screw impeachment... He's a dead politician.. He thinks he can buy the election.
> Laughable! Leave him right where he is.
> 
> Blues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful with those trigger words obama defenders with go off half cocked. We really don't want a a dead hero to the liberals. I want everybody to get a belly full of what obama is dishing out, I want them to get so full they finally become sick and don't want asnymore of Nobama bullshit soup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They'll learn.. I agree. Then again. Liberals are so engrained in the notion of utopia.
> I kinda get the feeling they are beyond reform.
> Of course they don't know they are useful idiots either...... So hopefully you are right!
> 
> Blues
Click to expand...


It's the only way people will begin to learn how to depend on themself and not BIG GOVERNMENT PAPA to bail them out. Hard times are coming and it's the start of a better America.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What impeachment?  The House, controlled by the GOP, is not impeaching anyone.  No stones.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> What impeachment?  The House, controlled by the GOP, is not impeaching anyone.  No stones.



The last one went so well for them....


----------



## NoNukes

Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.


----------



## Full-Auto

NoNukes said:


> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.



What does his skin color have to do with his PISS POOR POLICIES?


----------



## NoNukes

Full-Auto said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does his skin color have to do with his PISS POOR POLICIES?
Click to expand...


*It has to do with why people have wanted him out of the White House before he stepped through the door.*


----------



## Full-Auto

NoNukes said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does his skin color have to do with his PISS POOR POLICIES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It has to do with why people have wanted him out of the White House before he stepped through the door.*
Click to expand...


Of course the only proof you can offer is the parroting of DNC talking points.


Get off the saltines and try graham crackers.


----------



## NoNukes

Full-Auto said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does his skin color have to do with his PISS POOR POLICIES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has to do with why people have wanted him out of the White House before he stepped through the door.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the only proof you can offer is the parroting of DNC talking points.
> 
> 
> Get off the saltines and try graham crackers.
Click to expand...


*Right Wing commentators such as Rush were saying it on the public airwaves.*


----------



## Full-Auto

NoNukes said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It has to do with why people have wanted him out of the White House before he stepped through the door.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the only proof you can offer is the parroting of DNC talking points.
> 
> 
> Get off the saltines and try graham crackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Right Wing commentators such as Rush were saying it on the public airwaves.*
Click to expand...


Post the transcript.  Polly!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NoNukes said:


> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.



You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.
> 
> Majority wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with the internet so widely available I don't see why we don't have more national votes, heck, even state votes. Oh thats right we don't trust one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


When a law is broken the will of the people must abid by that law. A president is too lead IN ACCORDENCE WITH EXISTING LAWS. If you want to give the president total dictatorship control you would have to make an amendment in the Constitution that is how the will of the people are fulfilled. Make changes in the law. until then you lead with strict guidlines to the constitution.


----------



## NoNukes

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.
Click to expand...


*Clinging to race? Kind of hard not to when he is called a Tar Baby by a Conservative Senator and BOY by Pat Buchanan. You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve.*


----------



## NoNukes

Full-Auto said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the only proof you can offer is the parroting of DNC talking points.
> 
> 
> Get off the saltines and try graham crackers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right Wing commentators such as Rush were saying it on the public airwaves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post the transcript.  Polly!
Click to expand...


*You exist in a dream world.*


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



What's the charge? You can't run out with flagrant suppositions like these, without substantiating any of them. Show me why he needed congress for the type of presence we had in Libya. Show me documents that the pres. abused any power with the dream act and when it passed. Show me any form of "ABUSE" as you call it, that's even impeachable. Then show me a.)where you got your info and b.) where you shop for drugs.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Wisconsin.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NoNukes said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Clinging to race? Kind of hard not to when he is called a Tar Baby by a Conservative Senator and BOY by Pat Buchanan. You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve.*
Click to expand...


Yes you're the dipshit that brought it up so you're a racist that clings to race. Exactly when was he called a tar baby,? I want the exact quote word for word. I want the sound track of the person saying it, and not some liberal bird cage lining to support your accusation.  Well hell I guess you called Jimmy Carter a racist, he called obamna a black boy.



> You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve



No what you did was show yourself for what you are, racist piss me off. liars even worse, wow you did a double wammy.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
Click to expand...


Like the patriot act and water boarding.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Wisconsin.
Click to expand...


I don't live in Wisconsin, so I really don't give a shit.


----------



## oracle

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which people?
Click to expand...


Americans!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the charge? You can't run out with flagrant suppositions like these, without substantiating any of them. Show me why he needed congress for the type of presence we had in Libya. Show me documents that the pres. abused any power with the dream act and when it passed. Show me any form of "ABUSE" as you call it, that's even impeachable. Then show me a.)where you got your info and b.) where you shop for drugs.
Click to expand...



If you have to ask 


> What's the charge?







When a presidnt does things without congressional authority he becomes a dictator. Going to Libya made obama a dictator Helping Americas enemy in Libya gave aid to the enemy thats grounds for treason.

So your reply is


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
> After all, he was voted into the position by The People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the patriot act and water boarding.
Click to expand...


Congress passed the patriot act Bush and obama signed them both.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try something other than a moronic, dip shit, dumbass, fish headed insult jerk off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post of the Day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you've cleared that hurdle handly.
Click to expand...


Now if only you could clear the one from missing link to Homosapien...


----------



## oracle

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it pathetic that he has to come in and applaud his own post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no just bumping it back away from the deflecters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...how many dead Patriot soldiers have you spit on today?
Click to expand...


Are you a patriot? Colt is not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post of the Day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you've cleared that hurdle handly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if only you could clear the one from missing link to Homosapien...
Click to expand...


Fuckwit go suck obama's cock you need a refill


----------



## oracle

skookerasbil said:


> I dont want him impeached. Im having waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fun on these pages watching the whole ideology implode like a reverse terrorist suicide bomber. I can put up with the dick for 18 more months........the more time for a whole generation to see you dont put a far left guy in the white house ever.



I'm sure you CAN put up with dick for 18 more months. Sounds like the story of your life, prag.


----------



## oracle

Dot Com said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
Click to expand...


Not to mention at the very least by definition UNpatriotic.


----------



## oracle

HenryBHough said:


> If I understand it correctly, in order to be impeached a "president" must first actually be _legally_ elected to the office.



That would go a long way to explain why it never happened to bush.


----------



## oracle

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fool Kenyans -- henry, fool auto, and othrers -- here are silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, silly with laughter at the antics of the cleverly disguised Marxists!
> 
> I know we shouldn't laugh - it only encourages - as we'll see in the response......
Click to expand...


I don't know your education level, but for the record Marx wouldn't be happy with liberals, much less Obama...sorry.


----------



## oracle

NoNukes said:


> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.



Unfortunately, even on line they don't have the balls to say it. Such is the cowardice of the many and the weakness of the tea.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right fool Kenyans -- henry, fool auto, and othrers -- here are silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, silly with laughter at the antics of the cleverly disguised Marxists!
> 
> I know we shouldn't laugh - it only encourages - as we'll see in the response......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know your education level, but for the record Marx wouldn't be happy with liberals, much less Obama...sorry.
Click to expand...


See how fucked up obama is he can't even be a good marxist he will fuc k that up to.


----------



## oracle

Full-Auto said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does his skin color have to do with his PISS POOR POLICIES?
Click to expand...


The holocaust deniers chime in.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, even on line they don't have the balls to say it. Such is the cowardice of the many and the weakness of the tea.
Click to expand...


I'll  say it for you, you need to stop sniffing obama shit while your sucking his dick. It's making you lie to much.


----------



## oracle

Full-Auto said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does his skin color have to do with his PISS POOR POLICIES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has to do with why people have wanted him out of the White House before he stepped through the door.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the only proof you can offer is the parroting of DNC talking points.
> 
> 
> Get off the saltines and try graham crackers.
Click to expand...


Really??? download right America feeling wronged. A documentary on the right wing where they spoke in their OWN words. This was from IMMEDIATELY after the election.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.
Click to expand...


Yeah...that's what the south thinks when they see him. As far as INEFFECTIVENESS, (notice the spelling) name an instance where his plans weren't watered down just to get something passed, if not outright filibustered (more than any other time in history) by cons and I'll take that challenge.


----------



## oracle

NoNukes said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Clinging to race? Kind of hard not to when he is called a Tar Baby by a Conservative Senator and BOY by Pat Buchanan. You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve.*
Click to expand...


Don't forget the latest slip by a would be governor that compared people on welfare to coons. Of course then we will be reminded that whites are on it too, like that's what the tea bag clan thinks of when they think lazy as they were referred to as.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Wisconsin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't live in Wisconsin, so I really don't give a shit.
Click to expand...


Me neither, but remember the butterfly effect.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the charge? You can't run out with flagrant suppositions like these, without substantiating any of them. Show me why he needed congress for the type of presence we had in Libya. Show me documents that the pres. abused any power with the dream act and when it passed. Show me any form of "ABUSE" as you call it, that's even impeachable. Then show me a.)where you got your info and b.) where you shop for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to ask
> 
> 
> 
> What's the charge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a presidnt does things without congressional authority he becomes a dictator. Going to Libya made obama a dictator Helping Americas enemy in Libya gave aid to the enemy thats grounds for treason.
> 
> So your reply is
Click to expand...


No the banana just cracks me up.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the patriot act and water boarding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress passed the patriot act Bush and obama signed them both.
Click to expand...


Who ran congress when bush signed off on it. and at what time did Obama approve water boarding? Last I checked one of his first acts as pres. was to condemn it as illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you've cleared that hurdle handly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if only you could clear the one from missing link to Homosapien...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuckwit go suck obama's cock you need a refill
Click to expand...


Clever response. Now if you'll excuse me for a minute, I have to go fill your wife's dish.


----------



## oracle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, even on line they don't have the balls to say it. Such is the cowardice of the many and the weakness of the tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll  say it for you, you need to stop sniffing obama shit while your sucking his dick. It's making you lie to much.
Click to expand...


O.K. It appears that SOMEONE, not only needs spell check, but English grammar and composition...So much for the teachers union. OH! and speaking of dumb policies, you are proof that bush fucked up with no child left behind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

oracle said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention at the very least by definition UNpatriotic.
Click to expand...


littledebfascist is indeed a believer in the War of Southern Aggression, and, yes, he is unpatriotic and unAmerican.


----------



## NoNukes

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinging to race? Kind of hard not to when he is called a Tar Baby by a Conservative Senator and BOY by Pat Buchanan. You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you're the dipshit that brought it up so you're a racist that clings to race. Exactly when was he called a tar baby,? I want the exact quote word for word. I want the sound track of the person saying it, and not some liberal bird cage lining to support your accusation.  Well hell I guess you called Jimmy Carter a racist, he called obamna a black boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what you did was show yourself for what you are, racist piss me off. liars even worse, wow you did a double wammy.
Click to expand...


*My what a childish response.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

An American's duty is to call out racism.  Any who protest against the identifying and correction of such behavior reveals a deep racist, yellow streak.

littledebfascist is racist to the bone.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> An American's duty is to call out racism.  Any who protest against the identifying and correction of such behavior reveals a deep racist, yellow streak.
> 
> littledebfascist is racist to the bone.



So you are calling out Eric Holder and his discriminatory policies.

I doubt it though.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NoNukes said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinging to race? Kind of hard not to when he is called a Tar Baby by a Conservative Senator and BOY by Pat Buchanan. You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're the dipshit that brought it up so you're a racist that clings to race. Exactly when was he called a tar baby,? I want the exact quote word for word. I want the sound track of the person saying it, and not some liberal bird cage lining to support your accusation.  Well hell I guess you called Jimmy Carter a racist, he called obamna a black boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what you did was show yourself for what you are, racist piss me off. liars even worse, wow you did a double wammy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My what a childish response.*
Click to expand...


Childish is making accusation when there is nothing to support your bullshit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention at the very least by definition UNpatriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> littledebfascist is indeed a believer in the War of Southern Aggression, and, yes, he is unpatriotic and unAmerican.
Click to expand...


Fuck you woman hater. Jokey why didn't you show up in Grewensboro?
The smartest thing you could have ever done was not  show up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if only you could clear the one from missing link to Homosapien...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckwit go suck obama's cock you need a refill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever response. Now if you'll excuse me for a minute, I have to go fill your wife's dish.
Click to expand...


You do realize attacks on family members will get you banned?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread still alive???? Ya'll just cannot wait to get the darkie out of the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what the south thinks when they see him. As far as INEFFECTIVENESS, (notice the spelling) name an instance where his plans weren't watered down just to get something passed, if not outright filibustered (more than any other time in history) by cons and I'll take that challenge.
Click to expand...


Here's a hint shit face it just isn't in the south it's nation wide.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the **** that keeps clinging to race. Listen up cock sucker, his race has nothing to do with anything. He's not black he had a white mother, raised by his white grand parents, taught by his liberal family and friends. He's not a leader, his eneffectiveness as a leader is killing the economy.  Now address what I just posted and stop being a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinging to race? Kind of hard not to when he is called a Tar Baby by a Conservative Senator and BOY by Pat Buchanan. You foul language show that you are probably one of these foul people, and I have hit a nerve.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget the latest slip by a would be governor that compared people on welfare to coons. Of course then we will be reminded that whites are on it too, like that's what the tea bag clan thinks of when they think lazy as they were referred to as.
Click to expand...


Then I guess carter gets a pass for calling obama  a black BOY.

Didn't harry reid do a racial slur back in 08  something about not able to sale watermelons?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

oracle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the charge? You can't run out with flagrant suppositions like these, without substantiating any of them. Show me why he needed congress for the type of presence we had in Libya. Show me documents that the pres. abused any power with the dream act and when it passed. Show me any form of "ABUSE" as you call it, that's even impeachable. Then show me a.)where you got your info and b.) where you shop for drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to ask
> 
> 
> 
> What's the charge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a presidnt does things without congressional authority he becomes a dictator. Going to Libya made obama a dictator Helping Americas enemy in Libya gave aid to the enemy thats grounds for treason.
> 
> So your reply is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the banana just cracks me up.
Click to expand...


So you don't have a wa of defending obama going to libya and helping America's enemy, so you talk about a banna?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An American's duty is to call out racism.  Any who protest against the identifying and correction of such behavior reveals a deep racist, yellow streak.
> 
> littledebfascist is racist to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are calling out Eric Holder and his discriminatory policies.
> 
> I doubt it though.
Click to expand...


Sure, where Holder acts in such a way. he is wrong.

When you defend racists because they are on your side of an argument as they use racism, such as the noted yellow coward racist, littledebfascist, you are wrong, too.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An American's duty is to call out racism.  Any who protest against the identifying and correction of such behavior reveals a deep racist, yellow streak.
> 
> littledebfascist is racist to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are calling out Eric Holder and his discriminatory policies.
> 
> I doubt it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, where Holder acts in such a way. he is wrong.
> 
> When you defend racists because they are on your side of an argument as they use racism, such as the noted yellow coward racist, littledebfascist, you are wrong, too.
Click to expand...


I dont defend racists, You have no idea of my family makeup, or the struggles with race we face.

Holder is doing a great disservice to Blacks. That alone creates resentment. It creates a sense of entitlement. I will poke fun at democrats with this, as it is their party policy he is following.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then, by all means, when you can demonstrate that Holder is doing such a diservice, poke away.

Do remember, that here we can only be judged by what we say and do. 

Anybody who ponies up with littledebfascist is automatically judged by association with him.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Then, by all means, when you can demonstrate that Holder is doing such a diservice, poke away.
> 
> Do remember, that here we can only be judged by what we say and do.
> 
> Anybody who ponies up with littledebfascist is automatically judged by association with him.



Lets start with him not allowing a small town to go to non partisan positions. Because without a D on the ticket blacks dont know how to vote.

Then we can go on to two separate incidents in which all participants were given a manual to study for promotion. It was deemed racist because some blacks could not perform. Then comes in the mantra of under served.

We can go on to college admissions were lack of knowledge and poor test scores goes back to the mantra of underserved.  

How many times do blacks need standards lowered for poor achievement?

I dont care who you are butt hurt about.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one is butt hurt about anybody, auto.

Maintain the standard for yourself to which you want others to adhere.

Racism is racism; it's wrong.  We are in agreement about that.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> No one is butt hurt about anybody, auto.
> 
> Maintain the standard for yourself to which you want others to adhere.
> 
> Racism is racism; it's wrong.  We are in agreement about that.



Fair enough, 

Do you think these DOJ policies should be overturned?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why do you, Auto?, and explain why. 

edit: many hours later, I am still waiting for an answer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are calling out Eric Holder and his discriminatory policies.
> 
> I doubt it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, where Holder acts in such a way. he is wrong.
> 
> When you defend racists because they are on your side of an argument as they use racism, such as the noted yellow coward racist, littledebfascist, you are wrong, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont defend racists, You have no idea of my family makeup, or the struggles with race we face.
> 
> Holder is doing a great disservice to Blacks. That alone creates resentment. It creates a sense of entitlement. I will poke fun at democrats with this, as it is their party policy he is following.
Click to expand...


When you have a CONVERSATION with a liar you will be spinning your wheels. When Jokey calls me a racist he is in fact lying He's still pissed because I called him what he is a white ******. I'm sorry I can't change what he is, only he can get off his sorry ass and do something about it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Why do you, Auto?, and explain why.
> 
> edit: many hours later, I am still waiting for an answer.



No he asked you first since you are defending holder.


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> full-auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure, where holder acts in such a way. He is wrong.
> 
> When you defend racists because they are on your side of an argument as they use racism, such as the noted yellow coward racist, littledebfascist, you are wrong, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont defend racists, you have no idea of my family makeup, or the struggles with race we face.
> 
> Holder is doing a great disservice to blacks. That alone creates resentment. It creates a sense of entitlement. I will poke fun at democrats with this, as it is their party policy he is following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you have a conversation with a liar you will be spinning your wheels. When jokey calls me a racist he is in fact lying he's still pissed because i called him what he is a white ******. I'm sorry i can't change what he is, only he can get off his sorry ass and do something about it.
Click to expand...


i like giving her a bad time, because in the end she walks away feeling stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist is a racist and a sexist, nothing changes that, just a pussbag of a human being.

Those who associate with him are the same types of people.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist is a racist and a sexist, nothing changes that, just a pussbag of a human being.
> 
> Those who associate with him are the same types of people.



Other than me calling you what you are a white ******. Show one post that is racist.

Oh idot I don't demean women by using the female term when addressing a man. littledeb is what you would call a short woman named debbie. My name is not debbie nor am I a woman.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your whole persona on the Board is racist, littledebfascist.  No one of integrity will support you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Your whole persona on the Board is racist, littledebfascist.  No one of integrity will support you.



Surely you can produce one post. Just one



> No one of integrity will support you



You have no  integrity nor do you know what it means. People who are RINO'S are a prime example.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have posted many over the months.  You are a slimy racist and sexist.  Nothing will change for you until you are willing to go to God and repent.  You are not ready for that.  I hope the day comes when you are ready to get right with our Lord.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> I have posted many over the months.  You are a slimy racist and sexist.  Nothing will change for you until you are willing to go to God and repent.  You are not ready for that.  I hope the day comes when you are ready to get right with our Lord.





> I have posted many over the months.



You are a liar. I have challenged you in the past to show one post you never have. ASnd that repeat post of me calling you what you are a white ****** is not a racist post. Again show one post where I attack a person because of their race.



> Nothing will change for you until you are willing to go to God and repent.  You are not ready for that.  I hope the day comes when you are ready to get right with our Lord



New flash dipshit in Gods eyes liars are on equal grounds with murders.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have repeatedly shown your racist posts in the past, and your denial means only you are a liar.

Your implicit confession of your lies above does not help.  The Lord's help is there for you at any time.  You should avail of it.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> I have repeatedly shown your racist posts in the past, and your denial means only you are a liar.
> 
> Your implicit confession of your lies above does not help.  The Lord's help is there for you at any time.  You should avail of it.



How about posting those offending remarks? They obviously weigh heavily on your mind.


----------



## nraforlife

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?



Kinda hard to impeach a man who was never a legal prez in the first place. The real failure of congress was to not void the election of non-natural born citizen back in 2008.


----------



## Full-Auto

nraforlife said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda hard to impeach a man who was never a legal prez in the first place. The real failure of congress was to not void the election of non-natural born citizen back in 2008.
Click to expand...


That isnt going to change, however the FACT that he conspired to violate federal firearm laws is a no brainier. He signed the funding.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly shown your racist posts in the past, and your denial means only you are a liar.
> 
> Your implicit confession of your lies above does not help.  The Lord's help is there for you at any time.  You should avail of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about posting those offending remarks? They obviously weigh heavily on your mind.
Click to expand...


I have, over and over.  This is common knowledge among the readership here the type of language and attitudes conveyed by littledebfascist.  All Americans will not tolerate far righty extreme racial or cultural or political fascism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly shown your racist posts in the past, and your denial means only you are a liar.
> 
> Your implicit confession of your lies above does not help.  The Lord's help is there for you at any time.  You should avail of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about posting those offending remarks? They obviously weigh heavily on your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have, over and over.  This is common knowledge among the readership here the type of language and attitudes conveyed by littledebfascist.  All Americans will not tolerate far righty extreme racial or cultural or political fascism.
Click to expand...


The readership knows one thing. They know you are a liar. Prove them wrong show your evidence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The readership knows that you are projecting your reputation as a racist, sexist, and fascist liar on me, littledebfascist.

There is not a thing you can do to shake your rep a righty extremist fascist folly girl.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly shown your racist posts in the past, and your denial means only you are a liar.
> 
> Your implicit confession of your lies above does not help.  The Lord's help is there for you at any time.  You should avail of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about posting those offending remarks? They obviously weigh heavily on your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have, over and over.  This is common knowledge among the readership here the type of language and attitudes conveyed by littledebfascist.  All Americans will not tolerate far righty extreme racial or cultural or political fascism.
Click to expand...


So you got nothing........

Color me shocked.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I got everything because you far righty extremist fascists are far far out of the mainstream of America.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> I got everything because you far righty extremist fascists are far far out of the mainstream of America.



Did you think whining was an acceptable rebuttal?


----------



## JakeStarkey

A statement that you are out of the mainstream is a declarative statement of fact.  Your response is both risible and whining.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> A statement that you are out of the mainstream is a declarative statement of fact.  Your response is both risible and whining.



Did you need kleenex or kotex?  Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

See, you have nothing but inane insults (at least that's what you seem to be doing).


----------



## Synthaholic

_*Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?  *_


Because you're a fucking retard.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> See, you have nothing but inane insults (at least that's what you seem to be doing).



I ask for details you provide squat.

I thought shaming you into speaking with clarity would have worked.

Apparently not!!!!   You have no shame.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, you have nothing but inane insults (at least that's what you seem to be doing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask for details you provide squat.
> 
> I thought shaming you into speaking with clarity would have worked.
> 
> Apparently not!!!!   You have no shame.
Click to expand...


The details have been provided over and over.  If you don't want to do due diligence, that is your problem, not mine.

Those from the far right extremist fascist spectrum are the shameful trolls who post fabrications and falsehoods.

When you are ready to get to topics of interest, I will be ready.  In the meantime, I will simply keep kicking fat asses, like yours, through the goal post as you play troll games.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, you have nothing but inane insults (at least that's what you seem to be doing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask for details you provide squat.
> 
> I thought shaming you into speaking with clarity would have worked.
> 
> Apparently not!!!!   You have no shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The details have been provided over and over.  If you don't want to do due diligence, that is your problem, not mine.
> 
> Those from the far right extremist fascist spectrum are the shameful trolls who post fabrications and falsehoods.
> 
> When you are ready to get to topics of interest, I will be ready.  In the meantime, I will simply keep kicking fat asses, like yours, through the goal post as you play troll games.
Click to expand...


I am not going to look through thousands upon thousands of posts to discover what you should have been able to post of the top of your head. After all you are the one butt hurt in this, but can not explain why.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gooooaaaaallllll! as Full Auto flies through the goal posts.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Gooooaaaaallllll! as Full Auto flies through the goal posts.



So once again you show your ignorance by not being able to be specific.

I can score on you all day, without much effort.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I just double dribbled in front of you, you fell over, and I passed off to a mate who just drilled another goal.

Come on, get up, and play the game, son.


----------



## NoNukes

JakeStarkey said:


> I just double dribbled in front of you, you fell over, and I passed off to a mate who just drilled another goal.
> 
> Come on, get up, and play the game, son.



*He would have to have brains and credibility to play the game against you.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Synthaholic said:


> _*Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?  *_
> 
> 
> Because you're a fucking retard.



You are just as bad as the woman hater starkey, you hate the mentally handicap because you think it's appropriate to use the word retard as an insult.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> I just double dribbled in front of you, you fell over, and I passed off to a mate who just drilled another goal.
> 
> Come on, get up, and play the game, son.



Drooling down your shirt in complete awe of getting whipped is what you call victory?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> I just double dribbled in front of you, you fell over, and I passed off to a mate who just drilled another goal.
> 
> Come on, get up, and play the game, son.



Taking the goal post home you don't allow people to play the game. So where are the post's you have as evidence? Man up SON  man up if you got a pair show your evidence.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just double dribbled in front of you, you fell over, and I passed off to a mate who just drilled another goal.
> 
> Come on, get up, and play the game, son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drooling down your shirt in complete awe of getting whipped is what you call victory?
Click to expand...


He likes the feeling of being dominated.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just double dribbled in front of you, you fell over, and I passed off to a mate who just drilled another goal.
> 
> Come on, get up, and play the game, son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drooling down your shirt in complete awe of getting whipped is what you call victory?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He likes the feeling of being dominated.
Click to expand...


----------



## rdean

Saving the country from Republican fuck ups isn't an "impeachable" offense.  Just sayin'


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drooling down your shirt in complete awe of getting whipped is what you call victory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He likes the feeling of being dominated.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to try sweet cheeks.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rdean said:


> Saving the country from Republican fuck ups isn't an "impeachable" offense.  Just sayin'



It's kind of hard to be a republican fuck up when the democrats  have been in control of the government for over 70 years.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving the country from Republican fuck ups isn't an "impeachable" offense.  Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of hard to be a republican fuck up when the democrats  have been in control of the government for over 70 years.
Click to expand...





That would be since 1941...So you are saying that before 1941, the Republicans were in control of our government and ever since 1941, the Democrats have been in control.


----------



## Full-Auto

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving the country from Republican fuck ups isn't an "impeachable" offense.  Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of hard to be a republican fuck up when the democrats  have been in control of the government for over 70 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be since 1941...So you are saying that before 1941, the Republicans were in control of our government and ever since 1941, the Democrats have been in control.
Click to expand...


Lets simplify.

Democrats were in charge for most of the past century.  They brought us Income tax and bankrupt entitlements.


----------



## Mad Scientist

rdean said:


> Saving the country from Republican fuck ups isn't an "impeachable" offense.  Just sayin'


When Obama gets impeached for this 13 member "Congressional Council of Nicea" should his Puppet Masters be impeached as well? I mean, *they* made the decisions that he read of his teleprompter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving the country from Republican fuck ups isn't an "impeachable" offense.  Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of hard to be a republican fuck up when the democrats  have been in control of the government for over 70 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be since 1941...So you are saying that before 1941, the Republicans were in control of our government and ever since 1941, the Democrats have been in control.
Click to expand...


Since 1946 the democrats have been in control of the Government in part or whole for 70 years.

Here you go from the creation of this nation to now shows who was the party in power and what year.
From 1900 until now you can see the democrats have controlled the government the most

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfascist's source contradicts his point, nothing unusual.  Look at 1947, 1953, 1994 to 2006, for the house; check terms of the Senate; note that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger.

Tell me, buddy, are you just ignorant or mentally feeble?


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist's source contradicts his point, nothing unusual.  Look at 1947, 1953, 1994 to 2006, for the house; check terms of the Senate; note that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger.
> 
> Tell me, buddy, are you just ignorant or mentally feeble?


Your dates are off.

He also mentioned in part.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Take a new look, full fool.  I am not interested in troll nonsense today from you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Take a new look, full fool.  I am not interested in troll nonsense today from you.



move along troll you lost.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist's source contradicts his point, nothing unusual.  Look at 1947, 1953, 1994 to 2006, for the house; check terms of the Senate; note that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger.
> 
> Tell me, buddy, are you just ignorant or mentally feeble?



Stupid I see as usual, I said in whole or part.
Meaning Democrats have controlled the house or the senate or both including the white house most of the 20th century.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Take a new look, full fool.  I am not interested in troll nonsense today from you.



I try to help and you act flakey

You can go back to Obamas lap now dog!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a new look, full fool.  I am not interested in troll nonsense today from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to help and you act flakey
> 
> You can go back to Obamas lap now dog!
Click to expand...


----------



## Intense

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist's source contradicts his point, nothing unusual.  Look at 1947, 1953, 1994 to 2006, for the house; check terms of the Senate; note that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger.
> 
> Tell me, buddy, are you just ignorant or mentally feeble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid I see as usual, I said in whole or part.
> Meaning Democrats have controlled the house or the senate or both including the white house most of the 20th century.
Click to expand...


Your Point was clear and decisive from the start.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist's source contradicts his point, nothing unusual.  Look at 1947, 1953, 1994 to 2006, for the house; check terms of the Senate; note that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger.
> 
> Tell me, buddy, are you just ignorant or mentally feeble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid I see as usual, I said in whole or part.
> Meaning Democrats have controlled the house or the senate or both including the white house most of the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Point was clear and decisive from the start.
Click to expand...


Facts are like thin air to a RINO they can't see them


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist's source contradicts his point, nothing unusual.  Look at 1947, 1953, 1994 to 2006, for the house; check terms of the Senate; note that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger.
> 
> Tell me, buddy, are you just ignorant or mentally feeble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid I see as usual, I said in whole or part.
> Meaning Democrats have controlled the house or the senate or both including the white house most of the 20th century.
Click to expand...


So...the poor poor Republicans have been SOOOOO defenseless.   You poor victims.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfascist's source contradicts his point, nothing unusual.  Look at 1947, 1953, 1994 to 2006, for the house; check terms of the Senate; note that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger.
> 
> Tell me, buddy, are you just ignorant or mentally feeble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid I see as usual, I said in whole or part.
> Meaning Democrats have controlled the house or the senate or both including the white house most of the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...the poor poor Republicans have been SOOOOO defenseless.   You poor victims.
Click to expand...


Who's defending the republicans? not me just showing the democrats have had control of the government most of the 20th century.


----------



## JakeStarkey

littledebfacist is loose with facts and dates, and can easily be ignored and defeated.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfacist is loose with facts and dates, and can easily be ignored and defeated.



Correct your dates and quit crying.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You guys lost your points, fool auto, and your wailing changes nothing.  Move on, son.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> You guys lost your points, fool auto, and your wailing changes nothing.  Move on, son.



It is quite easy to prove your numbers are FOS.

Just correct them and quit crying.

If you wish to enter and insult exchange go get some more guys. I grew up in Detroit and have worked construction for 25+ years. I at least want it to be fair.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfacist is loose with facts and dates, and can easily be ignored and defeated.


Proof jokey is a RINO at best he defends the democrats.

I gave the facts stupid don't like them the only way for you to change history is to rewrite it, and find someone more stupid than you to believe it.

Repeat after me "Democrats have controlled the government in part or in whole most of the 20th century".


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> littledebfacist is loose with facts and dates, and can easily be ignored and defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> Proof jokey is a RINO at best he defends the democrats.
> 
> I gave the facts stupid don't like them the only way for you to change history is to rewrite it, and find someone more stupid than you to believe it.
> 
> Repeat after me "Democrats have controlled the government in part or in whole most of the 20th century".
Click to expand...


I loved the 94 to 06

I guess Clinton was on vacation.


----------



## Poli_Sigh

Strange - I was wondering that very same thing about 8 years ago.  I'd say if Congress didn't move to impeach Bush, then Congress ain't every gonna impeach nobody ever again.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Poli_Sigh said:


> Strange - I was wondering that very same thing about 8 years ago.  I'd say if Congress didn't move to impeach Bush, then Congress ain't every gonna impeach nobody ever again.



Strange Bush never gave aid to our enemies whom we are still fighting.


----------



## JakeStarkey

only folks like littledebfascist give aid to your enemies, or Reagan during the 1980s.

the militia wanks are just silly, period.

The 1994 to 2006 Congress had compliant presidents from both parties.  The far right GOP congresses will not be allowed to escape the consquences of their failed choices.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> only folks like littledebfascist give aid to your enemies, or Reagan during the 1980s.
> 
> the militia wanks are just silly, period.



Is that why the  washington post printed national secrets resulting in the bombing of the barracks?

 In which they apologized.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> only folks like littledebfascist give aid to your enemies, or Reagan during the 1980s.
> 
> the militia wanks are just silly, period.
> 
> The 1994 to 2006 Congress had compliant presidents from both parties.  The far right GOP congresses will not be allowed to escape the consquences of their failed choices.



Your defense of obama is revealing about you. Being a RINO is the closest you will be to being a Republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> only folks like littledebfascist give aid to your enemies, or Reagan during the 1980s.
> 
> the militia wanks are just silly, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the  washington post printed national secrets resulting in the bombing of the barracks?
> 
> In which they apologized.
Click to expand...


non sequitur


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> only folks like littledebfascist give aid to your enemies, or Reagan during the 1980s.
> 
> the militia wanks are just silly, period.
> 
> The 1994 to 2006 Congress had compliant presidents from both parties.  The far right GOP congresses will not be allowed to escape the consquences of their failed choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your defense of obama is revealing about you. Being a RINO is the closest you will be to being a Republican.
Click to expand...


You are drinking early, even for you.

George Will thinks you guys are wack, as does Rich Lowry.  They are the ultimate mainstream conservatives, and they believe you are wack.  Nuff said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> only folks like littledebfascist give aid to your enemies, or Reagan during the 1980s.
> 
> the militia wanks are just silly, period.
> 
> The 1994 to 2006 Congress had compliant presidents from both parties.  The far right GOP congresses will not be allowed to escape the consquences of their failed choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your defense of obama is revealing about you. Being a RINO is the closest you will be to being a Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are drinking early, even for you.
> 
> George Will thinks you guys are wack, as does Rich Lowry.  They are the ultimate mainstream conservatives, and they believe you are wack.  Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Side stepping the post I see. Look if you don't have anything to offer other than your bullshit please step away from the thread it's smoking your last brain cell you have left.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have offered nothing that would indicate anything that Congress should consider impeaching Obama about.

Until you do, I will continue to have fun with you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You have offered nothing that would indicate anything that Congress should consider impeaching Obama about.
> 
> Until you do, I will continue to have fun with you.



Giving aid to America's enemy in Libya is a hangable offense. Or didn't you know that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

America has not given aid in Libya to our enemies.  Quite the contrary.

If that is what you are hanging on to, then it broke a long time ago.

If anyone should have been impeached for aiding America's enemies, Reagan should have gone down for Iran Contra.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> America has not given aid in Libya to our enemies.  Quite the contrary.
> 
> If that is what you are hanging on to, then it broke a long time ago.
> 
> If anyone should have been impeached for aiding America's enemies, Reagan should have gone down for Iran Contra.



Exactly what is that being used in libya dumb shit? It's the fucking military obama is using Americas air power to help our enemy you stuipd fuckiung cock sucker.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> only folks like littledebfascist give aid to your enemies, or Reagan during the 1980s.
> 
> the militia wanks are just silly, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the  washington post printed national secrets resulting in the bombing of the barracks?
> 
> In which they apologized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> non sequitur
Click to expand...


In other words you dont want to discuss the dem roll in giving away secrets. Which has everything to do with your accusations.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the  washington post printed national secrets resulting in the bombing of the barracks?
> 
> In which they apologized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you dont want to discuss the dem roll in giving away secrets. Which has everything to do with your accusations.
Click to expand...


oih it's get's better keep reading.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one here has done anything to demonstrate any impeachable offenses by Obama, but have done a good job showing that his detractors here are outright fabricators.  But nothing new on that front.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> No one here has done anything to demonstrate any impeachable offenses by Obama, but have done a good job showing that his detractors here are outright fabricators.  But nothing new on that front.



Giving aid to the enemy in Libya is a hangable offense.

By the Numbers: US air-involvement in Libyan military operations.
By the Numbers: US air-involvement in Libyan military operations. | The Western Experience


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> No one here has done anything to demonstrate any impeachable offenses by Obama, but have done a good job showing that his detractors here are outright fabricators.  But nothing new on that front.



He approved funding for Gun smuggling.

NEXT!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one here has done anything to demonstrate any impeachable offenses by Obama, but have done a good job showing that his detractors here are outright fabricators.  But nothing new on that front.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He approved funding for Gun smuggling.
> 
> NEXT!
Click to expand...



Yes he did,


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one here has done anything to demonstrate any impeachable offenses by Obama, but have done a good job showing that his detractors here are outright fabricators.  But nothing new on that front.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He approved funding for Gun smuggling.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did,
Click to expand...


That makes him an accessory to murder.

The little guy giving his bud a ride to 7-11 for him to rob it unknowingly gets a conviction. This should too.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
> obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.



Except, that he didn't.

There has been no executive order issued regarding immigration. Janet Napolitano has refused to enforce immigration statutes, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton has specifically refused to deport illegals, but Obama has not issued an EO on the subject. What we have are the usual federal agencies openly violating the law.


----------



## Uncensored2008

spectrumc01 said:


> That is true, but if the presidential powers include executive orders isn't he within his legal power that the people have entrusted him with?



Do they, though?

There is no enumerated power to issue executive orders in the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> Which people?



Do you think Obama should represent the American people? 

Or should he focus on the Mexican people?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> No one here has done anything to demonstrate any impeachable offenses by Obama, but have done a good job showing that his detractors here are outright fabricators. But nothing new on that front.


True. An inane and embarrassing display of partisan, conservative ignorance and idiocy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> To be perfectly honest..I am not really in favor of doing something like this.
> 
> But I find it interesting that the very people that talk about "republics" when people mention democracy, all of a sudden talk about the "will of the people" when legislative powers are invoked to pass laws they don't like.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.



You do realize that Obama isn't part of the legislature, and it was your side unhappy that the legislative process didn't provide the amnesty result they wanted? 

There is no executive order. What we have is simply the administration refusing to enforce the law. Do you, as a socialist and an authoritarian, view that as legitimate?


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> No one here has done anything to demonstrate any impeachable offenses by Obama, but have done a good job showing that his detractors here are outright fabricators.  But nothing new on that front.



There IS the whole "Fast and Furious" thing.

The administration providing weapons to Mexican drug cartels is impeachable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bigrebnc1775 said:


> move along troll you lost.



I hate to do this, but I have to defend Jake. Jake is not a troll. He is a partisan hack, an Obama worshiping sycophant - but not a troll.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Uncensored2008 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> move along troll you lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to do this, but I have to defend Jake. Jake is not a troll. He is a partisan hack, an Obama worshiping sycophant - but not a troll.
Click to expand...


Troll RINO all one in the same.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Troll RINO all one in the same.



Jake?

The dude is a partisan democrat - there is nothing Republican about him. If he ever claimed to be a Republican, he's lying.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Uncensored2008 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll RINO all one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake?
> 
> The dude is a partisan democrat - there is nothing Republican about him. If he ever claimed to be a Republican, he's lying.
Click to expand...



He's made that claim. Where have you been?


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll RINO all one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake?
> 
> The dude is a partisan democrat - there is nothing Republican about him. If he ever claimed to be a Republican, he's lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's made that claim. Where have you been?
Click to expand...


Several times while also claiming he could buy and sell all of us.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake?
> 
> The dude is a partisan democrat - there is nothing Republican about him. If he ever claimed to be a Republican, he's lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's made that claim. Where have you been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several times while also claiming he could buy and sell all of us.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am a Republican to the bone.  The RINOs are those like fool auto and littledebfascist who are far righty extremist fascists of whom RR would have said, "Take their votes, but first put duct tape over their mouths so they can't embarass us."


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> I am a Republican to the bone.  The RINOs are those like fool auto and littledebfascist who are far righty extremist fascists of whom RR would have said, "Take their votes, but first put duct tape over their mouths so they can't embarass us."



Right right, Your type of republican shines Obamas boots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your pretend type of Republican, fool auto, shits on America.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Your pretend type of Republican, fool auto, shits on America.



You are not even an effective liar.


In other words all hack no cattle.


----------



## JakeStarkey

fool auto, you have not carried a point, only whine when you get outed.  You are what you are: a loser.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> fool auto, you have not carried a point, only whine when you get outed.  You are what you are: a loser.



I have seen you owned so many times it would be appropriate to call you toby?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Now, fool auto, you are simply being foolish.  Don't worry, though.  I am  one of the fairest folks on the board.  If you ever carry a point on me, I will let you know immediately.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Now, fool auto, you are simply being foolish.  Don't worry, though.  I am  one of the fairest folks on the board.  If you ever carry a point on me, I will let you know immediately.



Come back when you have some game.

Youre becoming increasingly pathetic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says the fook, Fool Auto.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bigrebnc1775 said:


> He's made that claim. Where have you been?



I tend to ignore obvious lies. He hasn't made the claim with me, but then, I'd laugh in his face if he did.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The great majority are laughing at the far right, kids. Nothing has changed about that.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Says the fook, Fool Auto.



I really appreciate you reinforcing my point.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> I am a Republican to the bone.



You're a fucking liar.

You are about THE most partisan democrat in the forum.

What the fuck, Jake? Do you think that if you lie and claim to be a Republican, that others will say "Damn, Jake's a Republican, worships Obama, supports cap & trade, fascist care, raising taxes, higher government spending and sharp increases in entitlements, so I should too!"

Look Jake, you're a stupid little guy, but is that REALLY what you think? 

Jake, do you live in Winnebago and drive an imaginary Volt?


----------



## Full-Auto

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Republican to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking liar.
> 
> You are about THE most partisan democrat in the forum.
> 
> What the fuck, Jake? Do you think that if you lie and claim to be a Republican, that others will say "Damn, Jake's a Republican, worships Obama, supports cap & trade, fascist care, raising taxes, higher government spending and sharp increases in entitlements, so I should too!"
> 
> Look Jake, you're a stupid little guy, but is that REALLY what you think?
> 
> Jake, do you live in Winnebago and drive an imaginary Volt?
Click to expand...


All blame no game.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Your pretend type of Republican, fool auto, shits on America.



So do you think that Obama is the only hope for the GOP, and that Republicans should rally around *HIM*, Sarah?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Republican to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking liar.  You are about THE most partisan democrat in the forum.  What the fuck, Jake? Do you think that if you lie and claim to be a Republican, that others will say "Damn, Jake's a Republican, worships Obama, supports cap & trade, fascist care, raising taxes, higher government spending and sharp increases in entitlements, so I should too!"  Look Jake, you're a stupid little guy, but is that REALLY what you think?   Jake, do you live in Winnebago and drive an imaginary Volt?
Click to expand...


You Johnny Come Along Recently, Uncensored, do not decide who is in the party, kid.  I have been a Republican longer than you have been alive, son.  I do not support cap and trade, I point out you support fascist principles, I believe in lower governing spending and entitlement reform, and a strong defense.

You, little coyote breath, need to read what I write, you moronic little bleep.    That felt good.  As if you morons could lead the GOP to victory in a one-party race.  As if.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> You Johnny Come Along Recently, Uncensored, do not decide who is in the party, kid.  I have been a Republican longer than you have been alive, son.



Jake, you're a drooling Obamabot, one of the worst I've ever seen.



> I point out you support fascist principles,



You don't know what the word means. It is you who supports the merger of Kaiser, Blue Cross and the federal government via Obama's fascist care.



> I believe in lower governing spending and entitlement reform



You're such a fucking liar.

You went apeshit demanding the Obama plan of higher taxes when your Messiah played at brinksmanship during the debt ceiling showdown.

No one believes a word you post - we just laugh at you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UncensoredFascist whines and whines and whines, like the little far right facist that he is.  Fascism is the desire to force a "one model fits all for culture and society", which is exactly what fascist boy wants.  I have firmly believed in reduction in spending, entitlement reform, and shared revenue requirements for all Americans.

Everyone here knows what I believe, Uncensored.  You far rightist fascists and extremists have been lying from the get go.  You are really not Republican, and America does not need your nonsense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> UncensoredFascist whines and whines and whines, like the little far right facist that he is.  Fascism is the desire to force a "one model fits all for culture and society", which is exactly what fascist boy wants.  I have firmly believed in reduction in spending, entitlement reform, and shared revenue requirements for all Americans.
> 
> Everyone here knows what I believe, Uncensored.  You far rightist fascists and extremists have been lying from the get go.  You are really not Republican, and America does not need your nonsense.



As I said jake being a RINO is as close to being a Republican as your going to get.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Jake has no original thought so he can't start a thread of his own. He can only make comments to someones original thought, he must be guided, programed like any good obambot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Fascism is the desire to force a "one model fits all for culture and society",



No, it isn't stupid.

Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power structures.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussolini

You are an uneducated baboon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism is the desire to force a "one model fits all for culture and society",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't stupid.
> 
> Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power structures.
> 
> &#8220;Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power&#8221; - Benito Mussolini
> 
> You are an uneducated baboon.
Click to expand...


No, it is not, and you are describing an inaccurate process not goal.  But you are correct in describing a situation our far right business corporatists want, government and business seeing eye to eye (think of the subsidies business desire) to suppress the American freedoms of working men and women.  Remember that Big Business loved Hitler.

Uncensored, you truly do not understand.  I want you to look up "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "capitalism", "free market", "social democracy", and do some solid reading.

You are sounding very uneducated.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism is the desire to force a "one model fits all for culture and society",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't stupid.
> 
> Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power structures.
> 
> Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussolini
> 
> You are an uneducated baboon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not, and you are describing an inaccurate process not goal.  But you are correct in describing a situation our far right business corporatists want, government and business seeing eye to eye (think of the subsidies business desire) to suppress the American freedoms of working men and women.  Remember that Big Business loved Hitler.
> 
> Uncensored, you truly do not understand.  I want you to look up "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "capitalism", "free market", "social democracy", and do some solid reading.
> 
> You are sounding very uneducated.
Click to expand...


Definition of FASCISM



1

often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't stupid.
> 
> Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power structures.
> 
> Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussolini
> 
> You are an uneducated baboon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not, and you are describing an inaccurate process not goal.  But you are correct in describing a situation our far right business corporatists want, government and business seeing eye to eye (think of the subsidies business desire) to suppress the American freedoms of working men and women.  Remember that Big Business loved Hitler.
> 
> Uncensored, you truly do not understand.  I want you to look up "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "capitalism", "free market", "social democracy", and do some solid reading.
> 
> You are sounding very uneducated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of FASCISM   often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
> 
> Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


You are a fascist.  You exalt Exceptional Americanism, although you can't define that.  You exalt the white race about the others.  You believe that the corporatists should work with government to suppress the workers in the name of "free markets", and you certainly would suppress your opponents.  Yes, you are a fascist.  See, fascists come from the far right, just like you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not, and you are describing an inaccurate process not goal.  But you are correct in describing a situation our far right business corporatists want, government and business seeing eye to eye (think of the subsidies business desire) to suppress the American freedoms of working men and women.  Remember that Big Business loved Hitler.
> 
> Uncensored, you truly do not understand.  I want you to look up "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "capitalism", "free market", "social democracy", and do some solid reading.
> 
> You are sounding very uneducated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of FASCISM   often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
> 
> Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fascist.  You exalt Exceptional Americanism, although you can't define that.  You exalt the white race about the others.  You believe that the corporatists should work with government to suppress the workers in the name of "free markets", and you certainly would suppress your opponents.  Yes, you are a fascist.  See, fascists come from the far right, just like you.
Click to expand...




> You are a fascist.



Really? let's go down your list



> You exalt Exceptional Americanism



Yes I do




> You exalt the white race about the others



Show your proof here's a hint no I don't but anyway show where I have done that ever?



> You believe that the corporatists should work with government to suppress the workers in the name of "free markets",



I believe government should stay out of the porivatre sector leave the ec onomy to the experts



> and you certainly would suppress your opponents.



I believe in indviduual rights and liberty's everybody should be able to voice their opinions, even you shit head.



> Yes, you are a fascist.  See, fascists come from the far right, just like you



ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU JUST DISCRIBED NO I AM NOT UNLESS YOU HAVE PROOF SHUT THE FUCK UP.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> No, it is not, and you are describing an inaccurate process not goal.



ROFL

Okay, little feral baboon..



> But you are correct in describing a situation our far right business corporatists want, government and business seeing eye to eye



Hey stupid, it's your Messiah® that is merging corporations and the federal government. Under his fascist care plan, the IRS becomes the bill collector for Kaiser, Blue Cross, et al. 



> Remember that Big Business loved Hitler.



Well connected looters loved Hitler, just as Kaiser and Blue Cross (GE, GM, Goldman Sachs, et al) love Obama, dummy.



> Uncensored, you truly do not understand.  I want you to look up "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "capitalism", "free market", "social democracy", and do some solid reading.



Stupid,  you can't worm out of the fact that Obama is establishing fascism.

Jake, get thee to a baboonary.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UncensoredFascist cannot worm out of that he again failed in a discussion and results to nonsense.

We are not going back to the 1950s and 1960s, Uncensored, do you understand that?


----------



## Lovebears65

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.
> 
> Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.
> 
> Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.
> 
> Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
> Isn't this how dictators begin?


Because Reid is still the lead senator  and will not even look at it just like when they were in debt talks


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> UncensoredFascist cannot worm out of that he again failed in a discussion and results to nonsense.
> 
> We are not going back to the 1950s and 1960s, Uncensored, do you understand that?



Trolls dreams to be a RINO move along troll


----------



## JakeStarkey

Move along, RINO littledebfascist.  We are not going back to your failed world of white supremacy and corporatism.  Get used to it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Move along, RINO littledebfascist.  We are not going back to your failed world of white supremacy and corporatism.  Get used to it.



This is my fucking thread bastard you fucking move along. When  are you going to start an original thread?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your thread is as much as huge a failure as was the Hitler thread.

You simply cannot defend your positions.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Your thread is as much as huge a failure as was the Hitler thread.
> 
> You simply cannot defend your positions.



Why dont you boar us again on how you are a republican.  You are pathetic on other forms of debate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yep, Fool Auto and littledebfacist, once again unable to make clear and convincing arguments, descend into mumbling attacks.  Sad.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, Fool Auto and littledebfacist, once again unable to make clear and convincing arguments, descend into mumbling attacks.  Sad.



You are nothing but a board toy.


I dont see that improving anytime soon either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Your thread is as much as huge a failure as was the Hitler thread.
> 
> You simply cannot defend your positions.



I have defended my position but when are you starkey going to present something of originality? You alone can do that. I do not forsee that happening any time in the near future.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, Fool Auto and littledebfacist, once again unable to make clear and convincing arguments, descend into mumbling attacks.  Sad.



No  thread's started by you means you don't have an original thought.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Poor Fool Auto and littledebfascist, only here for grins and chuckles.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Poor Fool Auto and littledebfascist, only here for grins and chuckles.



When you offer some game we will engage, Until then we just pass you around.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Fool Auto and littledebfascist, only here for grins and chuckles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you offer some game we will engage, Until then we just pass you around.
Click to expand...


he's worn out been rode hard and put up wet.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Jake I am not going to insult RINO's anymore by caling you one. You are the common everyday internet troll. I'll leave you with this

An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

What is an Internet Troll? (Posting Guidelines - Netiquette) What is a Forum Troll?


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Jake I am not going to insult RINO's anymore by caling you one. You are the common everyday internet troll. I'll leave you with this
> 
> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.
> 
> What is an Internet Troll? (Posting Guidelines - Netiquette) What is a Forum Troll?



Youve got to listen to this parody. It could apply

PMS

The Bob Rivers Show with Bob Spike and Joe


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Poor Fool Auto and littledebfascist, only here for grins and chuckles.



That's good, because you bring us LOTS of grins and chuckles..

We're laughing at you, not with you...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Court jesters and fools like you guys do a lot of witless laughing.


----------



## j-roc

dont know what that whole argument above is about but i will return to the subject of this thread.

i think obama should indeed be impeached  for the illegal wars in pakistan, yemen, and libya, and also for continuing and expanding bush's unconstitutional wars.

also he is the head of the government and  i suspect that he knew full well about operation fast and furious.

also he headed the UN security council, that too is an impeachable offense.

he continues the practice of retaliating against whistleblowers even though there are laws against this 

the birth certificate he submitted looks fabricated, and the govenor of hawaii could not locate the real one.

wells fargo and other big companies along with the cia are allowed to traffick drugs into america 

the pentagon reviews movie scripts 

obama signed a very unconstitutional supercongress into law


he continues the endless revolving door from big crimelords like jp morgan chase and goldman sachs among others

getting tired of typing so ill stop here


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Court jesters and fools like you guys do a lot of witless laughing.



An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

j-roc said:


> dont know what that whole argument above is about but i will return to the subject of this thread.
> 
> i think obama should indeed be impeached  for the illegal wars in pakistan, yemen, and libya, and also for continuing and expanding bush's unconstitutional wars.
> 
> also he is the head of the government and  i suspect that he knew full well about operation fast and furious.
> 
> also he headed the UN security council, that too is an impeachable offense.
> 
> he continues the practice of retaliating against whistleblowers even though there are laws against this
> 
> the birth certificate he submitted looks fabricated, and the govenor of hawaii could not locate the real one.
> 
> wells fargo and other big companies along with the cia are allowed to traffick drugs into america
> 
> the pentagon reviews movie scripts
> 
> obama signed a very unconstitutional supercongress into law
> 
> getting tired of typing so ill stop here
> 
> he continues the endless revolving door from big crimelords like jp morgan chase and goldman sachs among others



It's a starkey thing but do continue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Court jesters and fools like you guys do a lot of witless laughing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.
Click to expand...


You have quoted something without a citation, obviously, and you have described yourself and your podjos exactly in the last sentence.  Good self awareness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> j-roc said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont know what that whole argument above is about but i will return to the subject of this thread.
> 
> i think obama should indeed be impeached  for the illegal wars in pakistan, yemen, and libya, and also for continuing and expanding bush's unconstitutional wars.
> 
> also he is the head of the government and  i suspect that he knew full well about operation fast and furious.
> 
> also he headed the UN security council, that too is an impeachable offense.
> 
> he continues the practice of retaliating against whistleblowers even though there are laws against this
> 
> the birth certificate he submitted looks fabricated, and the govenor of hawaii could not locate the real one.
> 
> wells fargo and other big companies along with the cia are allowed to traffick drugs into america
> 
> the pentagon reviews movie scripts
> 
> obama signed a very unconstitutional supercongress into law
> 
> getting tired of typing so ill stop here
> 
> he continues the endless revolving door from big crimelords like jp morgan chase and goldman sachs among others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a starkey thing but do continue.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not, but that's OK, and, no, littledebfascist and others' beliefs do not constitute a warrant for impeachable offenses.  No cigar, little buddies.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-roc said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont know what that whole argument above is about but i will return to the subject of this thread.
> 
> i think obama should indeed be impeached  for the illegal wars in pakistan, yemen, and libya, and also for continuing and expanding bush's unconstitutional wars.
> 
> also he is the head of the government and  i suspect that he knew full well about operation fast and furious.
> 
> also he headed the UN security council, that too is an impeachable offense.
> 
> he continues the practice of retaliating against whistleblowers even though there are laws against this
> 
> the birth certificate he submitted looks fabricated, and the govenor of hawaii could not locate the real one.
> 
> wells fargo and other big companies along with the cia are allowed to traffick drugs into america
> 
> the pentagon reviews movie scripts
> 
> obama signed a very unconstitutional supercongress into law
> 
> getting tired of typing so ill stop here
> 
> he continues the endless revolving door from big crimelords like jp morgan chase and goldman sachs among others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a starkey thing but do continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not, but that's OK, and, no, littledebfascist and others' beliefs do not constitute a warrant for impeachable offenses.  No cigar, little buddies.
Click to expand...


You are so pitiful.

The Bob Rivers Show with Bob Spike and Joe


----------



## JakeStarkey

No cigar, kiddo.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> No cigar, kiddo.



The Bob Rivers Show with Bob Spike and Joe


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fool Auto plays the fool.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Fool Auto plays the fool.



The Bob Rivers Show with Bob Spike and Joe


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


>



See, I got you to laugh.

I had forgotten about this site. I just want to share the wonderful humor.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


>



I got some doosies for the right too! Timing is everything


----------



## JakeStarkey

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOZ4D6E1CgM]Hitler Rants about Tea Party Crashers full speed - YouTube[/ame]

Lies, but funny, funny!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Court jesters and fools like you guys do a lot of witless laughing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have quoted something without a citation, obviously, and you have described yourself and your podjos exactly in the last sentence.  Good self awareness.
Click to expand...


Actually I didn't think I needed to cite that source, shouldn't you already know what you are? But if you are confused about being a troll here's the link.

What is an Internet Troll? (Posting Guidelines - Netiquette) What is a Forum Troll?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bigrebnc1775 said:


> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.



I stand corrected.

Jake is indeed a troll.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Uncensored2008 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected.
> 
> Jake is indeed a troll.
Click to expand...


----------



## Full-Auto

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.  Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected.
> 
> Jake is indeed a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sort of resembles Jakes photo doesnt it? Ideology is the same.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected.
> 
> Jake is indeed a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of resembles Jakes photo doesnt it? Ideology is the same.
Click to expand...


It's called double talk.


----------



## PattGarrett

Honestly, what good would it do? It would only take away time frommatters that could actually do some good. Don't get me wrong, I think that Obama should be impeached for many things, one of the most prevailing matters being his abuse of office regarding his "Kinetic military action" in Lybia. He blatently violated the war powers act with that move not to mention the dozen or so other acts he has done that constitute impeachment.

The house can impeach all they want but it will do them no good with a liberal controlled house. The house does not have the final say on impeachment matters, they only have power of impeachment. The senate is charged in Article 1 section 3 with the sole power to try all impeachments. The impeachment trial has to be presided over by the USSC Chief Justice also.

Even if the impeachment proceedings were successful it would leave us stuck with Biden anyway but atleast he is just too stupid to really do too much damage.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PattGarrett said:


> Honestly, what good would it do? It would only take away time frommatters that could actually do some good. Don't get me wrong, I think that Obama should be impeached for many things, one of the most prevailing matters being his abuse of office regarding his "Kinetic military action" in Lybia. He blatently violated the war powers act with that move not to mention the dozen or so other acts he has done that constitute impeachment.
> 
> The house can impeach all they want but it will do them no good with a liberal controlled house. The house does not have the final say on impeachment matters, they only have power of impeachment. The senate is charged in Article 1 section 3 with the sole power to try all impeachments. The impeachment trial has to be presided over by the USSC Chief Justice also.
> 
> Even if the impeachment proceedings were successful it would leave us stuck with Biden anyway but atleast he is just too stupid to really do too much damage.



It's called standing up for your principles. It really doesn't matter if obama is removed it will put him on notice that the people are fed up with what he is doing.


----------



## PattGarrett

Obama is already on notice that the people are fed up with his ideals, why do you think he has raised nearly $1 billion for his re-election campaign. People better do all they can to get this tyrant out this election If we don't then what we are facing today with our economy and national defense will be minor compared to the result of 5 1/2 more years of this idiot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PattGarrett said:


> Obama is already on notice that the people are fed up with his ideals, why do you think he has raised nearly $1 billion for his re-election campaign. People better do all they can to get this tyrant out this election If we don't then what we are facing today with our economy and national defense will be minor compared to the result of 5 1/2 more years of this idiot.



If he is already on notice why is he continuing to do the same old shit ?


----------



## PattGarrett

Because the man is an elitist POS that has zero respect for our heritage, culture, or constitution. Other than that I do not know, but I do believe that he is going to do all that he can to get re-elected and if he succeeds then you can consider Bush to be the last president of the U.S.

The actions of Obama and the libs have only serve to solidify the proof that they have distain for this nation and seek only to destroy it. Everything that Obama has done since taking office has only served to strengthen our enemies and weaken us. The libs tried in 2009 with HJR  5 to repeal the 22nd amendment because they didn't want "The Obama Legacy" to end. They are talking of proposing another bill to try and pass it through again.

The man has no respect for the people that sent him to D.C. to do their will. He only cares about doing his will, which is to destroy our economy and usher himself in as the "ruler" of America. He did say that he was "ready to rule" after he won the election and every day we see more of his "ruler" attitude come out and less of his "leader". Rememberduring the healthcare debate and the polls were showing that people didn't want reform and Obama said that he knew better than us what is good for us?


----------



## Poli_Sigh

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange - I was wondering that very same thing about 8 years ago.  I'd say if Congress didn't move to impeach Bush, then Congress ain't every gonna impeach nobody ever again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange Bush never gave aid to our enemies whom we are still fighting.
Click to expand...


Bush just started two wars for the express purpose of enriching his friends and had the audacity to lie several times to Congress and the American people about the reasons.  

As for giving aid to our enemies, apparently you missed that little fiasco during Reagan's tenure known as the Iran-Contra affair.  Talk about giving aid to our enemy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Poli_Sigh said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange - I was wondering that very same thing about 8 years ago.  I'd say if Congress didn't move to impeach Bush, then Congress ain't every gonna impeach nobody ever again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange Bush never gave aid to our enemies whom we are still fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush just started two wars for the express purpose of enriching his friends and had the audacity to lie several times to Congress and the American people about the reasons.
> 
> As for giving aid to our enemies, apparently you missed that little fiasco during Reagan's tenure known as the Iran-Contra affair.  Talk about giving aid to our enemy.
Click to expand...


Was it proven Reagan had any knownledge? Were we even at war with Iran at the time? If so hoiw many people were kill in that war?



> Bush just started two wars for the express purpose of enriching his friends and had the audacity to lie several times to Congress and the American people about the reasons.




That is your opinion unto you can show proof.


----------



## j-roc

bigrebnc1775 said:


> j-roc said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont know what that whole argument above is about but i will return to the subject of this thread.
> 
> i think obama should indeed be impeached  for the illegal wars in pakistan, yemen, and libya, and also for continuing and expanding bush's unconstitutional wars.
> 
> also he is the head of the government and  i suspect that he knew full well about operation fast and furious.
> 
> also he headed the UN security council, that too is an impeachable offense.
> 
> he continues the practice of retaliating against whistleblowers even though there are laws against this
> 
> the birth certificate he submitted looks fabricated, and the govenor of hawaii could not locate the real one.
> 
> wells fargo and other big companies along with the cia are allowed to traffick drugs into america
> 
> the pentagon reviews movie scripts
> 
> obama signed a very unconstitutional supercongress into law
> 
> getting tired of typing so ill stop here
> 
> he continues the endless revolving door from big crimelords like jp morgan chase and goldman sachs among others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a starkey thing but do continue.
Click to expand...


obama continues to let the big banks use their terrorist tools of derivitives, credit default swaps,naked shorting and fractional reserve banking and he continues to let the fed inflate
our economy with no end 

he gives all his big business buddies waivers for his deathcare and carbon taxes (mafia) 

fda  under obama no longer regulates gmos (genetically manipulated organisms) no wonder the former head of monsanto is now the fda chief  

pharmaceuticals and big agra dont even get a slap on the wrist when their products kill and maim and hurt ppl 

but i still love and worship obama the infallible dictator because he can do no wrong and because hes black. ha


----------



## Poli_Sigh

> Was it proven Reagan had any knownledge? Were we even at war with Iran at the time? If so hoiw many people were kill in that war?



Reagan certainly knew aid was going to the Contras - in spite of Congress turning down his request for same.  

Whether or not a President knew what was going is never the question.  But why he didn't is.


----------



## midcan5

Impeachment?  This thread belongs in Romper Room along with those who argue for impeachment. Losing the 08 election has certainly contributed to even greater idiocy from the losers. Sorry folks but democracy works this way. Check here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ning-and-otherwise-engaging-in-criticism.html


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Poli_Sigh said:


> Was it proven Reagan had any knownledge? Were we even at war with Iran at the time? If so hoiw many people were kill in that war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan certainly knew aid was going to the Contras - in spite of Congress turning down his request for same.
> 
> Whether or not a President knew what was going is never the question.  But why he didn't is.
Click to expand...


Do you have proof?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

midcan5 said:


> Impeachment?  This thread belongs in Romper Room along with those who argue for impeachment. Losing the 08 election has certainly contributed to even greater idiocy from the losers. Sorry folks but democracy works this way. Check here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ning-and-otherwise-engaging-in-criticism.html



No you belong in Romper room your late you best be moving on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it proven Reagan had any knownledge? Were we even at war with Iran at the time? If so hoiw many people were kill in that war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan certainly knew aid was going to the Contras - in spite of Congress turning down his request for same.
> 
> Whether or not a President knew what was going is never the question.  But why he didn't is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have proof?
Click to expand...


'bout as much on Reagan as you do on Obama.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan certainly knew aid was going to the Contras - in spite of Congress turning down his request for same.
> 
> Whether or not a President knew what was going is never the question.  But why he didn't is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'bout as much on Reagan as you do on Obama.
Click to expand...


No the media has report that America's  aircraft have been bombing Libya giving aid to America's enemy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only your silly interp.


----------



## Dot Com

midcan5 said:


> Impeachment?  This thread belongs in Romper Room along with those who argue for impeachment. Losing the 08 election has certainly contributed to even greater idiocy from the losers. Sorry folks but democracy works this way. Check here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ning-and-otherwise-engaging-in-criticism.html


Agreed. This is a t-publican, circle-jerk thread.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PattGarrett said:


> Honestly, what good would it do?



Impeaching Obama would be about the worst move the GOP could make. Making Obama sympathtic to the American people is about the only thing that could change the looming defeat he faces in 2012.

Let him serve his term and then we will be done with him. He has so discredited leftism that it will be decades before the dims nominate someone from the extreme left again. Obama is what McGovern would have been had he won.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Poli_Sigh said:


> Reagan certainly knew aid was going to the Contras - in spite of Congress turning down his request for same.



Where you were solidly on the side of the Sandinista Communists and their sponsor, the USSR. Yes, that is what the left actually was angered about. Reagan was funding an insurgency against their side - hell, enough of that and their beloved USSR might fall....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Only your silly interp.



As Congress debates Libyan pullback, U.S. continues attacks

American warplanes, manned and unmanned, continue to attack targets inside the north African nation, the Pentagon said Friday.
As Congress debates Libyan pullback, U.S. continues attacks - CNN

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


----------



## Uncensored2008

midcan5 said:


> Impeachment?  This thread belongs in Romper Room



Of course.

Should those who mention impeachment of your Messiah® be arrested? Should it be a crime to speak against Dear Leader in any way?

When you took your loyalty oath, was there any talk of punishing dissent?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Reagan and his stooges were violating the law, Uncensored, which means you support treason as Reagan and stoogies aided and abetted United States enemies.

bigrebnc fails to recognize that far righty extremist opinion is not the law, much to his chagrin.


----------



## Full-Auto

JakeStarkey said:


> Reagan and his stooges were violating the law, Uncensored, which means you support treason as Reagan and stoogies aided and abetted United States enemies.
> 
> bigrebnc fails to recognize that far righty extremist opinion is not the law, much to his chagrin.



Just as this admin has done with drug smuggling and gun running.

I havent seen you express any displeasure with that. Care to answer why?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Reagan and his stooges were violating the law, Uncensored, which means you support treason as Reagan and stoogies aided and abetted United States enemies.
> 
> bigrebnc fails to recognize that far righty extremist opinion is not the law, much to his chagrin.



CNN and a UK paper are extreme right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Full-Auto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and his stooges were violating the law, Uncensored, which means you support treason as Reagan and stoogies aided and abetted United States enemies.
> 
> bigrebnc fails to recognize that far righty extremist opinion is not the law, much to his chagrin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as this admin has done with drug smuggling and gun running.
> 
> I havent seen you express any displeasure with that. Care to answer why?
Click to expand...


I have not seen direct violations under the cover of law with this administration, and neither have you?

Ollie violated his oath as officer and his duty as a citizen, when he lied to Congress.  He was a traitor then, just as he is now, and in the same way many believe Jane Fonda is traitor.

You need to be careful with your logic, because it cuts you first.

You, bigreb, are extreme fascist right.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Reagan and his stooges were violating the law, Uncensored



Is that your "Republican" opinion, troll?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Full-Auto said:


> Just as this admin has done with drug smuggling and gun running.
> 
> I havent seen you express any displeasure with that. Care to answer why?



Reagan violated no laws.

Opposing the puppet regime of the USSR was not illegal, though the democrats were outraged by it.

The 5th column in congress, led by Jim Wright, was able to deny funding. But the executive is vested by the constitution with the power to conduct a foreign policy. Boland could not prohibit outside funding of the anti-Communists, despite the desire of the pro-communist democrats.

Obviously Jake still mourns the fall of the Soviet Union, as many democrats do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and his stooges were violating the law, Uncensored, which means you support treason as Reagan and stoogies aided and abetted United States enemies.
> 
> bigrebnc fails to recognize that far righty extremist opinion is not the law, much to his chagrin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as this admin has done with drug smuggling and gun running.
> 
> I havent seen you express any displeasure with that. Care to answer why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen direct violations under the cover of law with this administration, and neither have you?
> 
> Ollie violated his oath as officer and his duty as a citizen, when he lied to Congress.  He was a traitor then, just as he is now, and in the same way many believe Jane Fonda is traitor.
> 
> You need to be careful with your logic, because it cuts you first.
> 
> You, bigreb, are extreme fascist right.
Click to expand...




> You, bigreb, are extreme fascist right



I'm in good company then. Compared to you the majority of America is exterme right.
And you have been beat down about the facist.
I hate big government I think the government should stay out of thew private sector so how does that make me a facist,  troll?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored, you are simply a silly goof.  Those who disagree with you, kiddo, are not commies or socialists or Republicans or whatever, ipso facto.  You are just silly, son, but I am glad you are posting here so that your nonsense is obvious for what it is in comparison to others material.  Keep posting.


----------



## midcan5

Reagan raised taxes and helped social security, for those acts he is to be commended, but....

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Chapter 27 President Reagan

Abuse of power and illegal activity should have led to the impeachment of Reagan.  ???   read above. 

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_Affair


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored, you are simply a silly goof.  Those who disagree with you, kiddo, are not commies or socialists or Republicans or whatever, ipso facto.  You are just silly, son, but I am glad you are posting here so that your nonsense is obvious for what it is in comparison to others material.  Keep posting.



sad isn;t it? you can't even be a RINO for being a troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What is happy is outing the bigreb and all the wannabee fascists, whose time in the GOP is counting down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> What is happy is outing the bigreb and all the wannabee fascists, whose time in the GOP is counting down.



So I am not a fascists I'm just a wanabe fascists? Jake are you trying to copy what I posted to you? You always have done that when you have had you ass handed to you after the ass kicking.

One more time troll I hate big government. It needs to say the hell out of the private sector, it needs to shrink and get smaller. Does that sound like a fascists to you?  Of course it isn't but like a good little troll you'll just keep calling me a facist. 

This is a sure sign jake is a troll if he keeps repeating the same old whiney ass shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have been calling you a fascist for some time, I showed how Hitler was not a socialist from your own evidence (just fried your grits, I know), and you troll lies get tiresome.  You will use government to impose your fucked up ideas on America, which will never be permitted to happen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> I have been calling you a fascist for some time, I showed how Hitler was not a socialist from your own evidence (just fried your grits, I know), and you troll lies get tiresome.  You will use government to impose your fucked up ideas on America, which will never be permitted to happen.



Hitler was a socalist he just killed off his political enemies and became a dictator. Yoiu lost that argument....
I repeat jake repeats what is posted to him like a good little troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been calling you a fascist for some time, I showed how Hitler was not a socialist from your own evidence (just fried your grits, I know), and you troll lies get tiresome.  You will use government to impose your fucked up ideas on America, which will never be permitted to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was a socalist he just killed off his political enemies and became a dictator. Yoiu lost that argument....
> I repeat jake repeats what is posted to him like a good little troll.
Click to expand...


That is a small step for you but an even littler step for the rest of us.  Hitler killed off his socialist enemies, bigreb, and he got in bed with Big Business, didn't he?  Hitler was a dictator, not a socialist.  No, your vision of America will never happen, bigreb.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> I have been calling you a fascist for some time,



Yes, but you're a bit of a fucking idiot.



> I showed how Hitler was not a socialist from your own evidence



Actually, you got your ass handed to you and declared yourself the "winner" in a perfect Charlie Sheen moment.

You're an idiot and a troll.

Don't ever change. Now dance baboon, dance I tell you!


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as this admin has done with drug smuggling and gun running.
> 
> I havent seen you express any displeasure with that. Care to answer why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan violated no laws*.
> 
> Opposing the puppet regime of the USSR was not illegal, though the democrats were outraged by it.
> 
> The 5th column in congress, led by Jim Wright, was able to deny funding. But the executive is vested by the constitution with the power to conduct a foreign policy. Boland could not prohibit outside funding of the anti-Communists, despite the desire of the pro-communist democrats.
> 
> Obviously Jake still mourns the fall of the Soviet Union, as many democrats do.
Click to expand...


At least he didn't remember.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been calling you a fascist for some time, I showed how Hitler was not a socialist from your own evidence (just fried your grits, I know), and you troll lies get tiresome.  You will use government to impose your fucked up ideas on America, which will never be permitted to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was a socalist he just killed off his political enemies and became a dictator. Yoiu lost that argument....
> I repeat jake repeats what is posted to him like a good little troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a small step for you but an even littler step for the rest of us.  Hitler killed off his socialist enemies, bigreb, and he got in bed with Big Business, didn't he?  Hitler was a dictator, not a socialist.  No, your vision of America will never happen, bigreb.
Click to expand...


Hitler was a dictator dictator do not share their power with anyone. Didn't hitler kill some of his SS generals?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> At least he didn't remember.



You better get after those Billygoats!


----------



## JakeStarkey

We, the better informed and well read, welcome the lame stream meanderings of Uncensored _et al _for grins and chuckles.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jakestarkey said:


> we, the better informed and well read, welcome the lame stream meanderings of uncensored _et al _for grins and chuckles.



don't you have a troll booth you need to be watching?


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------

