CIA Allegedly Polygraphing Operatives Regularly Over Benghazi Secrets

[JakeStarkey]

That is a start, Boss.

Now read it, ponder it, read commentaries about it.

 

[Boss]

That is a start, Boss.

Now read it, ponder it, read commentaries about it.

The Articles are posted, why can't you point out where it confirms your claim?

I have read it, and the only 'commentary' about it that is relevant is the Federalist Papers, which say nothing about the president having the authority you have given him. I find it amazing that you suddenly believe the Executive branch can do this sort of thing without any oversight whatsoever, after all the hullabaloo over Bush and Cheney in Iraq, and that was over WMDs and intelligence which Congress was fully aware of.

You want a current viewpoint and commentary? What about Constitutional Law expert, Mark Levin? He says, if the story from Jake Tapper is true, this is 1,000 times worse than Iran-Contra. So it sounds like what you need to do is STOP reading what idiots post on left-wing blogs in their underwear. It's polluting your brain with nonsense, and you can ill-afford to spare much brain matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nowhere does it say the president cannot do it.

The rest does not matter until Congress or SCOTUS does say it matters.

 

[Boss]

Nowhere does it say the president cannot do it.

The rest does not matter until Congress or SCOTUS does say it matters.

Well hold on a minute, that would give the president virtually unlimited power to do pretty much anything he pleased, since there are a lot of things that he is not specifically prohibited from doing. I don't think that is what the founders had in mind, which is why they gave us the Tenth Amendment. It states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


What do you mean "it doesn't matter until Congress or SCOTUS says so?" The Constitution doesn't say that Congress and SCOTUS get to determine what parts of the Constitution matter. You've either completely lost your marbles, or you never had any to begin with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nowhere does it say the president cannot do it.

The rest does not matter until Congress or SCOTUS does say it matters.

Well hold on a minute, that would give the president virtually unlimited power to do pretty much anything he pleased, since there are a lot of things that he is not specifically prohibited from doing. I don't think that is what the founders had in mind, which is why they gave us the Tenth Amendment. It states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What do you mean "it doesn't matter until Congress or SCOTUS says so?" The Constitution doesn't say that Congress and SCOTUS get to determine what parts of the Constitution matter. You've either completely lost your marbles, or you never had any to begin with.

You are not a Constitutional authority, Boss. Bring some support to your argument.

 

[Boss]

You are not a Constitutional authority, Boss. Bring some support to your argument.

You're obviously not a constitutional authority either, but it doesn't take one to read the Constitution and see what it says. You began by challenging my understanding of Articles I and II and how they work, so I posted them, and highlighted the parts which pertain to this case, THEN...after I asked you to show me where Articles I and II say what you claim, you say it doesn't matter what Articles I and II say, it's up to the Congress and SCOTUS, and the President can do anything that isn't specifically forbidden in the Constitution. But this isn't true either. Now you say I am not a constitutional authority, but neither are you.

....Jay Carney? Is that YOU?

 

[Trajan]

That is a start, Boss.

Now read it, ponder it, read commentaries about it.

get over yourself....


I gave you the links and the explanation, trying to make yourself right is your usual metier.

I don't see anything from you, just hot air, so your turn; show us the appropriate language where in the president can use the cia to ship arms to foreign agencies absent notifications to the house and senate intel committees and, the budgetary considerations/strictures that may or may not trigger further machinations as in concrete approval from said committees to do so.

Its out there but you won't like what you find....which means you'll be back to build another strawman or smoke screen, prove me wrong jake...heres your chance!

 

[Boss]

Trajan, you obviously don't understand how Articles I and II of the Constitution work. You see, if you are a president with an (R) beside your name, you can't take a shit without having Congress approve it, and even if they do approve it, the SCOTUS can still say you don't have the authority to do it. But.... If you happen to be a president with a (D) beside your name, it doesn't matter what Articles I and II say, or the rest of the Constitution, for that matter. It is only inappropriate if Congress and the SCOTUS rule on the matter, after the fact. Also, the (D) president can claim that he didn't know it was wrong, and that makes everything all okay. Do you understand how it works now? Those founding fathers were brilliant men, weren't they?

 

[Yurt]

No, Yurt, that is not how it works. Here:

1. Make an affirmation
2. Give actual evidence that supports said affirmation
3. Emphasize the importance of said conclusion to affirmation so that you don't waste everyone's time

If you can get this down you can teach Trajan.

great, you claim i'm a far right reactionary, give actual evidence that supports your affirmation and make sure you correlate the evidence to your conclusion.

i'll wait

 

[Trajan]

No, Yurt, that is not how it works. Here:

1. Make an affirmation
2. Give actual evidence that supports said affirmation
3. Emphasize the importance of said conclusion to affirmation so that you don't waste everyone's time

If you can get this down you can teach Trajan.

great, you claim i'm a far right reactionary, give actual evidence that supports your affirmation and make sure you correlate the evidence to your conclusion.

i'll wait

look, forget it, he does this just about every time he puts his mouth in gear in a thread, he makes some comment, then when asked to prove his case be it in contravention of yours or mine or to sppt. the comment, he starts dancing and trying to be semantically clever....the problem is hes really not that clever, and he does not 'learn'....he may have gone to school but I am not sure they taught him HOW to think as opposed to WHAT to think......


he can come back and paste his own links with explanation explaining based on those links in clear language how the president has the authority do what some of us have been stipulating....the problem is, its not out there.

Jake it appears to me is now trying to conflate war powers etc.( and even then hes in trouble) *shrugs* thats not what I (we) am speaking to , I stated my case back on page 1 or 2 ala the cia dealing arms....thats what he needs to address.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a start, Boss.

Now read it, ponder it, read commentaries about it.

get over yourself....


I gave you the links and the explanation, trying to make yourself right is your usual metier.

I don't see anything from you, just hot air, so your turn; show us the appropriate language where in the president can use the cia to ship arms to foreign agencies absent notifications to the house and senate intel committees and, the budgetary considerations/strictures that may or may not trigger further machinations as in concrete approval from said committees to do so.

Its out there but you won't like what you find....which means you'll be back to build another strawman or smoke screen, prove me wrong jake...heres your chance!

It's your opinion, son, only.

You are not a SCOTUS authority.

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

 

[depotoo]

That is a start, Boss.

Now read it, ponder it, read commentaries about it.

get over yourself....


I gave you the links and the explanation, trying to make yourself right is your usual metier.

I don't see anything from you, just hot air, so your turn; show us the appropriate language where in the president can use the cia to ship arms to foreign agencies absent notifications to the house and senate intel committees and, the budgetary considerations/strictures that may or may not trigger further machinations as in concrete approval from said committees to do so.

Its out there but you won't like what you find....which means you'll be back to build another strawman or smoke screen, prove me wrong jake...heres your chance!

It's your opinion, son, only.

You are not a SCOTUS authority.

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

nor is yours. He actually gave you the pertinent articles text.

 

[Trajan]

That is a start, Boss.

Now read it, ponder it, read commentaries about it.

get over yourself....


I gave you the links and the explanation, trying to make yourself right is your usual metier.

I don't see anything from you, just hot air, so your turn; show us the appropriate language where in the president can use the cia to ship arms to foreign agencies absent notifications to the house and senate intel committees and, the budgetary considerations/strictures that may or may not trigger further machinations as in concrete approval from said committees to do so.

Its out there but you won't like what you find....which means you'll be back to build another strawman or smoke screen, prove me wrong jake...heres your chance!

It's your opinion, son, only.

You are not a SCOTUS authority.

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

and there it is...god you're so predictable...




post the links and explanation to support your case Jake, stop talking, just post it.

 

[Yurt]

No, Yurt, that is not how it works. Here:

1. Make an affirmation
2. Give actual evidence that supports said affirmation
3. Emphasize the importance of said conclusion to affirmation so that you don't waste everyone's time

If you can get this down you can teach Trajan.

great, you claim i'm a far right reactionary, give actual evidence that supports your affirmation and make sure you correlate the evidence to your conclusion.

i'll wait

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

.

 

[Boss]

It's your opinion, son, only.

You are not a SCOTUS authority.

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence either, moonbat. You specifically (and sarcastically) popped off, that Trajan and myself, did not understand how Articles I and II work, and I specifically posted the text of both Articles, and highlighted the pertinent clauses. I've made it as easy as pie for you to highlight the part which supports your argument, but now you want to claim the Constitution "doesn't matter" and unless it specifically states the president CAN'T do something, he CAN do it until the SCOTUS or Congress tells him otherwise. That is hilarious, since nowhere in the Constitution, does it state what the president CAN'T do. It's very specific on what he CAN do, and it also says that anything not enumerated (that means things it says he CAN do), then it is up to the States and People, if they want to do it.

Now who is it that doesn't understand how Articles I and II work?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Yurt, that is not how it works. Here:

1. Make an affirmation
2. Give actual evidence that supports said affirmation
3. Emphasize the importance of said conclusion to affirmation so that you don't waste everyone's time

If you can get this down you can teach Trajan.

great, you claim i'm a far right reactionary, give actual evidence that supports your affirmation and make sure you correlate the evidence to your conclusion.

i'll wait

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

.

And this is absolute cracking advice to give to you, Yurt. You can't make and support an argument. You defend reactonaries. You have been claiming you are not racist elsewhere but all weekend you have been in their corners.

You are judged by who you hang out with. It is what it is, little butt hurt yurt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's your opinion, son, only.

You are not a SCOTUS authority.

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence either, moonbat. You specifically (and sarcastically) popped off, that Trajan and myself, did not understand how Articles I and II work, and I specifically posted the text of both Articles, and highlighted the pertinent clauses. I've made it as easy as pie for you to highlight the part which supports your argument, but now you want to claim the Constitution "doesn't matter" and unless it specifically states the president CAN'T do something, he CAN do it until the SCOTUS or Congress tells him otherwise. That is hilarious, since nowhere in the Constitution, does it state what the president CAN'T do. It's very specific on what he CAN do, and it also says that anything not enumerated (that means things it says he CAN do), then it is up to the States and People, if they want to do it.

Now who is it that doesn't understand how Articles I and II work?

You don't understand. Neither do the others. You make an affirmation, but that is not evidence in and of itself. You have to give evidence to support the affirmation. And lying (such as saying I argued "the Constitution 'doesn't matter'" -- you are right there with Yurt and Ernie S.) doesn't help you, either. Since your or Trajan's opinion doesn't count on these matters, I can toy with you guys all day.

None of you are constitutional authorities so don't pretend you are: that is laughable and makes you all look clownish.

 

[squeeze berry]

great, you claim i'm a far right reactionary, give actual evidence that supports your affirmation and make sure you correlate the evidence to your conclusion.

i'll wait

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

.

And this is absolute cracking advice to give to you, Yurt. You can't make and support an argument. You defend reactonaries. You have been claiming you are not racist elsewhere but all weekend you have been in their corners.

You are judged by who you hang out with. It is what it is, little butt hurt yurt.

jake, you are the joke of the board

 

[Yurt]

great, you claim i'm a far right reactionary, give actual evidence that supports your affirmation and make sure you correlate the evidence to your conclusion.

i'll wait

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

.

And this is absolute cracking advice to give to you, Yurt. You can't make and support an argument. You defend reactonaries. You have been claiming you are not racist elsewhere but all weekend you have been in their corners.

You are judged by who you hang out with. It is what it is, little butt hurt yurt.

so much for following your own advice...here you are making affirmations without giving solid evidence, your opinion is not evidence.

you really have no self awareness, i really don't believe you realize you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. you're either trolling on purpose or are a full retard. seriously, how can you tell others to give solid evidence when they make affirmation, and yet turn around, make an affirmation without a single shred of evidence? how?

 

[Trajan]

It's your opinion, son, only.

You are not a SCOTUS authority.

You are making affirmations without giving solid evidence.

I will never let you get away from this, will keep pointing it out.

Your opinion is not evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence either, moonbat. You specifically (and sarcastically) popped off, that Trajan and myself, did not understand how Articles I and II work, and I specifically posted the text of both Articles, and highlighted the pertinent clauses. I've made it as easy as pie for you to highlight the part which supports your argument, but now you want to claim the Constitution "doesn't matter" and unless it specifically states the president CAN'T do something, he CAN do it until the SCOTUS or Congress tells him otherwise. That is hilarious, since nowhere in the Constitution, does it state what the president CAN'T do. It's very specific on what he CAN do, and it also says that anything not enumerated (that means things it says he CAN do), then it is up to the States and People, if they want to do it.

Now who is it that doesn't understand how Articles I and II work?

You don't understand. Neither do the others. You make an affirmation, but that is not evidence in and of itself. You have to give evidence to support the affirmation. And lying (such as saying I argued "the Constitution 'doesn't matter'" -- you are right there with Yurt and Ernie S.) doesn't help you, either. Since your or Trajan's opinion doesn't count on these matters, I can toy with you guys all day.

None of you are constitutional authorities so don't pretend you are: that is laughable and makes you all look clownish.

post the links and explanation to support your case Jake, stop talking, just post it.