CIA Allegedly Polygraphing Operatives Regularly Over Benghazi Secrets

[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.

jeofma, talcue xwpje kaqrpn.


stop blabbering- post your case.

 

[Yurt]

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.

where is your evidence to support your affirmation? your opinion is not evidence.

 

[squeeze berry]

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.

jeofma, talcue xwpje kaqrpn.


stop blabbering- post your case.

that makes more sense

 

[Trajan]

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.

jeofma, talcue xwpje kaqrpn.


stop blabbering- post your case.

that makes more sense

lets all remember please, we are in the political forum..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trajan, your case is that BHO can't do it.

All we are getting is a bunch of folks pretending they are constitutional scholars.

Let's have some evidence.

 

[squeeze berry]

jeofma, talcue xwpje kaqrpn.


stop blabbering- post your case.

that makes more sense

lets all remember please, we are in the political forum..

every time I read one of jakey's posts I think I'm in the twilight zone

 

[JakeStarkey]

that makes more sense

lets all remember please, we are in the political forum..

every time I read one of jakey's posts I think I'm in the twilight zone

That's because you as a reactionary, just like a liberal, filter all information through a mindset.

 

[Trajan]

Trajan, your case is that BHO can't do it.

All we are getting is a bunch of folks pretending they are constitutional scholars.

Let's have some evidence.

Already did, post your case.

 

[depotoo]

.

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?

Actually he does, he is just naive enough to think others won't notice when he does it.

 

[Yurt]

let me get this right...jake is saying that if the constitution does not expressly prohibit the president from doing something, then the president can do what ever is not expressly prohibited?

do i have the gist of the debate right?

 

[depotoo]

let me get this right...jake is saying that if the constitution does not expressly prohibit the president from doing something, then the president can do what ever is not expressly prohibited?

do i have the gist of the debate right?

as long as you don't claim that same right for a Republican president...

 

[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?

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.

No, let's go over this slowly... YOU made an affirmation that Trajan and I didn't know how Articles I and II worked.

"Trajan and Boss simply do not, based on their posts, understand how Articles I and II of the Constitution work."

You posted NO evidence to support your affirmation.

I then posted the text of Articles I and II, and highlighted the pertinent parts, to support my affirmation that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. Trajan and myself, have asked you repeatedly to explain yourself, and you have continually failed to do so.

I didn't lie about what you said:

"Nowhere does it say the president cannot do it.The rest does not matter until Congress or SCOTUS does say it matters."

Again, you have not supported your affirmation with any evidence, and you are completely ignoring and disregarding the evidence I presented. You have now adopted this mindless notion that the Constitution "doesn't matter" and it's up to Congress and SCOTUS.

Since you are not a Constitutional Authority, and you've presented absolutely nothing to support your affirmations, then we have to assume you are totally full of shit, and delusional of reality. Since I have presented evidence to support my affirmations, I win!

Now go fuck yourself!

 

[Yurt]

let me get this right...jake is saying that if the constitution does not expressly prohibit the president from doing something, then the president can do what ever is not expressly prohibited?

do i have the gist of the debate right?

as long as you don't claim that same right for a Republican president...

so jake only claims that right because the president is a democrat?

 

[depotoo]

let me get this right...jake is saying that if the constitution does not expressly prohibit the president from doing something, then the president can do what ever is not expressly prohibited?

do i have the gist of the debate right?

as long as you don't claim that same right for a Republican president...

so jake only claims that right because the president is a democrat?

He didn't claim that right for Bush....

 

[Boss]

let me get this right...jake is saying that if the constitution does not expressly prohibit the president from doing something, then the president can do what ever is not expressly prohibited?

do i have the gist of the debate right?

Yep... you got it! I'm still trying to find anything in the Constitution that specifies things the president "can't" do... so I am assuming this means, the president can do whatever the hell he pleases until Congress and the SCOTUS tell him otherwise. Although, I don't know if that is the case with Republican president's too, I haven't gotten an affirmation from Jakey on that.

 

[Yurt]

who is the guy in your avi...his facial expression cracks me up

 

[Trajan]

who is the guy in your avi...his facial expression cracks me up

Jake??

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Trajan]

tempus fugit jake....

 

[Yurt]

i found the post where jake actually supports his affirmations: