Obama is horrible

[Dot Com]

Lost an American Embassy and Ambassador to terrorists, check.

His Repub predecessor started a war-of-choice that resulted in 4,500+ servicemen's deaths. Your point?

 

[Dot Com]

All right, let's see what we have.

32 pages of hundreds of Obama's failings. Good job everyone!!

Now please explain how profoundly, deeply, and utterly incompetent your major political party has to be to lose to him...TWICE.

That preety much sums up the reason for their incessant whining They don't have any plausible candidates

 

[g5000]

All right, let's see what we have.

32 pages of hundreds of Obama's failings. Good job everyone!!

Now please explain how profoundly, deeply, and utterly incompetent your major political party has to be to lose to him...TWICE.

That preety much sums up the reason for their incessant whining They don't have any plausible candidates

Yes. The whining is a giant smokescreen for their own failings.

 

[TooTall]

Lost an American Embassy and Ambassador to terrorists, check.

His Repub predecessor started a war-of-choice that resulted in 4,500+ servicemen's deaths. Your point?

Only a real dumbass doesn't know that the US Congress and the UN sanctioned the invasion of Iraq. That would be you!

 

[TooTall]

For the brain impaired, I will repeat. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

There have been no SCOTUS decisions upholding the use of Executive Orders?

For the brain impaired, I will repeat. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

There have been no SCOTUS decisions upholding the use of Executive Orders?

For the brain impaired, I will repeat. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

And I repeat: it's irrelevant.

And you think this statement you made is accurate and relevant?
"Yes. Executive Orders are fully Constitutional."

You've yet to show me a SCOTUS decision re: executive orders.

It has nothing to do with SCOTUS. All I said was there is no authorization for Executive Orders in the Constitution or is there a statute in the US Code that permits them.

 

[TooTall]

Are you referring to he one that said we are going to hijack some airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center on 9/11?

That's just one of them. Those memos go back to early Spring. So many warnings from so many directions, blissfully ignored by people asleep at the wheel.

That makes you ignorant and not worthy of debating.

Facts are facts. They received numerous warnings, all ignored.

Links to those facts please.

Seriously? Again? Do you wingnuts all have memory loss?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

911 could have been prevented if Bush had banned all Muslims from entering the country and deporting all of them that were already in the US. Don't you agree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did she buy her gun from a gun show, illegally, with no background check and no registration?

No? Then you don't have a point.

Did she buy her gun from a gun show, illegally, with no background check and no registration?

Gun show purchases are not illegal.

 

[Dot Com]

Lost an American Embassy and Ambassador to terrorists, check.

His Repub predecessor started a war-of-choice that resulted in 4,500+ servicemen's deaths. Your point?

Only a real dumbass doesn't know that the US Congress and the UN sanctioned the invasion of Iraq. That would be you!

...based on lies and half-truths. Your point?

 

[TooTall]

Lost an American Embassy and Ambassador to terrorists, check.

His Repub predecessor started a war-of-choice that resulted in 4,500+ servicemen's deaths. Your point?

Only a real dumbass doesn't know that the US Congress and the UN sanctioned the invasion of Iraq. That would be you!

...based on lies and half-truths. Your point?

They ALL got the same briefings from the intelligence agencies. They may have been wrong on a couple of things, but they got most of it right. I always thought Bush got his intel from these two high level Democrats, but they may have been lying and telling half-truths.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

[Synthaholic]

There have been no SCOTUS decisions upholding the use of Executive Orders?

There have been no SCOTUS decisions upholding the use of Executive Orders?

For the brain impaired, I will repeat. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

And I repeat: it's irrelevant.

And you think this statement you made is accurate and relevant?
"Yes. Executive Orders are fully Constitutional."

You've yet to show me a SCOTUS decision re: executive orders.

It has nothing to do with SCOTUS. All I said was there is no authorization for Executive Orders in the Constitution or is there a statute in the US Code that permits them.

wait a minute...we are talking about the same thing, aren't we?

 

[Synthaholic]

There have been no SCOTUS decisions upholding the use of Executive Orders?

There have been no SCOTUS decisions upholding the use of Executive Orders?

For the brain impaired, I will repeat. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

And I repeat: it's irrelevant.

And you think this statement you made is accurate and relevant?
"Yes. Executive Orders are fully Constitutional."

You've yet to show me a SCOTUS decision re: executive orders.

It has nothing to do with SCOTUS. All I said was there is no authorization for Executive Orders in the Constitution or is there a statute in the US Code that permits them.

Pay attention:

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1] Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging 72-hour length strikes on enemies, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.​

I would submit that Obama has fine-tuned gun registration law, decided to increase the enforcement of the legislation, all derived from powers granted by the Constitution.

 

[Synthaholic]

That's just one of them. Those memos go back to early Spring. So many warnings from so many directions, blissfully ignored by people asleep at the wheel.

That makes you ignorant and not worthy of debating.

Facts are facts. They received numerous warnings, all ignored.

Links to those facts please.

Seriously? Again? Do you wingnuts all have memory loss?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

911 could have been prevented if Bush had banned all Muslims from entering the country and deporting all of them that were already in the US. Don't you agree?

That doesn't address the link I provided you with, at your request. Why not?

 

[Synthaholic]

That's just one of them. Those memos go back to early Spring. So many warnings from so many directions, blissfully ignored by people asleep at the wheel.

That makes you ignorant and not worthy of debating.

Facts are facts. They received numerous warnings, all ignored.

Links to those facts please.

Seriously? Again? Do you wingnuts all have memory loss?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

911 could have been prevented if Bush had banned all Muslims from entering the country and deporting all of them that were already in the US. Don't you agree?

We prolly could have prevented the Mafia, too, if we had only banned Italians in the late 1800s.

 

[Synthaholic]

Did she buy her gun from a gun show, illegally, with no background check and no registration?

No? Then you don't have a point.

Did she buy her gun from a gun show, illegally, with no background check and no registration?

Gun show purchases are not illegal.

Your response has nothing to do with what you are replying to.

If you give up, just say so.

 

[Dot Com]

Lost an American Embassy and Ambassador to terrorists, check.

His Repub predecessor started a war-of-choice that resulted in 4,500+ servicemen's deaths. Your point?

Only a real dumbass doesn't know that the US Congress and the UN sanctioned the invasion of Iraq. That would be you!

...based on lies and half-truths. Your point?

They ALL got the same briefings from the intelligence agencies. They may have been wrong on a couple of things, but they got most of it right. I always thought Bush got his intel from these two high level Democrats, but they may have been lying and telling half-truths.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

clinton didn't have this "guy" in the pentagon planting false headlines: Doug Feith

Douglas J. Feith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

thats the 10th time I've posted that BTW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[TooTall]

For the brain impaired, I will repeat. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

And I repeat: it's irrelevant.

And you think this statement you made is accurate and relevant?
"Yes. Executive Orders are fully Constitutional."

You've yet to show me a SCOTUS decision re: executive orders.

It has nothing to do with SCOTUS. All I said was there is no authorization for Executive Orders in the Constitution or is there a statute in the US Code that permits them.

wait a minute...we are talking about the same thing, aren't we?

Apparently not. You bring up SCOTUS and I am talking about what is not in the Constitution.

 

[TooTall]

For the brain impaired, I will repeat. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

And I repeat: it's irrelevant.

And you think this statement you made is accurate and relevant?
"Yes. Executive Orders are fully Constitutional."

You've yet to show me a SCOTUS decision re: executive orders.

It has nothing to do with SCOTUS. All I said was there is no authorization for Executive Orders in the Constitution or is there a statute in the US Code that permits them.

Pay attention:

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1] Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging 72-hour length strikes on enemies, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.​

I would submit that Obama has fine-tuned gun registration law, decided to increase the enforcement of the legislation, all derived from powers granted by the Constitution.

I and the NRA would agree with you. If some one sues him it would be dismissed IMO. And, he had to use the Sandy Hook kids to sell it the public. I found that part disgusting.

 

[TooTall]

That makes you ignorant and not worthy of debating.

Facts are facts. They received numerous warnings, all ignored.

Links to those facts please.

Seriously? Again? Do you wingnuts all have memory loss?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

911 could have been prevented if Bush had banned all Muslims from entering the country and deporting all of them that were already in the US. Don't you agree?

We prolly could have prevented the Mafia, too, if we had only banned Italians in the late 1800s.

The problem Bush had was he could not profile middle eastern men because Clinton make profiling a dirty word.

 

[TooTall]

Lost an American Embassy and Ambassador to terrorists, check.

His Repub predecessor started a war-of-choice that resulted in 4,500+ servicemen's deaths. Your point?

Only a real dumbass doesn't know that the US Congress and the UN sanctioned the invasion of Iraq. That would be you!

...based on lies and half-truths. Your point?

They ALL got the same briefings from the intelligence agencies. They may have been wrong on a couple of things, but they got most of it right. I always thought Bush got his intel from these two high level Democrats, but they may have been lying and telling half-truths.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

clinton didn't have this "guy" in the pentagon planting false headlines: Doug Feith

Douglas J. Feith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

thats the 10th time I've posted that BTW

Was this "mysterious guy" in the Pentagon in 1998 when Carl and the boys and girls were making these statements?

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

 

[Synthaholic]

And I repeat: it's irrelevant.

And you think this statement you made is accurate and relevant?
"Yes. Executive Orders are fully Constitutional."

You've yet to show me a SCOTUS decision re: executive orders.

It has nothing to do with SCOTUS. All I said was there is no authorization for Executive Orders in the Constitution or is there a statute in the US Code that permits them.

wait a minute...we are talking about the same thing, aren't we?

Apparently not. You bring up SCOTUS and I am talking about what is not in the Constitution.

Yes, but to what end? What is your point? I've cited examples of things not specifically in the Constitution that are perfectly Constitutional.