Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Clinton's failed effort to takeover health care gave us a Conservative Congress.
If tried in Military Tribunals and found not guilty, the military can still arrest them and keep them contained, as well RGS.
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
The most fiscally responsible president of that last 30 years was Clinton, who was neither Republican nor conservative.
Yes. Clinton couldn't work with his Dem Congress. It wasn't until the Reps took over that he was able to get things done. That comes from Dick Morris who was with him at the time.
In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[48] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.[49] Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years.Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OK, I'll give it a shot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals
OK, I'll give it a shot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals
Let me add onto your number three, RW.
The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).
Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.
OK, I'll give it a shot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals
Let me add onto your number three, RW.
The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).
Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.
OK, I'll give it a shot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals
Let me add onto your number three, RW.
The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).
Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.
Couldn't agree more
OK, I'll give it a shot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals
Let me add onto your number three, RW.
The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).
Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.
Another lying piece of dog shit. They have rights, has anyone shot them yet? The Supreme COURT ruled that Military Tribunals are what they rate and until Obama and Holder STOPPED them that was what they were getting.
Back to your "RIGHTS" argument though. SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal?
Let me add onto your number three, RW.
The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).
Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.
Another lying piece of dog shit. They have rights, has anyone shot them yet? The Supreme COURT ruled that Military Tribunals are what they rate and until Obama and Holder STOPPED them that was what they were getting.
Back to your "RIGHTS" argument though. SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal?
First off--I said that they CAN BE TRIED.
Nothing about military tribunals at all. So please point out the lie!!
second--your following statement
"SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal"
Guess what--if they are found innocent, or a mistrial occurs, they are freed!!
The attorney General will not have the authority to re-arrest them!! Horrible, is it not.
Another lying piece of dog shit. They have rights, has anyone shot them yet? The Supreme COURT ruled that Military Tribunals are what they rate and until Obama and Holder STOPPED them that was what they were getting.
Back to your "RIGHTS" argument though. SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal?
First off--I said that they CAN BE TRIED.
Nothing about military tribunals at all. So please point out the lie!!
second--your following statement
"SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal"
Guess what--if they are found innocent, or a mistrial occurs, they are freed!!
The attorney General will not have the authority to re-arrest them!! Horrible, is it not.
You are a pathetic IDIOT. It has already been announced to the world that if freed they will immediately be held and returned to military control. HOLDER announced it with the Permission of Obama. On NATIONAL TV.
SO are you now telling us Holder is an abject LIAR and his boss Obama is too?
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
The most fiscally responsible president of that last 30 years was Clinton, who was neither Republican nor conservative.
So far, president bush holds that title for his 2009 fiscal budget CF....Obama's first fiscal budget was due february 1st to congress and came in effect, beginning in October of 2009, for the fiscal year of 2010.
So, my dear Frank, President bush holds the record of spending more than any president in our history and adding more to the national debt than any president in our History...
This is not to say that when Obama's first fiscal budget ends for 2010 on September 30, 2010 that he will not exceed President Bush's budget...but so far, it is president bush that holds the title of the absolute worst FISCAL president, when it comes to the Budget.
So far, president bush holds that title for his 2009 fiscal budget CF....Obama's first fiscal budget was due february 1st to congress and came in effect, beginning in October of 2009, for the fiscal year of 2010.
So, my dear Frank, President bush holds the record of spending more than any president in our history and adding more to the national debt than any president in our History...
This is not to say that when Obama's first fiscal budget ends for 2010 on September 30, 2010 that he will not exceed President Bush's budget...but so far, it is president bush that holds the title of the absolute worst FISCAL president, when it comes to the Budget.
That wasn't the question, but thank you for your reflexive defense of anything dealing with Obama.
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
So far, president bush holds that title for his 2009 fiscal budget CF....Obama's first fiscal budget was due february 1st to congress and came in effect, beginning in October of 2009, for the fiscal year of 2010.
So, my dear Frank, President bush holds the record of spending more than any president in our history and adding more to the national debt than any president in our History...
This is not to say that when Obama's first fiscal budget ends for 2010 on September 30, 2010 that he will not exceed President Bush's budget...but so far, it is president bush that holds the title of the absolute worst FISCAL president, when it comes to the Budget.
That wasn't the question, but thank you for your reflexive defense of anything dealing with Obama.
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?
2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?
3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isnt that murder?
The most fiscally responsible president of that last 30 years was Clinton, who was neither Republican nor conservative.
