|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 22, 2009 18:48:01 GMT -6
While MY country was being driven into the toilet the last eight years Are you fucking serious? You think your country was "driven into the toilet?" You have no idea how lucky you are to have won the birth lottery. You've never seen a toilet. Hyperbole like yours is why it's so damn hard to take you and your America loathing ilk seriously.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 22, 2009 19:01:59 GMT -6
Who said support your president or leave the country? If anyone did they're as big of dipshits as the the idiots(Robert Redford etc...) vowing to move out of the country if Bush won in the previous election or the idiots(Stephen Baldwin) vowing to leave the country if BHO won this one. What's the matter, cali? You like tax cheats heading up The Treasury? Almost as much as I like Vice Presidents with fiscal interests in companies that receive "rebuilding" contracts after we destroy countries at his command Great. So we agree that a tax cheat shouldn't run The Treasury. Why can't this issue be brought up? I sure as fuck wouldn't want a conservative who had the same issue in charge of anything, much less the IRS. Don't you think that The President has made some bonehead appointments (relating to ethics)?
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Jan 22, 2009 19:12:02 GMT -6
While MY country was being driven into the toilet the last eight years Are you fucking serious? You think your country was "driven into the toilet?" You have no idea how lucky you are to have won the birth lottery. You've never seen a toilet. Hyperbole like yours is why it's so damn hard to take you and your America loathing ilk seriously. Hey douchenozzle (BTR).......if you can't understand that I'm using the conservative rhetoric of the last 8 years in reverse (by personalizing the USA as MINE compared to everyone's with differing opinions).....your degree from Iowa should be revoked. Given you probably got stinky finger from Ann Rhoads still leads to your degree being revoked. IaFan.....I did re-read your post. Once again, the rhetoric that you and others in your regime spouted the last 8 years against those that disagreed with people in power is summed up in the redneck bumper sticker "Love it or Leave It!". You and others like you responded to criticism of Dubya and his policies by questioning everyone's patriotism, work ethic, et al. All I've done is thrown the same bullshit arguments that seemed to work in your mind back in your face.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 22, 2009 19:26:30 GMT -6
Hey douchenozzle (BTR).......if you can't understand that I'm using the conservative rhetoric of the last 8 years in reverse (by personalizing the USA as MINE compared to everyone's with differing opinions).....your degree from Iowa should be revoked. Given you probably got stinky finger from Ann Rhoads still leads to your degree being revoked. I understood that rhetorical device and recognized it for what it was worth. Your use of caps there made that apparent. That was why I was focusing on your assertion that America is a toilet. You see, that has been a mainstay of the liberal playbook for the past several years -- just one day, about 8 years ago, America instantly became a toilet. It had no problems on January 20, 2000 and the only reason there are problems today are because of Dubya. Your attempt to use the hard right's rhetoric combined with typical anti-American liberal sentiment is confusing to the reader.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 23, 2009 8:01:11 GMT -6
Hey douchenozzle (BTR).......if you can't understand that I'm using the conservative rhetoric of the last 8 years in reverse (by personalizing the USA as MINE compared to everyone's with differing opinions).....your degree from Iowa should be revoked. Given you probably got stinky finger from Ann Rhoads still leads to your degree being revoked. I understood that rhetorical device and recognized it for what it was worth. Your use of caps there made that apparent. That was why I was focusing on your assertion that America is a toilet. You see, that has been a mainstay of the liberal playbook for the past several years -- just one day, about 8 years ago, America instantly became a toilet. It had no problems on January 20, 2000 and the only reason there are problems today are because of Dubya. Your attempt to use the hard right's rhetoric combined with typical anti-American liberal sentiment is confusing to the reader. No. The problem was that the GOP (mostly Bush/Cheney) had a fetish of shitting in their hands, smearing it on the constitution, then having one of their attorneys write an opinion saying "this is good"--- then telling the citizenry to be afraid of whatever the boogeyman of the day was and be assured this shit smearing would keep them safe.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 23, 2009 11:13:10 GMT -6
No. The problem was that the GOP (mostly Bush/Cheney) had a fetish of shitting in their hands, smearing it on the constitution, then having one of their attorneys write an opinion saying "this is good"--- then telling the citizenry to be afraid of whatever the boogeyman of the day was and be assured this shit smearing would keep them safe. What constitutional provisions were shat upon in your opinion? The problem with strictly partisan based attacks like this is that there is a range of permissibility and many unsettled questions. Is warrantless wiretapping an unreasonable search? There are good arguments both ways and at the time the ex-President moved, no Supreme Court ruling directly on point either way. Is it unconstitutional to imprison those deemed to be enemy combatants without a trial? Who is an enemy combatant? Again, there are good arguments both ways and a lack of directly on-point Supreme Court precedents to guide the former Administration. If we get into a prolonged war with China, I sure as hell don't want a Supreme Court ruling on the books extending the right to a speedy trial to every single prisoner of war we capture. Are there "Jack Bauer" type exceptions available such that if a group of terrorists are planning to inflict imminent harm on an American city, a little waterboarding or roughing up would be okay in limited amounts? Hell if I know. These 4th Amendment type issues are not necessarily conducive to bright line answers and I will readily concede there is a range of possible constructions of the word "unreasonable" under differing facts and circumstances of these type of issues. The bigger point is making sure they aren't extended too far in their reach. On the flip side, there are Commerce Clause, 14th Amendment and 2nd Amendment issues that can be raised in many "liberal" (which I use broadly, as it can emanate from both parties) pieces of legislation. Roosevelt violated the modern reading of the 4th and 14th Amendments tremendously when he put all the Japanese-Americans in internment camps for no reason other than their national origin. He violated settled notions of separation of powers when he threatened to pack the Supreme Court. He completely re-interpreted the the Commerce Clause to pass myriad federal business regulations, yet despite these constitutional issues, he is a hero of the modern left. Many liberals think that race based affirmative action does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Liberals have a very different reading of the 2nd Amendment than conservatives. The liberal movement has also read an implicit right of privacy into the 14th Amendment. I don't agree with these points, but I don't think the liberals' different interpretations of the Constitution and how far they can make government reach rise to the level of a "fetish of shitting in their hands, smearing it on the constitution," I understand their point and disagree and hope that one day, after peaceful exchanges of ideas and a healthy amount of name calling and shit talking, they will see it my way. Just because someone takes a different position with respect to the meaning of a provision of the Constitution than you does not mean they are shitting on the Constitution. They may be going beyond what you think is permissible, but with the ever growing size and scope of the federal government, it is hard to find a president in the modern era who will have unanimous support from constitutional scholars that "President XYZ did a tremendous job of upholding every provision of the Constitution and the federal government did nothing violative of the Constitution during his term."
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jan 23, 2009 12:20:55 GMT -6
Are you fucking serious? You think your country was "driven into the toilet?" You have no idea how lucky you are to have won the birth lottery. You've never seen a toilet. Hyperbole like yours is why it's so damn hard to take you and your America loathing ilk seriously. Hey douchenozzle (BTR).......if you can't understand that I'm using the conservative rhetoric of the last 8 years in reverse (by personalizing the USA as MINE compared to everyone's with differing opinions).....your degree from Iowa should be revoked. Given you probably got stinky finger from Ann Rhoads still leads to your degree being revoked. IaFan.....I did re-read your post. Once again, the rhetoric that you and others in your regime spouted the last 8 years against those that disagreed with people in power is summed up in the redneck bumper sticker "Love it or Leave It!". You and others like you responded to criticism of Dubya and his policies by questioning everyone's patriotism, work ethic, et al. All I've done is thrown the same bullshit arguments that seemed to work in your mind back in your face. I understand you being a slow learner, so here goes again.....focus..... It was your brethren, not mine, that has been screaming for our Country to be governed like Canada, France and the European Union. It is consistent with every other facet of the liberal mindset , which is bringing the strong down instead bringing the weak up. My Conservative brethren have never gone down that road. We have never gone to our Government demanding our Citizenry be treated like the French, the Canadians, Europeans in general, etc. so, as you can certainly see by now, your argument doesn't hold water. When we do start making those demands, you can put your argument back on the table.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 23, 2009 12:25:30 GMT -6
Hey douchenozzle (BTR).......if you can't understand that I'm using the conservative rhetoric of the last 8 years in reverse (by personalizing the USA as MINE compared to everyone's with differing opinions).....your degree from Iowa should be revoked. Given you probably got stinky finger from Ann Rhoads still leads to your degree being revoked. IaFan.....I did re-read your post. Once again, the rhetoric that you and others in your regime spouted the last 8 years against those that disagreed with people in power is summed up in the redneck bumper sticker "Love it or Leave It!". You and others like you responded to criticism of Dubya and his policies by questioning everyone's patriotism, work ethic, et al. All I've done is thrown the same bullshit arguments that seemed to work in your mind back in your face. I understand you being a slow learner, so here goes again.....focus..... It was your brethren, not mine, that has been screaming for our Country to be governed like Canada, France and the European Union. It is consistent with every other facet of the liberal mindset , which is bringing the strong down instead bringing the weak up. My Conservative brethren have never gone down that road. We have never gone to our Government demanding our Citizenry be treated like the French, the Canadians, Europeans in general, etc. so, as you can certainly see by now, your argument doesn't hold water. When we do start making those demands, you can put your argument back on the table. Why would "we" argue for conservative governments like that of Sarkozy (France) and Harper (Canada)?
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 24, 2009 0:29:33 GMT -6
Speaking of shit smearing. I think this administration is really getting the hang of it. Besides his other ethically challenged nominations, The President has just issued a waiver for Mr. William Lynn, lobbyist for mammoth defense contractor, Raytheon. www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/william-lynn-obamas-first_n_160512.htmlHere's The President's most recent Executive Order. www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:
"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:
"1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.
"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.
"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:
(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 24, 2009 8:11:04 GMT -6
Wow, I'm not disappointed in President Obama's waiver. Shit like that is necessary because you can stand up there and tell all the proles that your form of big government is better than the other guy's form of big government all day and you can get the loudest cheers and the most votes and people will think you mean it. But the fact that President Obama has come to the realization that sometimes there are situations like this is impressive. The President should get who he thinks is the best guy for the job. Screw the optics and the proles.
What disappoints me is iammrhawkeyes, who has in the past few days posted stories from HufPo and TPM. Those are socal's stomping grounds, pal.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 24, 2009 11:39:29 GMT -6
What constitutional provisions were shat upon...? That's what you're about to find out. The problem up until 1/20 was: 1. The Bush administration habitually made decisions to do something likely against the law (warrantless wiretapping of citizens outside the boundaries of the FISA court, rendition, torture, etc.) 2. The Bush admin had one or more of their internal lawyers rule that this decision was legal. 3. When questioned by congress or anyone, the Bush admin cited their lawyer's rulings stated it was legal. 4. When asked for the ruling or the underlying data, the Bush admin cited executive privilege and refused to release them. That leaves a bit of a quandry for anyone wanting to investigate. The documents are known to exist, because the Bush admin cited them in releases and during questioning... congress even had some success at suing up to the USSC to have a few released, but that only let them know the beginnings of what they didn't know. As these legal first steps took them 10 or so months (after regaining majority in Jan 07), they determined it would be a sisyphean task to sue all the way to the USSC for each of the documents they didn't have a list of yet. Thus the presidential order Obama gave Thursday or Friday is the opening salvo of opening up all documents to scrutiny. Bush / Cheney / Addington, etc. all still have a chance for jailtime or a visit to the hague. (Heck, for Clinton it took the GOP witch hunt 8 years and a term long special prosecutor to meet umpteen dead ends - before finally getting him on lying about a BJ... that had exactly zero to do with Whitewater)
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 25, 2009 8:43:51 GMT -6
What constitutional provisions were shat upon...? That's what you're about to find out. So you don't know, but rather than waiting to find out you made a conclusory statement to the effect that the Constitution was shat upon? Do you see how your hatred for Dubya has clouded your judgment?
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Jan 25, 2009 22:48:57 GMT -6
No matter what that fat cow Pelosi wants to do about Bush, Obama won't touch him. The dude is smart enough to know that by the time he leaves office he will probably have shit on his hands too and he does not want the next President doing the same to him. He has made it clear he wants to focus on the future and nothing to do with Bush and the last 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Jan 26, 2009 16:01:29 GMT -6
Hey douchenozzle (BTR).......if you can't understand that I'm using the conservative rhetoric of the last 8 years in reverse (by personalizing the USA as MINE compared to everyone's with differing opinions).....your degree from Iowa should be revoked. Given you probably got stinky finger from Ann Rhoads still leads to your degree being revoked. I understood that rhetorical device and recognized it for what it was worth. Your use of caps there made that apparent. That was why I was focusing on your assertion that America is a toilet. You see, that has been a mainstay of the liberal playbook for the past several years -- just one day, about 8 years ago, America instantly became a toilet. It had no problems on January 20, 2000 and the only reason there are problems today are because of Dubya. Your attempt to use the hard right's rhetoric combined with typical anti-American liberal sentiment is confusing to the reader. So, you did get stinky finger from Ann Rhoads.....nice
|
|