Barack Obama, our next President

[John Galt]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>Some of them won't be happy until Barack is cleaning toilets and Michelle is taking in laundry to keep the three rooms of the White House they're now forced to live in from freezing...in other words, some of these sick people will NEVER be happy.

Sounds like a plan. Make the moochers work.

[John Galt]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
When SWAT takes out a hostage taker, where was that due process?
I get it. You want them top build a case & hold trial before they rescue the hostages.
Then, its OK when a sniper holds the gun & fires but "OMG OMG OMG" if it is done with a drone because there is no view from outside.
Do you people ever listen to see just how GD ridiculous you are?

Galt is not a fan of cops in general and specifically disapproves of SWAT tactics.

Hostage takers should only be shot if the life of the hostage is in imminent danger.

[leosnana]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
Interns are usually the tour guides. Uniformed Division Officers have the task of SECURING the tours.
Maybe if Obama gave up his ritual of presidential campaigning and flying all over the country in Air Force One or gave up golfing temporarily, the Uniformed Division Officers could continue to secure the tours at the White House.

As previously stated, you are still a very dumb carol, but you're working very hard to reach moron status...BTW, did flack do your repetitive voice box responses on a 3-D printer? They need to have a little more to do with the subject matter rather than just be a random See-N-Say...

[John Galt]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Nah, you wish maybe but that's not how it will play out. He may be found not guilty because the evidence is sketchy and the witnesses suck. But he won't walk with immunity from civil action and he will get butchered in the civil arena as will the homeowners association the management company and possibly even the city.
What happened here was well beyond stupid.
George is probably a victim too, but he's still breathing.

If the "evidence is sketchy and the witnesses suck", then the prosecution has a moral duty to drop the charges.

[flack]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have to drop to the floor. You just bend over and take it like a ... man:}

Bullshit! The real problems started in the fifties but accelerated in the sixties when every friggin' government (local, state, and federal) decided it knew better than the people. It was also the time when people started to realize the government would give them stuff. The taxes started going up. The wife had to leave the house to help pay the taxes. The children were left on their own growing wilder and wilder as each generation pushed back the boundaries.If you are honest with yourself you can trace the moral decay backwards. Of course, if you think there has been no moral decay then the point is moot. However technology, even though not recognized as such, was the force behind the changes.

[shinningelectr0n]

Nuculur option wrote:

<quoted text>
You're hopeless. The Model T begat the Model A, the Model B, the Model 48, etc.
Point is, Ford, followed by the creation of auto unions of the 1930's, establised good wages, which made workers better consumers. In steel, rubber, coal, etc. After the War, it all came together, as workers had the highest relative wages of the postwar era. The reason our economy failed is that average wages went down, after inflation.
All due to people like Reagan, who began the wealth transfer to the already wealthy. When the biggest retailer in America has it's employees on Medicaid and Foodstamps because they don't make enough in salary is why the economy collapsed, something is very wrong.
And you don't get it. No surprise there.
"There's nothing surer,
the rich get rich and the poor get poorer,
in the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun!"
True then, true now.

U-h-h-h...yoo-hoo!,...Mr. Dufus!.....The Model T was the resultant popular Model AFTER the Model A, B...prototypes and short run productions.

Wiki - Ford Model T: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_T

"There were several cars produced or prototyped by Henry Ford from the founding of the company in 1903 until the Model T came along. Although he started with the Model A, there were not 19 production models (A through T); some were only prototypes."

You sure do meander a lot from undocumented opinion BS to undocumented half-truths and back to BS and more half-truths only to settle on Reagan-Bashing and ...low wages led to the economic collapse?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Stick with the puppet show. You'll never hit the big time, Dood:>

[leosnana]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
Because it would be racist to point out that the stupidest person in Congress is a black woman.

Wow! I really didn't even suspect that of Louie Gohmert...but at the risk of being sexist as well, s/he sure is ugly.

[flack]

Realtime wrote:

Erin Burnett, the cute little CNN gal who had Rand Paul scheduled for tonight has had to settle for talking to an Atlanta Aquarium guy about wild cats in California. Purrfect!
Rand Paul is pulling a Traficant.
Must be the weird hair causing that kinda batshyt crazy eh?

She's hot!!!

[EasyEed]

sonicfilter wrote:

<quoted text>
what's not to like? no troops need sent. cost less. and no fake wars required. i love it.
and BTW....more....
Today, we apparently need pages on pages of Justice Department legalese (“Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or an Associated Force”) to justify killing Americans who have become senior jihadist terrorists and who are trying to kill as many innocent Americans as possible.
Of course, it’s no small irony that the candidate who once railed against the Bush administration’s so-called imperial presidency in the war on terror now finds himself under attack by his own base (and a few on the right) for his “secret” program of targeted killings. However, there is nothing like reality—in this case, the global, nebulous network of al Qaeda and allied terrorists—to bring home to a sitting president his fundamental constitutional responsibility to protect the lives and property of his fellow citizens.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/drone_...
and that would be neo-con headquarters.
want to hear what Republicans congressmen have to say about it?
though you probably don't.

"sonic"
I do not give a rats ass what republican congressman have to say about it. An individual making a decision, a life or death decision, about someone, an American citizen, with whom he disagrees and with out due process is BS. eric holder is a disgrace and if his boss agrees with him and okays it he is worse. In your mind it isfuck the constitution, fuckdue process, if the administration says you are bad, it is good bye, sayanora
happy trails.
Peace
KMA

[John Galt]

GOPIdiots wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it's because the title of stupidest member of Congress has already been taken by Michelle Bachman.

Child molester teacher wannabe GOPidiots thinks America forgets her crimes.

Crawl back in your hole, you pervert!

[John Galt]

Floridas History Prof wrote:

<quoted text>
May I remind you of Bush and the Patriot Act.

Irrelevant. Bush was wrong and Obama is carrying the insanity to new extremes.

[shinningelectr0n]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>You're even dumber than flack, Sweaty Souix? Maybe you should just reread and think about it again before posting? Hint: check with Nucular's message.

"...no Fords built after 1927..."??????
Well then who in the hell is paying for those Ford commercials I see on TV every night?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Nuculur option]

As the biggest Bush apologist on this thread, your opinion can't be taken seriously.

Bush lied, Americans died.

The Dems went along with them, but the push from Bush Cheney was enormous, and questioned the patriotism of any who opposed it.

Quit your lying about it. You remember it.

Make no mistake. History will place the blame for the Iraq debacle squarely on Bush.

So why did Canada, Mexico, France, Russia, China, and so many other nations disagree with Bush about an invasion?? It was basically the USA and Britain, the old colonial power. And a few small nations we bought off with military aid.

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
Bush knew exactly what the CIA and the UN knew. He knew exactly what the Democrats knew before they became weasels.
The Democrats lied to you about being lied to.
There was no illegal surveillance of the public.

[leosnana]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking is much worse than obesity and Moochelle defends smoking.

Link? Missing?(BTW, how many of you use this name? Needs a little work on consistency, IMO.)

[shinningelectr0n]

Floridas History Prof wrote:

<quoted text>
Theme song from Dragnet playing in the background.
Someone wake me up when Sherlock is finished.

Hell, they should've woken you up years ago!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

[sonicfilter]

Congress authorized the war against al Qaeda and its allies. While many details of the drone strikes remain secret, it can hardly be argued that Congress isn’t aware of the program’s existence or the administration’s -general legal justification for it; Attorney General Eric Holder spelled out much the same case for the program last March in a speech at Northwestern University. Nor is it possible for the administration to carry out the--program without congressional authorizations, either by the intelligence or the armed services committees. And as the -confirmation hearings of CIA director nominee John Brennan demonstrate, Congress has always had the ability to dig deeper if it chooses to use its oversight powers. What the critics don’t want to admit is that poll after poll indicates that the American public supports the drone program, and members of Congress, within reason, will reflect that support.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/drone_...

[Nuculur option]

Model T production run 1908-1927

Model A production run 1927-1931

Model B run production 1932-1934

As usual, you're clueless.

You remain as big an idiot as ever.

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
U-h-h-h...yoo-hoo!,...Mr. Dufus!.....The Model T was the resultant popular Model AFTER the Model A, B...prototypes and short run productions.
Wiki - Ford Model T: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_T
"There were several cars produced or prototyped by Henry Ford from the founding of the company in 1903 until the Model T came along. Although he started with the Model A, there were not 19 production models (A through T); some were only prototypes."
You sure do meander a lot from undocumented opinion BS to undocumented half-truths and back to BS and more half-truths only to settle on Reagan-Bashing and ...low wages led to the economic collapse?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Stick with the puppet show. You'll never hit the big time, Dood:>

[sonicfilter]

Nor is it the case that the courts have been ignored. It is impossible to read the white paper, with its citations of court decisions and its criteria for “balancing” state and individual interests based on court decisions, and not conclude that the paper was produced in the shadow of the federal court’s newfound, post-9/11 willingness to review executive branch counterterrorism policies. Shamsi also conveniently ignores the fact that when the ACLU sued the U.S. government over placing Anwar al-Awlaki (the American citizen and radical imam who planned the failed “underwear bomber” attack over Detroit in 2009 and was subsequently killed by a drone strike) on a “kill list,” the federal court dismissed the suit. According to the court, these were policies and decisions the Constitution had left in the hands of the political branches, those “best positioned and most politically accountable for making them.” In short, those opposed to the drone program got their day in court; they just don’t like what the court decided.

None of this means that the administration’s expanded use of drones is above debate. The debate, however, should center on the policy, and not exaggerated claims about the Constitution. Drone strikes can be an appropriate tool of war, but one wonders whether they have increasingly become a substitute for a comprehensive counterterrorism policy. Given the rise of jihadist forces throughout the Middle East and parts of Africa, that’s the discussion we should be having.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/drone_...

[shinningelectr0n]

Floridas History Prof wrote:

<quoted text>
We entered those dangerous waters beginning with Reagan who ran up record deficits from 1981-1989. There was nothing comparable before.
As far as I'm concerned, G.W. took us over the cliff and Obama is holding on by his fingernails.

As far as I'm concerned, Bunny Fwank took us over the cliff and the Boy Messiah is hanging on by his Hugo Chavez tactics.

YOU are hanging on by the skin of your beak, Pigeon.

[sonicfilter]

Fox News Poll: Majority supports use of drones

Overall, 74 percent of voters approve of using drones to kill a suspected terrorist overseas. That includes majorities of Republicans (80 percent), independents (71 percent) and Democrats (69 percent), as well as both men (78 percent) and women (71 percent).

The level of approval drops from 74 percent to 60 percent, however, if the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen.

Even when it comes to drone use on U.S. soil, a 56-percent majority of voters approves of such strikes on a suspected foreign terrorist.

Voters, however, disapprove of drone attacks when they are aimed at a U.S. citizen suspected of being a terrorist on U.S. soil. In those circumstances, by a 50-45 percent margin, voters say no.

In each follow-up scenario, Republicans and men are slightly more approving than Democrats and women -- just like in the overall scenario.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/04/fo...