Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
silverfox

Leechburg, PA

#46460 Jun 10, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: I can't name a single concrete thing she accomplished, so I'll bash Bush some more.
Someone should remind WBS, when Hillary said, "dead broke & in debt", she wasn't talking about the Bushes.
great post

Dahlonega, GA

#46461 Jun 10, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh without getting into the hypothetical of the question I'd probably be pissed off and be calling for investigations bla bla bla. I've never claimed to be non-partisan. I recall the Iran -Contra "scandal" and Reagan is a hero in some folks' eyes.....still (Do you consider Ollie North a hero or at least someone to be admired?). I recall the Iraq war and we'll be suffering from that as a nation for generations. Chaney, Rumsfeld, Pearle and co. are walking around free. No need for you to go into defending all that now. I'm not interested. But there it is. All presidents have their scandals and, again, I'm as partisan as the next. So what?
Dislike their policies, despise them as leaders and even in some cases as people I would do and have done. Now let me tell you what I would NOT do.
I would not call them "un-American"
I would not say that they were DELIBERATELY trying to "destroy America"
I would not accuse them of aiding the enemy
I would not accuse them of being one of the enemy (in the military sense)
I would not say that their supporters (no matter the degree of that support, hopefully that won't go right over your head) are un-American
Those are the accusations that you personally have made. Those are the accusations that the tea partiers make. There is one of the HUGE (can't emphasize that enough) differences in what I would do and what you personally (and those of like mind) have done.
And that is me being honest.
GREAT POST!!!!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#46462 Jun 10, 2014
Jonathan Turley - no "right winger", he - has written a column identifying the dangers in the path the country is going down in Obama's virtually non contested usurpation of powers granted to Congress.

It is an excellent read in it's entirety, but here are a few points made:
----------
"When James Madison shaped a new constitutional system for the United States, he and his fellow framers had one overriding fear: tyranny."

"To this day, many Americans misunderstand the separation of powers as simply a division of authority between three branches of government. In fact, it was intended as a protection not of institutional but of individual rights, by preventing any branch from assuming enough power to become tyrannical. No branch is supposed to have enough power to govern alone."

"The shift of power to the presidency certainly did not start with President Barack Obama. To the contrary, this trend has been gaining ground for decades. But it has accelerated under Obama, who has succeeded to a degree that would have made Richard Nixon blush. Indeed, OBAMA MAY BE THE PRESIDENT NIXON ALWAYS WANTED TO BE." (emphasis mine)

"While many hail Obama for not taking “no” for an answer from Congress in areas such as health care and immigration reform, they may rue the day another president uses the same powers to negate environmental or anti-discrimination laws."

"In the end, we have accepted the lure of personality over principle in allowing the expansion of these powers. Obama will not be our last president, but these powers are unlikely to be voluntarily surrendered by his successors. There is a radical change occurring in our system, and we may be at a critical constitutional tipping point in the establishment of an imperial presidency in the coming years."

"The danger of this concentration of authority is made more acute by the failure of federal courts to perform their vital function in confining the branches to their constitutional spaces."

"Obama appeared before a joint session of Congress (and members of the Supreme Court) to announce that he intended to go it alone in achieving his policy goals, refusing to yield to the actions of Congress. "

==========

Those are just a few of the very thought provoking warnings Turley has made. And to repeat, while Obama is the subject because of his current actions, the warnings Turley makes are not just linked to Obama - it is the precedent he is setting and what it means for our country BOTH now and down the road. Both the courts and Congress may/will find that once they have surrendered powers they were granted by the Constitution, it may/will not be so easy to GET THEM BACK - and we as individuals are the ones who will suffer for it.

As Benjamin Franklin stated when asked after the Constitutional Convention:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied:“A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
WasBushStupid

United States

#46463 Jun 10, 2014
Batchit Crazy Michele Bachmann flapping her crazy lips again. Won't be long before we hear from Joe the Bummer again.
.
"Michele Bachmann drew huge crowds to fight obama death care law. You need to be a member of Tea Parties Endorsing Michele Bachmann to add comments!"
.
There are outfits whose sole purpose is to knock down claims of things that Batchit Crazy Michele Bachmann said which she may not have said. But in truth, you don't have to make up Batchit Crazy stuff that she says. Their biggest problem in making Batchit Crazy Michele Bachmann look good is trying to keep her mouth shut.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#46464 Jun 10, 2014
Also from Turley's article, the following are comparisons to actions Nixon TRIED to take that were blocked. Now Obama is doubling down in ways Nixon only dreamed of.
==========

"Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an imperial presidency with unilateral powers and privileges. But in 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition."

SURVEILLANCE - Nixon’s use of warrantless surveillance was cited as one of his greatest abuses and led to the creation of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Obama, however, has expanded warrantless surveillance programs to a degree that dwarfs anything Nixon imagined, including initiating a program that captured communications of virtually every U.S. citizen.

WAR - Nixon’s impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress’ sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. Obama went even further in the Libyan war, declaring that he alone defines what is a “war” for the purposes of triggering the constitutional provisions on declarations of Congress. That position effectively converts the entire provision in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (“Congress shall have power to … declare War”) into a discretionary power of the president.

KILL LISTS - Nixon ordered a burglary to find evidence to use against Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and was accused of a secret plot to have the White House “plumbers”“incapacitate” him in a physical attack. People were outraged. Yet Obama has asserted the right to kill any U.S. citizen without a charge, let alone conviction, based on his sole authority. Internal documents state that he has a right to kill a citizen even when he lacks “clear evidence (of) a specific attack” being planned.

REPORTERS/WHISTLE BLOWERS - Nixon was known for his attacks on whistleblowers, using the Espionage Act of 1917 to bring a rare criminal case against Ellsberg. He was vilified for this abuse of the law, but Obama has brought twice as many such prosecutions as all prior presidents combined. Nixon was accused of putting a few reporters under surveillance. The Obama administration has admitted to putting Associated Press reporters, as well as a Fox reporter, under surveillance.

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS - Nixon was cited for various efforts to obstruct or mislead congressional investigators. The Obama administration has repeatedly refused to give evidence sought by oversight committees in a variety of scandals. In one case, Congress voted to move forward with criminal contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder, which Holder’s own Justice Department blocked. In another case, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied before Congress on the surveillance programs, and later said that he offered the least untruthful statement he could think of. The Obama administration, however, refuses to investigate Clapper for perjury, let alone fire him. Recently, the administration was accused of searching Senate computers in an investigation of the CIA and trying to intimidate congressional investigators.

==========

I would ask those on the Left - PLEASE at least read through these and THINK about the points made before dismissing them without thought. Again, Turley IS NOT a "right winger" and his points are from the viewpoint of a Constitutional scholar and lawyer - not a political ideologue.

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/05/21/a-questi...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#46465 Jun 10, 2014
WasBushStupid wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Translation: We know that the GOP, the PEE party, the Bushs and everything right wing is in a glass house. We just wish that "libruls" didn't know it too. There should be a law to prevent "libruls" from telling the truth about the right wing. When we get control then we will pass such a law.
.
Translation: I STILL can't come up with anything Hillary has accomplished in her own right, so I'll trash talk the Right some more.
WasBushStupid

United States

#46466 Jun 10, 2014
silverfox wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone should remind WBS, when Hillary said, "dead broke & in debt", she wasn't talking about the Bushes.
.
Actually, and listen or read very carefully on this, I am NOT a diehard fan of Ms Clinton. In fact I just recently have more respect for her that would suddenly give me cause to support Ms Clinton for presidenette, or presidentette. Should Ms Clinton say in her final word on the matter, "For the sake of unity in our nation, I will not run" then I would find that most honorable, except. Except that Republicans would still exist.
.
My take is whatever it takes to keep the likes of any Bush, Reagan-like, Nixon-like, Romoney, Cruz, the cuban, Batchit Crazy Bachmann, Palin and the host of other out of OUR White House should be the main concern.
.
The worst thing about a Republican president is after they are president, not while they are running for president.
WasBushStupid

United States

#46467 Jun 10, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: I STILL can't come up with anything Hillary has accomplished in her own right, so I'll trash talk the Right some more.
.
Translation:
We cannot or will not publicly admit that we voted for Bush, TWICE, but why won't y'all forget that he is Republican and only look at our Bashing Hillary. It's for our, er, your own good. We promise.
.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#46468 Jun 10, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh without getting into the hypothetical of the question I'd probably be pissed off and be calling for investigations bla bla bla. I've never claimed to be non-partisan. I recall the Iran -Contra "scandal" and Reagan is a hero in some folks' eyes.....still (Do you consider Ollie North a hero or at least someone to be admired?). I recall the Iraq war and we'll be suffering from that as a nation for generations. Chaney, Rumsfeld, Pearle and co. are walking around free. No need for you to go into defending all that now. I'm not interested. But there it is. All presidents have their scandals and, again, I'm as partisan as the next. So what?
Dislike their policies, despise them as leaders and even in some cases as people I would do and have done. Now let me tell you what I would NOT do.
I would not call them "un-American"
I would not say that they were DELIBERATELY trying to "destroy America"
I would not accuse them of aiding the enemy
I would not accuse them of being one of the enemy (in the military sense)
I would not say that their supporters (no matter the degree of that support, hopefully that won't go right over your head) are un-American
Those are the accusations that you personally have made. Those are the accusations that the tea partiers make. There is one of the HUGE (can't emphasize that enough) differences in what I would do and what you personally (and those of like mind) have done.
And that is me being honest.
No. That is more of you being left wing loyal. You can post self-rightousness all day long. That's easy. There are no posts back in those days to check your honesty. Never mind. I KNOW better. Give me a BREAK. That is NOT you being honest. I've dealt with enough lunatic left wingers(including YOU) on this forum to know better.
BTW, I STAND BY every single thing I have posted about that embarrassment this country has been saddled with for five and a half years. I'll make NO apologies about him.
You have been horrifically mislead and still REFUSE to admit it. So, I'm SURE you'll understand if I find your "claims" somewhat questionable and self-serving.
And that's me being honest.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#46469 Jun 10, 2014
silverfox wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not posting links, you can read about it...
While on the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary stated she had arrived in Bosnia under sniper fire while First Lady, later film footage proved that to be untrue, she said she misspoke.
…..
Then when she is nailed on something, there are her numerous excuses: "I had been to 67 countries", "I was tired", "I recall that differently", and on and on. She is adept at parsing her words - "I don't recall", "to the best of my recollection", etc - no one has ever said she wasn't smart, just that she is a political opportunist - among other less flattering descriptors.

The link is to a montage of her attempts to "glorify" her trip to Bosnia, the far different accounts by reporters who were on the same plane, and actual footage of their disembarking from the plane. There is no need to watch the whole thing to get the gist.

silverfox

Leechburg, PA

#46470 Jun 10, 2014
taking time wrote:
<quoted text>
I can read about Peter Pan and the Toot Fairy, don't make the story accurate now does it. You choosing to believe the story about the firing, not surprising at all. As she said in the TV interview, some things are not worth a response.
Republicans are scared to death of the Clintons, put them in a race with a Republican and the Republican is toast. They have climbed to the top of the ladder, they didn't need daddy to pull them to the top. I have never seen a political party so scared on one couple, makes my toes tingle. That's doing a lot considering I would have never voted for her before the idiots invaded the Republican Party. The Republican Party needs an exterminator, good thing is the rich folks that fund it now know that. But these hard shell bugs are tough to exterminate, almost like the are to dumb to give up, its taking time.
You are ONE of the most ignorant posters on this forum. You're a TOTAL waste of time & energy. It's very sad YOU can't determine reality from fairy tale. Please know I care about your tingling toes. I refuse to respond to you again. Say ANYTHING you please, you aren't worthy of another response from me. Now, carry on.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#46471 Jun 10, 2014
WasBushStupid wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Translation:
We cannot or will not publicly admit that we voted for Bush, TWICE, but why won't y'all forget that he is Republican and only look at our Bashing Hillary. It's for our, er, your own good. We promise.
.
Oh, I will absolutely admit I voted for Bush - BOTH TIMES. He turned out to not be the economic conservative I hoped he would be. Some of his social policies were straight from the Liberal handbook - "No Child Left Behind" and his immigration policies for two examples - they sound so good on paper that it seems wrong to opposed them - but all it takes is common sense to see the problems inherent in the proposals. BUT, I did not then, nor do I now question his love for this country and his intention to do what he truly believed was right. And when contrasted with who he was running against - GORE (heaven forbid) and KERRY - you BET I happily pulled that lever for Bush.

By the way - failed again in trying to change the subject. Still can't name a single accomplishment of Hillary's and NOW you're saying you're "not a die hard fan". Gotta love it.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#46472 Jun 10, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then when she is nailed on something, there are her numerous excuses: "I had been to 67 countries", "I was tired", "I recall that differently", and on and on. She is adept at parsing her words - "I don't recall", "to the best of my recollection", etc - no one has ever said she wasn't smart, just that she is a political opportunist - among other less flattering descriptors.
The link is to a montage of her attempts to "glorify" her trip to Bosnia, the far different accounts by reporters who were on the same plane, and actual footage of their disembarking from the plane. There is no need to watch the whole thing to get the gist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =s2Z9o37FQI4XX
I didn't watch the Diane Sawyer interview last night, but I did watch some of the Robin Roberts interview this morning. Hillary needs to drop that "we were broke when we left the WH" shtick. First of all, she stated they were $12,000,000.00 in debt. Middle Class Americans aren't ALLOWED to get in that much debt, so I DOUBT many people can relate to THAT. They must not be able to manage their money very well if they got that much in debt. Secondly, no one, but her liberal lapdogs will believe that so........ Why do liberals enjoy being lied to so much?
silverfox

Leechburg, PA

#46473 Jun 10, 2014
silverfox wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ONE of the most ignorant posters on this forum. You're a TOTAL waste of time & energy. It's very sad YOU can't determine reality from fairy tale. Please know I care about your tingling toes. I refuse to respond to you again. Say ANYTHING you please, you aren't worthy of another response from me. Now, carry on.
^ please know I DO NOT care about your tingling toes.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#46474 Jun 10, 2014
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
…. Why do liberals enjoy being lied to so much?
Now THAT is the million dollar question.
Concerned

Alpharetta, GA

#46475 Jun 10, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I will absolutely admit I voted for Bush - BOTH TIMES. He turned out to not be the economic conservative I hoped he would be. Some of his social policies were straight from the Liberal handbook - "No Child Left Behind" and his immigration policies for two examples - they sound so good on paper that it seems wrong to opposed them - but all it takes is common sense to see the problems inherent in the proposals. BUT, I did not then, nor do I now question his love for this country and his intention to do what he truly believed was right. And when contrasted with who he was running against - GORE (heaven forbid) and KERRY - you BET I happily pulled that lever for Bush.
By the way - failed again in trying to change the subject. Still can't name a single accomplishment of Hillary's and NOW you're saying you're "not a die hard fan". Gotta love it.
I, too, voted for Bush twice. I completely and 100% agree with everything you posted. You nailed it! Great post.
guest

Warrenton, VA

#46476 Jun 10, 2014
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. That is more of you being left wing loyal. You can post self-rightousness all day long. That's easy. There are no posts back in those days to check your honesty. Never mind. I KNOW better. Give me a BREAK. That is NOT you being honest. I've dealt with enough lunatic left wingers(including YOU) on this forum to know better.
BTW, I STAND BY every single thing I have posted about that embarrassment this country has been saddled with for five and a half years. I'll make NO apologies about him.
You have been horrifically mislead and still REFUSE to admit it. So, I'm SURE you'll understand if I find your "claims" somewhat questionable and self-serving.
And that's me being honest.
LMFAO - not anything less than what I expected. She can read minds. You are a pitiful, batsh*t crazy, fool. And that is why I try not to engage with the likes of you. You're just not worth the effort. It's like trying to have a conversation with a rabid dog. goodgodamighty!

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#46477 Jun 10, 2014
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I will absolutely admit I voted for Bush - BOTH TIMES. He turned out to not be the economic conservative I hoped he would be. Some of his social policies were straight from the Liberal handbook - "No Child Left Behind" and his immigration policies for two examples - they sound so good on paper that it seems wrong to opposed them - but all it takes is common sense to see the problems inherent in the proposals. BUT, I did not then, nor do I now question his love for this country and his intention to do what he truly believed was right. And when contrasted with who he was running against - GORE (heaven forbid) and KERRY - you BET I happily pulled that lever for Bush.
By the way - failed again in trying to change the subject. Still can't name a single accomplishment of Hillary's and NOW you're saying you're "not a die hard fan". Gotta love it.
I voted for Bush twice. I agree that I never doubted his love for this country and considering our other choices, it was a done deal. We get so much vitriol in regard to Bush, but the looney left can't understand our dislike for Obama. Astounding, huh? I guess it's that old double standard of theirs.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#46478 Jun 10, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO - not anything less than what I expected. She can read minds. You are a pitiful, batsh*t crazy, fool. And that is why I try not to engage with the likes of you. You're just not worth the effort. It's like trying to have a conversation with a rabid dog. goodgodamighty!
You got whipped. BAM! It would be wise in the future if you didn't engage me. It takes too long to get the egg off your face. ROTFL
You won't admit it, but you are as sincere and self-righteous as that worthless empty suit you saddled us with. lol You are to be pitied.....just like your judgement in regard to whom you voted for.
guest

Warrenton, VA

#46479 Jun 10, 2014
I'll add that your post reads like you didn't even comprehend what I wrote. It read like you already had a pat answer ready in one form or another. Pitiful.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Athens Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Photos: Cyclists ride the proposed Firefly Trail Apr '17 Kanada 1
Nightmares Mar '17 Krae12203 1
UGA Law First Annual 5k Mar '17 IPleadThe5k 1
Amazon censoring books for Israel Mar '17 Jim Fetzer 2
Remove all health care subsidies for Congress ... Mar '17 wjabbe 3
Marc Lofton Mar '17 Concerned Traveller 6
Taya Leigh mills Feb '17 sally 1

Athens Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Athens Mortgages