“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175766 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
=====
1) lol- There's a shocker. Curious? Of course you are, Willie. I've rarely seen you address a subject posed by someone other than a liberal without thoroughly checking in advance for any diabolical booby-traps we may have set. Your need to qualify and post disclaimers to most questions and comments coming from anyone other than a liberal, are carefully vetted, clarified, dissected and inspected for suspicious intent before you'll >almost< address it. It's borderline pathological with you.
2) It doesn't, so put down your weapon. I just felt like asking you a question and posed it when the mood struck. Breathe, Willie, breathe. There's is nothing sinister going on here.
3) Yes.
4) If I wanted to discuss trends, I would have something clever like: " let's discuss trends." I want to talk about Obama.
5a) It's not the former, it's the latter but for the record, Trey Gowdy had an alibi during the Bush years. He was a federal prosecutor in SC and didn't become a congressman until 2011. My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
5b) For the 2nd time. I want to talk about Obama's record. If I had wanted to discuss his predecessors and "trends" I would have said so. Try and live with the inconvenience.
6) For the 3rd time, I said nothing about "trends." You're trying to rewrite my post. Wanna go for 4?
7a) LOL! And there it is! For the 4th time, I wasn't discussing "trends."
7b) Maybe you could elaborate with specifics on why the Enforce the Law act "wouldn't address" the problem and wouldn't be a positive tool to aid in limiting presidential power by providing the legislative branch legal standing with which to oppose executive overreach.
8) Where you stand, I guess, is somewhere in Indiana and besides having an unlimited supply of liberal cow fertilizer, I have no idea what you own.
==
Now, isn't this fun? I pose a comment and question to you. You dissect it like a suspicious crazy person. I respond to your crazy person dissection and toss the dissected mess back in your lap and now you get re-dissect the dissection until the original intent is lost or due to exasperation, I give up. Whichever comes fist.
The ENFORCE act won't address the real problem of executive overreach because it is a partisan gimmick with no chance of becoming law. Its sponsors in the House knew this in advance.

They (or at least most of them) are smart enough to know how this tool could have been used in the hands of the Pelosi House during the Bush Administration, for example.

I'm also not sure that, under the law, you can compare waiving statutory ACA deadlines or the 5 year welfare limit with failure to prosecute even a whole class of crimes (drug and immigration have come up in some discussions of the ENFORCE act I've read).

That's just off the top of my head. I haven't read the bill because it has no chance of passing the Senate.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175767 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I want to talk about Obama.

My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
There it is.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175768 Mar 14, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>There it is.
.......enter the sound of galloping hooves on cobblestones.

It's Hip to the rescue!
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175769 Mar 14, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>After last years tornado wiped out a significant portion of Washington IL, Beck went from being a provocateur in the abstract, to a proven manipulative liar on the home-front. The day after the tornadoes, Beck announced on his radio show and website that "agents" from FEMA were "turned away" by "officials" with guns from an IL community that he never quite named. He went so far as to say this was witnessed by none other than some "relief" group dispatched by one of his umbrella organizations.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/21/wh...
Except it was an outright lie. And not just an innocuous lie, but a lie that affected people in anguish and despair after the disaster. The mayor's office was inundated with calls from people wondering why such a thing would happen, they needed any help they could get. So, in addition to dealing with the disaster itself, city officials had to negotiate Beck's self-serving lie.
What's even more insidious, it turns out, is that Beck made his own wish come true. After the Joplin MO tornado 2 years earlier, Beck mused longingly for just such a scenario, where people turned FEMA away, Then two years later, according to Beck, it allegedly "happened" just as he had imagined. Amazing, huh?
http://www.examiner.com/article/glenn-beck-us...
There is no better proof that Beck feels that lying to his constituency is justified, if it serves to get his "message" out. And his constituency don't care, as evidenced by a Google search showing that Beck's fabrication still lives on on The Blaze, as well as multiple blogs and webpages, without correction.
Take out the part about tornadoes and you just described Obama.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#175770 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
=====
1) lol- There's a shocker. Curious? Of course you are, Willie. I've rarely seen you address a subject posed by someone other than a liberal without thoroughly checking in advance for any diabolical booby-traps we may have set. Your need to qualify and post disclaimers to most questions and comments coming from anyone other than a liberal, are carefully vetted, clarified, dissected and inspected for suspicious intent before you'll >almost< address it. It's borderline pathological with you.
2) It doesn't, so put down your weapon. I just felt like asking you a question and posed it when the mood struck. Breathe, Willie, breathe. There's is nothing sinister going on here.
3) Yes.
4) If I wanted to discuss trends, I would have something clever like: " let's discuss trends." I want to talk about Obama.
5a) It's not the former, it's the latter but for the record, Trey Gowdy had an alibi during the Bush years. He was a federal prosecutor in SC and didn't become a congressman until 2011. My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
5b) For the 2nd time. I want to talk about Obama's record. If I had wanted to discuss his predecessors and "trends" I would have said so. Try and live with the inconvenience.
6) For the 3rd time, I said nothing about "trends." You're trying to rewrite my post. Wanna go for 4?
7a) LOL! And there it is! For the 4th time, I wasn't discussing "trends."
7b) Maybe you could elaborate with specifics on why the Enforce the Law act "wouldn't address" the problem and wouldn't be a positive tool to aid in limiting presidential power by providing the legislative branch legal standing with which to oppose executive overreach.
8) Where you stand, I guess, is somewhere in Indiana and besides having an unlimited supply of liberal cow fertilizer, I have no idea what you own.
==
Now, isn't this fun? I pose a comment and question to you. You dissect it like a suspicious crazy person. I respond to your crazy person dissection and toss the dissected mess back in your lap and now you get re-dissect the dissection until the original intent is lost or due to exasperation, I give up. Whichever comes fist.
Better to be a "suspicious crazy person" than a blatant racist.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175771 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The ENFORCE act won't address the real problem of executive overreach because it is a partisan gimmick with no chance of becoming law. Its sponsors in the House knew this in advance.
They (or at least most of them) are smart enough to know how this tool could have been used in the hands of the Pelosi House during the Bush Administration, for example.
I'm also not sure that, under the law, you can compare waiving statutory ACA deadlines or the 5 year welfare limit with failure to prosecute even a whole class of crimes (drug and immigration have come up in some discussions of the ENFORCE act I've read).
That's just off the top of my head. I haven't read the bill because it has no chance of passing the Senate.
Harry Reid has a already been told by Herr Obama to make sure it doesn't pass by threatening to veto any bill that would require his administration to enforce laws. And Harry the rodent Reid would rather jam pencils into his ears before he defied Obama. But if you think for one minute the president should get to decide which laws he’s going to enforce any more than Americans get to decide which laws they’re going to follow, you're certifiable and the fact that this president would threaten to veto a measure requiring him to uphold his constitutional obligations, emphasizes why this bill is needed and how out of control he is.

5 or 6 democrats voted for it in the House. At least a couple of them have something in their pants besides loose change.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175772 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
.......enter the sound of galloping hooves on cobblestones.
It's Hip to the rescue!
I didn't need rescuing, Lyndi.

You want to talk about one part of a problem. I wouldn't mind talking about the whole thing.

The Congressman was working for the Bush Administration when signing statements was the issue. Your whereabouts during the Bush years probably are irrelevant - but wherever you were, you were probably yelling liberal.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#175773 Mar 14, 2014
Washington (The Borowitz Report)— President Obama has sparked outrage in Congress and renewed calls for his impeachment by signing a daring Presidential memorandum that would pay workers enough to eat.

The memorandum, which is based on the President’s view that people should be paid for the hours they actually work, is shaping up as one of the most controversial and incendiary actions of his Presidency.

House Republican leaders held a press conference this morning to warn Obama that, by advancing his agenda of paying people for the work they do, he is “playing with political fire.”

“A Presidential memorandum is a powerful tool and should be used sparingly,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).“It is not a vehicle for this President to enact his pet theories about people earning enough to survive.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) concurred, telling reporters,“With one stroke of the pen, President Obama is removing the single greatest incentive for work: hunger.”

“Apparently, President Obama needs a lesson in American history,” he said.“Hunger built the railroads. Hunger picked the crops. When the American people learn more about this action of the President’s, they will see it for what it is: a hunger-killer.”
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175774 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text> Your whereabouts during the Bush years probably are irrelevant - but wherever you were, you were probably yelling liberal.
I don't yell, Willie except maybe at a Fenway Park..........

"BLAST ONE TO THE MOON, BIG PAPI!"

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175775 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Harry Reid has a already been told by Herr Obama to make sure it doesn't pass by threatening to veto any bill that would require his administration to enforce laws. And Harry the rodent Reid would rather jam pencils into his ears before he defied Obama. But if you think for one minute the president should get to decide which laws he’s going to enforce any more than Americans get to decide which laws they’re going to follow, you're certifiable and the fact that this president would threaten to veto a measure requiring him to uphold his constitutional obligations, emphasizes why this bill is needed and how out of control he is.
5 or 6 democrats voted for it in the House. At least a couple of them have something in their pants besides loose change.
Oh, I'm certifiable now?

Cool.

There's not a President in the modern era who would have signed this bill, and I'm not sure we've ever had one who would consider it.

If the Congress does not feel that the President is discharging his responsibilities under the Constitution, they already have a remedy.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#175776 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, I'm certifiable now?
Cool.
There's not a President in the modern era who would have signed this bill, and I'm not sure we've ever had one who would consider it.
If the Congress does not feel that the President is discharging his responsibilities under the Constitution, they already have a remedy.
Are you talking about the "I" word? Impeach? Obama?
Never happen.
Don't make me laugh.

And if there isn't a President in the modern era who'd sign this bill, then maybe we had better consider changing the wording to the Oath of Office because Obama has gotten a little too creative with the "faithfully executing" part for a whole lot of us.
Inhabiting the White House, Willie, isn't an invitation for an elected POTUS to use it like a build your own sundae, ice cream parlor. There are guidelines, you know.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175777 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about the "I" word? Impeach? Obama?
Never happen.
Don't make me laugh.
And if there isn't a President in the modern era who'd sign this bill, then maybe we had better consider changing the wording to the Oath of Office because Obama has gotten a little too creative with the "faithfully executing" part for a whole lot of us.
Inhabiting the White House, Willie, isn't an invitation for an elected POTUS to use it like a build your own sundae, ice cream parlor. There are guidelines, you know.
With all due respect, I wouldn't rule out the Republicans making an impeachment attempt after the fall elections, especially if they take the Senate.

There's been a lot of noise about it, more wishful thinking than anything else to this point - but given the House Republican leadership's limited ability to control its members, anything is possible.

I mean, given the chatter among House and Senate Republicans ... are you that confident?

I don't see a reason for you to be.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#175778 Mar 14, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about the "I" word? Impeach? Obama?
Never happen.
Don't make me laugh.
Even if someone gave him a BJ?

(If the 'someone' were male, most especially - because then he'd undoubtedly lie about it.)

Swish.....right in the bucket.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#175779 Mar 14, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Better to be a "suspicious crazy person" than a blatant racist.
Says the worthless stalker troll!

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#175780 Mar 14, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Washington (The Borowitz Report)— President Obama has sparked outrage in Congress and renewed calls for his impeachment by signing a daring Presidential memorandum that would pay workers enough to eat.
The memorandum, which is based on the President’s view that people should be paid for the hours they actually work, is shaping up as one of the most controversial and incendiary actions of his Presidency.
House Republican leaders held a press conference this morning to warn Obama that, by advancing his agenda of paying people for the work they do, he is “playing with political fire.”
“A Presidential memorandum is a powerful tool and should be used sparingly,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).“It is not a vehicle for this President to enact his pet theories about people earning enough to survive.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) concurred, telling reporters,“With one stroke of the pen, President Obama is removing the single greatest incentive for work: hunger.”
“Apparently, President Obama needs a lesson in American history,” he said.“Hunger built the railroads. Hunger picked the crops. When the American people learn more about this action of the President’s, they will see it for what it is: a hunger-killer.”
This hogslop is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the actual issue.

Obama in his neverending crusade to redistribute wealth, is ordering businesses to advance OVERTIME pay for SALARIED white collar employees making under $445 per month (IIRC).

Of course this will fail, as businesses will simply cut back the overtime hours for 3 out of 4 employees, and or raise prices to the consumer to offset the cost differential. Just another example of big government overstepping their gray matter.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175781 Mar 14, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
This hogslop is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the actual issue.
Obama in his neverending crusade to redistribute wealth, is ordering businesses to advance OVERTIME pay for SALARIED white collar employees making under $445 per month (IIRC).
Of course this will fail, as businesses will simply cut back the overtime hours for 3 out of 4 employees, and or raise prices to the consumer to offset the cost differential. Just another example of big government overstepping their gray matter.
Uhhhh ... SALARIED white collar employees making under $445 per month?

You sure you haven't got Obama confused with FDR?

:-)

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#175782 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Uhhhh ... SALARIED white collar employees making under $445 per month?
You sure you haven't got Obama confused with FDR?
:-)
You DID see my disclaimer:( IIRC)? The tag was only on screen for about 5 seconds,

and I'm doing OK just to find me way home at nite. Gimme a freakin' BREAK!

The gist of it was there.
:-O

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175783 Mar 14, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You DID see my disclaimer:( IIRC)? The tag was only on screen for about 5 seconds,
and I'm doing OK just to find me way home at nite. Gimme a freakin' BREAK!
The gist of it was there.
:-O
Okay, bob.

Take fifteen minutes off, then get back to work.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#175784 Mar 14, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, bob.
Take fifteen minutes off, then get back to work.
Well thanks, much obliged. It'll take a couple'a minutes to saddle my horse too.

But I expect to have all 12 miles of fence repaired by nightfall.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175785 Mar 14, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Well thanks, much obliged. It'll take a couple'a minutes to saddle my horse too.
But I expect to have all 12 miles of fence repaired by nightfall.
You do realize that break is unpaid, right?

;-)

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Liam1 797,460
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min June VanDerMark 568,783
m2m Sex (Jan '14) 14 min raju 12
Would YOU like prayer for YOUR situation? (Feb '09) 34 min Truths 1,472
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 42 min lil whispers 607,273
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 48 min Charlie Sheen 267,643
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 48 min Pashupati Paudel 38,071
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 3 hr Fred 178
More from around the web