Now you see why I call him a candle burner. Burns at both ends and he would fk his Grandmother out of money if he had a chance. Yeah BD, I'm talking about you.

quote:

Originally posted by 78 Cutla$$:
Now you see why I call him a candle burner. Burns at both ends and he would fk his Grandmother out of money if he had a chance. Yeah BD, I'm talking about you.

Whats your full name cutless?

Come on, be a man for a change......

The cowardly 0boy is being skewered on snl now!
They're upset because with his dithering and bumbling because he isn't advancing the liberal/socialist/marxist agenda BUT in so doing it they are forced to expose some of his unending stream of lies!!!!!!!!!!!!
May have to record it to zip through looking for the cowardly 0boy being lambasted!

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H:
Whats your full name cutless?

Come on, be a man for a change......

Whats with the lib hangup on names?

Looks as though the cowardly 0boy's socialist/marxist actions are pushing you further toward the CONSERVATIVE position, as it is doing to a large percentage of AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's all the liberal/socialists have now, they don't seem to want to defend the cowardly 0boy whose testicles they swing from!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Looks as though the cowardly 0boy's socialist/marxist actions are pushing you further toward the CONSERVATIVE position, as it is doing to a large percentage of AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's all the liberal/socialists have now, they don't seem to want to defend the cowardly 0boy whose testicles they swing from!!!!!!!!

Which you?

Hey Bob, Keep drinking the coolade. This guy is a highly educated, smooth talking, community organizer. He has no common sense and is destroying this country. He has no regards for our Constitution or for the spending of our money. He has accomplished nothing other than granting a terrorist the same rights as a guy who writes a bad check. I see that many of his own party are turning against him and his popularity is now negative 15. Hopefully, he will be impeached before he can screw up much more. Take your blinders off and pay attention to this moron before we lose everything that this country stands for. You have got to be an idiot. I can understand why he was elected but it sure wasn't talent or experience. McCain was not the right person to run against him but the fact is that a ton of people that are usually to lazy to get out and vote descided to do so for the wrong reasons.

Hell yes!
The dupes believed the cowardly 0boy when he said he was going to make their car payments and build new kitchens for them.
The bungling and bumbling at the Whitehouse has now spread to the secret service. A couple that WERE NOT INVITED crashed the state dinner the other night!
Hope has evaporated and change is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still arguing with the Liberals Koski?
Happy Thanksgiving!

quote:

Originally posted by TPdragster:
Hey Bob, Keep drinking the coolade. This guy is a highly educated, smooth talking, community organizer. He has no common sense and is destroying this country. He has no regards for our Constitution or for the spending of our money. He has accomplished nothing other than granting a terrorist the same rights as a guy who writes a bad check. I see that many of his own party are turning against him and his popularity is now negative 15. Hopefully, he will be impeached before he can screw up much more. Take your blinders off and pay attention to this moron before we lose everything that this country stands for. You have got to be an idiot. I can understand why he was elected but it sure wasn't talent or experience. McCain was not the right person to run against him but the fact is that a ton of people that are usually to lazy to get out and vote descided to do so for the wrong reasons.

Good points!

quote:

Originally posted by TPdragster:
Hey Bob, Keep drinking the coolade. This guy is a highly educated, smooth talking, community organizer. He has no common sense and is destroying this country. He has no regards for our Constitution or for the spending of our money. He has accomplished nothing other than granting a terrorist the same rights as a guy who writes a bad check. I see that many of his own party are turning against him and his popularity is now negative 15. Hopefully, he will be impeached before he can screw up much more. Take your blinders off and pay attention to this moron before we lose everything that this country stands for. You have got to be an idiot. I can understand why he was elected but it sure wasn't talent or experience. McCain was not the right person to run against him but the fact is that a ton of people that are usually to lazy to get out and vote descided to do so for the wrong reasons.

Are you talking about Bush or Obama....... I can't tell.

And what are those reasons? Are they wrong only because you disagree with why they voted? Last I checked everybody had the right to vote, not just ones that meet your criteria.

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents

The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama's first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

What Interest on the US Debt Would Buy

On Thanksgiving eve, Obama issues special Hajj message to world's Muslims







Zell/Granny 2012

Send Your Thanks To the U.S.Military

Post a Message to our Soldiers

Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most
Grandpa Bob
Professional Fence Hanger / Spectator
Former Crew Chief
Grandma's Rocking Chair

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Grandma / Gpa,

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.:

quote:

Originally posted by TPdragster:
Hey Bob, Keep drinking the coolade. This guy is a highly educated, smooth talking, community organizer. He has no common sense and is destroying this country. He has no regards for our Constitution or for the spending of our money. He has accomplished nothing other than granting a terrorist the same rights as a guy who writes a bad check. I see that many of his own party are turning against him and his popularity is now negative 15. Hopefully, he will be impeached before he can screw up much more. Take your blinders off and pay attention to this moron before we lose everything that this country stands for. You have got to be an idiot. I can understand why he was elected but it sure wasn't talent or experience. McCain was not the right person to run against him but the fact is that a ton of people that are usually to lazy to get out and vote descided to do so for the wrong reasons.

Are you talking about Bush or Obama....... I can't tell.

And what are those reasons? Are they wrong only because you disagree with why they voted? Last I checked everybody had the right to vote, not just ones that meet your criteria.

Of course everybody has a right to vote and I encourage everyone to do so, but not just because of the color of his skin. Vote for the most capable person out there. I don't care if he/she was black, yellow, orange , or any color. Obama had 0 experience with dealing with matters of such importance and his record, to this point, only verifies that. And I can see why you don't know if it is Bush or Obama. I guess they were both community organizers and they both think that giving a terrorist his rights and arresting him is the way to go. Ya, that would be real confusing.

quote:

giving a terrorist his rights and arresting him is the way to go.

Are we not a country of laws??

Are we not following the Constitution by arresting and giving his rights?

Should we not follow Habeas Corpus which is in our Constitution?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM

Should the accused be given a day in court to determine his punishment?

Or do we just hold them for years and torture them?

You disagree with Obama in running our country.

You come up with criticism but offer no alternatives.

quote:

Originally posted by TPdragster:


Of course everybody has a right to vote and I encourage everyone to do so, but not just because of the color of his skin. Vote for the most capable person out there. I don't care if he/she was black, yellow, orange , or any color. Obama had 0 experience with dealing with matters of such importance and his record, to this point, only verifies that. And I can see why you don't know if it is Bush or Obama. I guess they were both community organizers and they both think that giving a terrorist his rights and arresting him is the way to go. Ya, that would be real confusing.

You're right, you also mentioned highly educated so that automatically should have ruled Bush out.

Tell me, how do you feel about the white people who voted for McCain just because he is white? Or what about the evangelicals/born-agains who voted for Bush just because he is religious?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Jeremy J.>,

quote:

Should we not follow Habeas Corpus which is in our Constitution?

Famous Cases of Denied Habeas Corpus

The framers of the Constitution recognized that there are situations where revoking habeas corpus may be necessary for the common good. Specifically, the provision surrounding any suspension of habeas corpus is defined in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. This section states that habeas corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" [source: Cornell University].

Such instances have, in fact, emerged in American history. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus following the outbreak of the Civil War. It was restored five years later in 1866 [source: LSU]. In the 20th century, habeas corpus was suspended for a select group: people of Japanese descent. More than 100,000 Japanese-Americans were detained during World War II. Although they were of Japanese ancestry, the majority were American-born or naturalized citizens. Yet, beginning in 1942, prison camps opened to hold these people indefinitely. What's more, by presidential decree (Executive Order 9066), they were stripped of the due process provided by habeas corpus [source: The Nation]. It wasn't until 1976 that President Gerald Ford rescinded Executive Order 9066, officially restoring habeas corpus rights to Japanese-Americans once more [source: Honolulu Advertiser].

More recently, following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and during the ensuing War on Terror, President George W. Bush and Congress concluded that conditions warranted repealing the right to habeas corpus. As a result, the Military Commissions Act was passed. Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 reverses the guarantee of habeas corpus to all people detained by the United States. The act removes any court's ability to hear a petition of habeas corpus for anyone deemed an enemy combatant by the U.S. government. The act was retroactive, relating to the detention of all enemy combatants by the U.S. government following Sept. 11.


http://people.howstuffworks.co...ortant.htm/printable

How about poor 'ole algore, flunked out of divinity school????????????????????????
Now there is a true retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or the self-confessed war criminal, liar gigolo who President Bush out shined in college??????????????????

quote:

President Bush out shined in college

What????

Comparing Bush' college career to Gore and Kerry is sure not a glowing recommendation for Bush. All three were at best "c" students.

Shined? Not hardly.

quote:

Originally posted by Trans Lady:

quote:

Should we not follow Habeas Corpus which is in our Constitution?

Famous Cases of Denied Habeas Corpus

The framers of the Constitution recognized that there are situations where revoking habeas corpus may be necessary for the common good. Specifically, the provision surrounding any suspension of habeas corpus is defined in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. This section states that habeas corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" [source: Cornell University].

Such instances have, in fact, emerged in American history. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus following the outbreak of the Civil War. It was restored five years later in 1866 [source: LSU]. In the 20th century, habeas corpus was suspended for a select group: people of Japanese descent. More than 100,000 Japanese-Americans were detained during World War II. Although they were of Japanese ancestry, the majority were American-born or naturalized citizens. Yet, beginning in 1942, prison camps opened to hold these people indefinitely. What's more, by presidential decree (Executive Order 9066), they were stripped of the due process provided by habeas corpus [source: The Nation]. It wasn't until 1976 that President Gerald Ford rescinded Executive Order 9066, officially restoring habeas corpus rights to Japanese-Americans once more [source: Honolulu Advertiser].

More recently, following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and during the ensuing War on Terror, President George W. Bush and Congress concluded that conditions warranted repealing the right to habeas corpus. As a result, the Military Commissions Act was passed. Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 reverses the guarantee of habeas corpus to all people detained by the United States. The act removes any court's ability to hear a petition of habeas corpus for anyone deemed an enemy combatant by the U.S. government. The act was retroactive, relating to the detention of all enemy combatants by the U.S. government following Sept. 11.


http://people.howstuffworks.co...ortant.htm/printable

Pay attention Marie........


Thursday, Jun 12, 2008 07:51 PDT

Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act
By Glenn Greenwald

In a major rebuke to the Bush administration's theories of presidential power -- and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies -- the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus -- the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court -- despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion."

As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being "enemy combatants" have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding. The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.

In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" process ("CSRT") offered to Guantanamo detainees -- mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures -- which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them -- "fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review." Those grave deficiencies in the CSRT process mean that "there is considerable risk of error" in the tribunals' conclusions.

The Court's ruling was grounded in its recognition that the guarantee of habeas corpus was so central to the Founding that it was one of the few individual rights included in the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was enacted. As the Court put it: "the Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom." The Court noted that freedom from arbitrary or baseless imprisonment was one of the core rights established by the 13th Century Magna Carta, and it is the writ of habeas corpus which is the means for enforcing that right. Once habeas corpus is abolished -- as the Military Commissions Act sought to do -- then we return to the pre-Magna Carta days where the Government is free to imprison people with no recourse. In its decision, the Court emphasized (and revived) some of the most vital principles of our system of Government which have been trampled upon and degraded over the last seven years (emphasis added):

In its decision, the Court emphasized (and revived) some of the most vital principles of our system of Government which have been trampled upon and degraded over the last seven years.

The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .

Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . .

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.

In ruling that the CSRTs woefully fail to provide the constitutionally guaranteed safeguards, the Court quoted Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 84: "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." It is that deeply tyrannical practice -- implemented by the Bush administration and authorized by a bipartisan act of Congress -- which the U.S. Supreme Court, today, struck down.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was -- and remains -- one of the great stains on our national political character. It was passed by a substantial majority in the Senate (65-34) with the support of every single Senate Republican (except Chafee) and 12 Senate Democrats. No filibuster was even attempted. It passed by a similar margin in the House, where 34 Democrats joined 219 Republicans to enact it. One of the most extraordinary quotes of the post-9/11 era came from GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, who said at the time that that the Military Commissions Act -- because it explicitly barred federal courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions brought by Guantanamo detainees -- "sets back basic rights by some 900 years" and was "patently unconstitutional on its face" -- and Specter then proceeded to vote for it.

The greatest victim of the 9/11 attack has been our core, defining constitutional liberties. Of all the powers seized by this administration in the name of keeping us Safe, the power to imprison people indefinitely with no charges and no real process is the most pernicious.

Passage of the Military Commissions Act was spearheaded by John McCain, who was anointed by cowardly Senate Democrats to speak for them and negotiate with the White House. Once McCain blessed the Military Commissions Act, its passage was assured. Barack Obama voted against it, and once its passage appeared certain, Obama offered an amendment to limit it to five years. That amendment failed, rendering the MCA the law of the land without any time limits.

The Supreme Court today did what the Founders envisioned it should do: it protected our basic constitutional guarantees from erosion and assault by a corrupt majority within the political class. In so doing, the Court took a mild though important step in reversing some of the worst and most tyrannical excesses of the last seven years. Patrick Henry warned long ago of the unique dangers of allowing executive imprisonment without meaningful process:

algore, the grand poo-bah of the whackado global warmists flunked out of divinity school???????????????
No wonder he comes across as an in-bred retard that keeps repeating the same rhetoric day after day!
What does that make the boobs he dupes to make the gazillion dollars he has gloomed onto with his grandiose hoax?????????????????