| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bifocal-OMO |
Posted - Sep 08 2009 : 07:38:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGJiuhPi1JY |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Petrified-OMO |
Posted - Sep 14 2009 : 22:19:55
Technically. How did so many of Bush's judicial appointments get blocked? Or, with far greater relevance to today's economy: who blocked legislation in 2001 and 2004 to regulate Fannie and Freddie the same way every other mortgage bank was regulated via sarbanes-oxley (2002)? Certainly, the 'republicans' could have broken some filibustering, they were far too polite, yet they were pretty content to do nada. I can attest first hand that the Subprime problems would have been truncated seriously had they been required to account the same way every other mortgage bank had to back in 2004 or better back in 2001. The Subprime market was drying up until Fannie and Freddie were given the green light to keep up business as usual under the hospices of "equality" in lending.
In 2006 people put the the Dems into power because the republicans were behaving like democrats; being moderate. Again, that RINO issue. Why vote for the fake when you can vote for the real thing?
The Republicans could have done much to limit government and they chose not to. Partly because they were afraid of a confrontation with the Democrats and because they believed polls and press telling them that moderate was the way to go. You see the results of it with McCain. But even then, he knew he had to be more Conservative than Moderate. His pick of Palin kept Obama from having an election landslide.
In the end, the best thing for everyone is if the government severely reduced it's size to do what it can only do best: protect this nation from our enemies. Everything else can go because I can guarantee you that even in liberal cities, people's compassion for each other will lend them to helping each other, which is the best thing for any nation. |
| Bypass-OMO |
Posted - Sep 14 2009 : 21:01:25
now Petri the congress was Republican ruled during GW presidency. The Senate had a Republican majority from 2002-2006 and the House had a Republican majority from 1995-2006. Just to keep us all honest.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm |
| Petrified-OMO |
Posted - Sep 14 2009 : 19:59:00
Personally, I think GW was a RINO.
He never used his Veto Pen except once and that was a few years ago. He pretty much passed whatever congress - mostly Democrat controlled since 2002 sent to him so saying he was not great doesn't ruffle my feathers. He was pro-amnesty, no matter what he wanted to call it. He signed the idiotic McCain-Feingold bill which limits free speech.
Now, on the other hand, the wire tapping was narrowly defined on paper and permitted by the Democrats in control while he wanted to keep it going (cause you don't hear them complaining about it now that O has control over it). Sure, they made a good show about opposing it, but knew they would have the power passed to them once he left and if they gained control of the House.
The only positive thing he did was call spades a spade after 9/11. Then he failed to follow through on taking out the axis of evil. |
| Fossil-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 18:09:49
Apples and Oranges my friends.
You can't compare Uniformed soldiers who fought for a sovereign nation vs cowards who disguise themselves as citizens and fight for an ideology. The right thing to do would have been to shoot them in first place and save the tax payers some money. sounds harsh I know but what are you supposed to do with people that entice others to strap bombs on to themselves and detonate them in market? |
| Bypass-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 17:50:56
TY Nosey
Answer: yes they did
Question: Did the nazi's deserve all thier human rights violated and stripped and then tortured? Even though thats what they did to people.
|
| Fossil-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 17:43:30
Gratz on the Seahawk win!
Ok so W suspends habius Corpus against terrorist, I thought you meant US citizens. The enemy combatants could be defined as Mercenaries and they shot those with out trial in WW2. Why anyone cares about the rights of people that would strap a bomb on to a kid and have him detonate it in a crowd of shoppers in a market is beyond me. The fundamental difference between the two camps has been one side wants to charge the terrorist as criminals, the other side wants to detain or kill them.
Under Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."
On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention[19]. Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention."[20] |
| Nosehair-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 16:33:12
atta boy Bypass
They have a justice system in place in Iraq. I'm not suggesting that we treat our previous president like they treated theirs, but Saddam did feel justice as the rope tightened.
I have not heard of any public figure that says the health care system here should be left alone btw. It's just that W had a different agenda.
Question: Did the Nazi's deserve to have trials for their war crimes at Nuremberg? |
| Bypass-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 15:32:52
ok here is a few you know I am trying to watch the Seahawks kill St.Louis lol
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2006/092606HARTMANN.shtml
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htmhttp://themoderatevoice.com/26650/channeling-abraham-lincoln-george-bush-their-civil-liberty-power-grabs/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/02/obama-looks-revive-military-courts-guantanamo-bay/
is this enough I even included a fox news item about Obama there you go.
|
| Fossil-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 14:43:12
it's suspended? really? please cite your reference please, that's interesting.
|
| Bypass-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 14:26:18
Keep it real but I will be the first to point out the deceptions of both sides not just the side I mostly disagree with Clinton did alot to hurt this countries manufacturing base and Bush ran with it after that. Every administration in the last 30 yrs has taken a little of our freedoms away and now we are seeing the results of this take over by Dems and Reps alike we are pawns like you said and if this continues we shall all be sorry is all I am saying and habius corpus did not just cover enemy combatants it pertained to all of us and now it is still suspended which is wrong. |
| Fossil-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 14:08:52
Just keeping it real my friend! lol
|
| Bypass-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 14:07:33
Ok Fossil you just had to spoil the moment didn't you lol |
| Fossil-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 14:04:57
I'm still scratching my head over the previous post, what suspension of habius Corpus are you refering to? I never heard of that being done by the last administration. Are talking about the Enemy Combatants that aren't subject to the Geneva convention or Habius Corpus? I'd be curious to see links to your references.
How many cases of "illegal" wire tapping against average citizens were there? I'd like to see that stat as well. If muhamand is making overseas calls to Osama I have no problem with the Govt listening in. It's not like they found 500 FBI files of average citizens lost in white house, opps that was the Clinton administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy
|
| Bypass-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 13:47:04
The suspention of habius Corpus which the last pres to do that was Lincoln during a civil war which was worse than FDR and lets see illegal wire tapping on americans as only a few unnecesary during war time so I think he did worse. The party took advantage of a terrorist attack to stomp the constitution or why is GW the only pres in history to make the North American Command Group which was seen as unnecesary to have since all our bases are here! The power Obama has and that is seems all the fuss is about is a direct result of GW and Cheney taking advantage of a situation and now the other party has this power which none of them should of had and now all I hear are complaints that is why I say both parties are not to be trusted is all so lets open our eyes a little. If Obama were to reinstate Habius Corpus like he said he would my opion of him and his party might be different.
|
| BackPainOMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 13:31:13
GW was fighting a war did not stomp nearly as hard on the Constitution as FDR did in WW2 and the steps he took were really limited to foreign activities and those with things to hide, so it did not affect me or my family.
You can't compare GW trying to stop terrorists from hurting America and Americans to Obama trying to rule American's daily lives. |
| Bypass-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 12:53:08
Where were you great constitutional watch dogs from 2000-2008 when GW and company stomped all over our constitution? Just a thought!!! |
| Petrified-OMO |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 12:09:15
Hitler, Chavez, Stalin, Zalaya, Guevara, Castro, others, and Obama are all of similar mind: they want to rule the lives of others. The Constitution, what Obama refers to a Negative Rights, was designed to stop people from being such rulers. I say Obama and the Congress are doing what they can to ignore it. Hitler would view Obama as a rival, just as Hitler viewed Stalin as a rival. Castro, Chavez, and Zelaya all get along because they are content to rule their own roost. They just want to spread the 'revolution' so that their power bases are not threatened.
Poor Honduras, being shoved off the cliff because they are sticking to their Constitution. Obama should be ashamed, but he is not. His contempt for the constitutional rights of the Hondurans is clearly seen just as his contempt for our Constitution is clearly seen by his desire to expand government's intrusion into our lives. Certainly it is not the quartering of soldiers in homes, but it is equally invasive and far more subversive to force the population to depend on the government for their very lives.
The post was moved to Too Hot to Handle as it is Political Humor, not just Humor. |
| BackPainOMO |
Posted - Sep 12 2009 : 12:30:53
I thought it was funny, well made, took shots at both sides, and may just may not appeal to your thinking.
The funny part was clouded by the seriousness and truth to what was being said. It was intended to have pain mixed with the humor, that is what made it effective. |
| Kayjay |
Posted - Sep 12 2009 : 09:21:38
After 46 views, less Skid and yourself, I don't see anyone else who thought it was funny. |
| Bifocal-OMO |
Posted - Sep 12 2009 : 09:12:10
IT is a joke good gosh spoof joke catch it funny |
