255 to 67 vs. Holder

255 to 67 vs. Holder (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 7:58:40 PM)
...and shockingly, the Congressional Black Caucus played the race card. Holder in contempt

servantforuse -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 8:50:58 PM)
They walked out arm in arm signing kum by ya..

Musicmystery -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 8:56:15 PM)
quote: ...and shockingly, the Congressional Black Caucus played the race card. Well, they're called the Black Caucus for a reason.

servantforuse -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 8:58:11 PM)
Because they are a bunch of bigots. They don't allow whites in their group..

Musicmystery -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:00:14 PM)
Then it's hardly a shock. What's your point?

DarkSteven -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:01:05 PM)
I'm not following. Obama claimed executive privilege in withholding the documents. At that point, Holder was doing nothing other than what Obama directed. Why should Holder be cited and not Obama?

servantforuse -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:02:10 PM)
Maybe there should be a congressional white caucaus that excludes black congressmen ? They are a bunch of bigots.

Owner59 -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:03:47 PM)
Ever consider there`s nothing but they`re baiting you guys into more embarrassment when it`s revealed that there is in fact,nothing there....playing you guys like fiddles? I mean that`s going to be the fall back story if it goes down that way......right? It`s not your fault......the President fooled ya`ll into thinking there was something to hide and ya`ll fell for it.....like you all were TRICKED.....AGAIN and are the victims of the mastermind of political theater....... Similar to the birther nuts.....who`s are now saying President Obama set them up.......by baiting them into thinking he was born in Africa...[:D] And when Issa`s other disaster....the "contraception hearing for men",exploded in their faces...... It was all a trick.....with plants and fakes and activists making cons embarrass themselves. Remember what for mom said about running with scissors.......

servantforuse -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:07:21 PM)
Executive priveledge is for the executive branch, not to protect is bro in the judiciary branch. Makes you wonder just what Obama is covering up.

joether -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:08:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I'm not following. Obama claimed executive privilege in withholding the documents. At that point, Holder was doing nothing other than what Obama directed. Why should Holder be cited and not Obama? Its very simple, blunt, and completely without principle: The whole thing was politically motivated to score points with conseratives upset over the Affordable Care Act doing so well in the US Supreme Court today. The House GOP needed.....something....to try to move the news from their failed legal attempt to destroy the ACA to contempt for Eric Holder. Yes, they didnt get any information of wrong doing; but when has THAT stopped the GOP from doing stuff? How about we hold the US House of Representatives in Contempt of Annoyance? Throw all the Republicans out for both wasting money and time on stupid bills everyone (Democrats, Republicans, The Press, etc, etc) knew would never go anywhere.

Musicmystery -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:11:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Maybe there should be a congressional white caucaus that excludes black congressmen ? They are a bunch of bigots. There is. It's called the rest of Congress. It includes a number of bigots, sure.

Owner59 -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Because they are a bunch of bigots. They don't allow whites in their group.. Wow....such bitter and angry people....... Did you know professor, that men aren`t allowed in the Democratic Woman's Caucus? Ponder that.........

Sanity -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:47:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Executive priveledge is for the executive branch, not to protect is bro in the judiciary branch. Makes you wonder just what Obama is covering up. Makes reasonable people wonder, anyway. [image]local://upfiles/292349/06FF13E2A29947DD8DC4DDC58548CF11.jpg[/image]

TheHeretic -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then it's hardly a shock. What's your point? It seems to me there is a word for situations where one group of people has different rules than another group of people, because of their skin color... It's right on the tip of my tongue... As to the Holder vote, it's the cover-up that gets them.

Sanity -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 9:58:14 PM)
It is because Holder and his Justice Department is supposed to be a completely separate entity from the Executive You know, the "Justice" Department, as in justice itself Above politics, and all that old fashioned stuff And its Holder, the head of the Justice Department, who is covering up the facts concerning the Fast and Furious operation our government (ATF agents) gave Mexican terrorists thousands of weapons illegally Not exactly what the ATF was set up to do btw quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I'm not following. Obama claimed executive privilege in withholding the documents. At that point, Holder was doing nothing other than what Obama directed. Why should Holder be cited and not Obama?

Musicmystery -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/28/2012 10:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then it's hardly a shock. What's your point? It seems to me there is a word for situations where one group of people has different rules than another group of people, because of their skin color... It's right on the tip of my tongue... As to the Holder vote, it's the cover-up that gets them. There's a word for people "shocked" at the obvious too. No, not that n-word, another one...

BamaD -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/29/2012 1:19:25 AM)
Why does the Congresional Black caucus only allow Democrats in. Shouldn't they change the name to the Democratic congressional black caucus?

SadistDave -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/29/2012 1:43:32 AM)
Allen West is in the CBC. He's their token Republican... and called them racists today for their unified support of Holder based on his skin color. -SD-

dcnovice -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/29/2012 6:04:54 AM)
quote: Executive priveledge is for the executive branch, not to protect is bro in the judiciary branch. Isn't DOJ part of the executive branch? I think it's only the courts themselves that make up the judiciary. According to our friends at Wikipedia, there appears to be precedent for invoking executive privilege vis-a-vis DOJ: President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[8]

DarkSteven -> RE: 255 to 67 vs. Holder (6/29/2012 6:13:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Executive priveledge is for the executive branch, not to protect is bro in the judiciary branch. Makes you wonder just what Obama is covering up. DOJ is part of executive branch, as are all other departments that answer to the President. The judiciary branch consists ONLY of the courts and judges.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875