Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
In an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012 election year.
Happened during the Bush administration......
Once again, you cannot justify an illegal action by alleging another illegal action. I know you were an orphan, indoctrinated in a public school, but - if your friend jumps off a cliff - are you going to jump off a cliff too?
However, Please provide a cite providing corroboration that the Bush administration brought charges against a reporter in an American court. You can't.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Let me quote from the New York times (you know, one of those few approved leftist news source)
quote:
An editorial board of the New York Times wrote: "With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible 'co-conspirator' in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."[14]
Dana Milibank of the Washington Post stated: "The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based."[15]
It may have escaped your notice, but depriving an American citizen of due process, and his first amendment rights.. is, yanno, ILLEGAL.
So yo admit you have no cogent defense; the obama administration did in fact break the law.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example
Ah yes the two classic BDS response. What Obama did wasn't illegal because Bush raped Gitmo Detainees. And illegally got deferments. And Had sex with martians. (None of which, of course is true).
An yet, you can not address either issue brought up. Why is that? Do not have a half decent answer? FOX 'news' didnt tell you how to respond?
Because the topic of discussion is President Obama's failure to uphold US immigration law. I will answer cogent replies to that question. You want to discuss George Bush - start a thread.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Please try to mount a defense on why you think the president should be able to defy a judges orders regarding stopping issuing work permits and visas, to stop lying to the court, and to complete discovery in a timely fashion. I waited with baited breath a cogent response.
Your the one accusing the President of lying somewhere but produce no evidence. In our forum of justice, that would mean I can stay silent and still win the argument. 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty', Phydeaux.
Oh, my apologies. I presumed you were somewhat cognizant of current events. Of course you're an idiot. Of course, you never support your positions with cites, all the while requesting others do so.
So here, ignorant troll: Widely reported: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/again-2nd-time-dhs-caught-defies-judges-stay-obamas-illegal-immigration-amnesty
quote:
When he made the initial ruling, Justice Department lawyers assured Judge Hanen that implementation of Obama's order had not begun and would not be initiated until the lawsuit filed by 26 states against the administration had a chance to get through the court system per Hanen's order.
But, in March, the the DOJ attorneys admitted that Homeland Security had already granted 108,000 immigrants, who already were protected from deportation, three-year renewals of their deferred status. Those three-year deferrals are one aspect of Obama's executive action. According to the coverage in the San Antonio Express News upon hearing the DOJ's present the news Judge Hanen snapped, “You said it's not happening. And like an idiot I believed that.”
And then again,
quote:
President Obama’s lawyers admitted to a federal judge late Thursday that they had broken the court’s injunction halting the administration’s new deportation amnesty, issuing thousands of work permits even after Judge Andrew S. Hanen had ordered the program stopped.
The stunning admission, filed just before midnight in Texas, where the case is being heard, is the latest misstep for the administration’s lawyers, who are facing possible sanctions by Judge Hanen for their continued problems in arguing the case.
As for further proof - go fuck yourself. There are adequate cites in mainstream media that obama regularly and routinely said if you like your healthcare you can keep it.
THE CMS rules stated that 60-80% would lose their coverage. The preliminary rules were posted in March. The final rules on July 7 in the Federal register. That's my cite. You don't like that it isn't hyperlinked: fuck you. Prove I'm wrong. October 29, 2013, NBC News reported that 50-75% of the 14 million Americans with individual healthcare plans would receive a cancellation notice in the next year.[4]
https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_policy_cancellations_since_Obamacare
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/four-years-of-obamacare-early-warnings-come-true
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
Without explanation eh? Never heard of an executive order? In this particular case it was the President's DREAM Act that didn't past the Republican controlled Congress; so he made what parts he could as an executive order to handle the problems at the time. The executive order allowed those people to stay if they fell into one of the following circumstances:
A ) Under the age of thirty
B ) Have been in America for at least five years
C ) Enrolled in school or have graduated from high school
D ) Have committed no felonies.
Again you seem once again to be suffering under a delusion of how our system of government works. Congress passes laws, the President executes them faithfully. It is illegal for the president to attempt to pass legislation under the color of an executive action. This was reviewed at a district court, and an appeals court and a Supreme Court. The district court stomped him and the appeals and Supreme concurred.
Again. ILLEGAL.
Ahh, how nice no response on point, thereby admitting you're wrong.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And not only was it illegal - he gave more than 32 speaches saying he KNEW it was unconstitutional.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
conservatives behave more and more like Nazis every day. In fact, isn't one of they running for the GOP ticket right now? A Trump character.....
Yes I'm sure this is standard liberal fare: compare your opponents to the Nazi's. Gratuitous ad hominen - and so far out of acceptable behavior. But you, Obama apologist, being raised as a feral child don't know it. Remember what I said about lefties usually making a gratuitous attack first.....
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has behaved like a Nazi.
Oh?
Document oh anywhere where Trump has killed millions of jews.
Launched a world war.
Assassinated people he didn't agree with.
Directed the destruction of thousands of private shops and synagoues. Aka - Crystalnacht.
See - Trump has only engaged in constitutionally protected free speech. To your ilk, thats behaving like a nazi.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
If Mr. Obama refused to build the fence, why did 613 miles of it get built?
First, it didn't. The law called for 700 miles of double fencing with security cameras and smart sensors.
613 miles of a pedestrian fence were built. One of these things is not like the other...
Now who is trying to back pedal here because their viewpoint was shown to be absolutely shit? You accused the President of not doing something. The only way he can the wall created is by passing a bill or....EXECUTIVE ORDER. But you stated that its illegal for a President to use such a thing to advance a law. If your right, then there is nothing the President has to do on the wall; its the fault of Congress.
Your trying to have it both ways, and I'm not going to allow it.
Either a President can not used an executive order to advance a problem towards a solution; or a President can not be blamed for things. Which is it?
Once again revealing your ignorance. A law mandating the construction of the fence was passed in 2007. Money was appropriated for it.
The agency in charge built a pedestrian fence instead of the security fence required, under the guidance of the Obama administration.
Attempts were made to 2008,2009 to spend more money to complete the fence, and to extend it. Both were defeated by democratic congresses.
Now that the history lesson is complete, lets answer your bloviating.
quote:
Now who is trying to back pedal here because their viewpoint was shown to be absolutely shit? You accused the President of not doing something.
Correct. Because as the evidence shows the fence that was required by the 2007 act was not built.
quote:
The only way he can the wall created is by passing a bill or....EXECUTIVE ORDER. But you stated that its illegal for a President to use such a thing to advance a law. If your right, then there is nothing the President has to do on the wall; its the fault of Congress.
Once again, the president cannot mandate the construction of a fence via executive order. That is ILLEGAL.
Blocking the construction of the fence for political reasons is a failure to uphold the laws of our nation, which he swore to do.
quote:
Either a President can not used an executive order to advance a problem towards a solution; or a President can not be blamed for things. Which is it?
Sigh. Your lack of knowledge on ANYTHING is frustrating.
Here is a nutshell of what the president can do via executive order.
Congress from time to time will delegate authority under legislation for the president to take action in specific areas. These actions created by law, are thereby permitted. So for example the president can declare a nation a sponsor of terrorism and apply various sanctions.
The President can dictate the actions of the federal bureaucracy. For example, the President can set aside billions of dollars for minority set asides, saying these are the rules for bidding. Personally, I think that this is subject to to court challenge, but for right now it is an example of executive action.
The president can affect statutes and regulations issued by government agencies.
The president has prosecutorial discretion, deciding on a case by case basis who will be prosecuted for violations.
The president has power dealing with emergencies, military affairs, and finetuning policy directives that are not covered by existing legislation.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As for the rest of it. The bill was introduced in 2008, and again in 2009. However, contrary to your ridiculous assertions, Congress was in democrat hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
Oops. Damn inconvenient facts...
What was happening in 2008-2009? The nation was facing a serious economic recession if not the second great depression of its history. Yes, in light of all the other problems, the wall was not seen as 'an important thing to get done'.
Would you like the wall have been finished and not have a nation? Or have a nation and finish that project off at a later time?
But yet for the last year, Republicans have controlled Congress. Why have they not made it a top priority? Why have you not bitched about it? Where are the threads you created about that very topic?
I notice you deceptively edited my post. Here's what you actually said:
quote:
If Mr. Obama refused to build the fence, why did 613 miles of it get built? The reminder did not get built per fault of Congress. The...REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED....Congress.
And as I pointed out - the congress was in Democrat control. Your post was wrong. Again.
As for .. quote:
What was happening in 2008-2009? The nation was facing a serious economic recession
Yes, I do remember. We passed a huge stimulus or three that promised to fund shovel ready infrastructure jobs. It was later admitted of course that those shovel ready jobs weren't so shovel ready, and the cost per job was in excess of $1 million dollars.
So here was a shovel ready job. If that really was the concern fence could have been completed, creating thousands of jobs at much lower costs.
Of course the real intent of the Ostupid administration was to secure hispanics as a democratic constitutuency. And the fence was stopped because legalized hispanic citizens vote democrat 71% of the time.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama's unconstitutional assault on your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
21 phantom executive orders. Tell me Phydeaux, why is your source so vague on defining each of these executive orders?
Because the President went on national television and said he had signed these executive orders - and as of the date and time of writing they hadn't been entered into the register, as required by law. Duh.
You provide some cites - I'll give you a cite pointing to the president saying he had signed executive orders for gun control, and cites to the register showing that he hadn't complied with the law. Till you back up a significant portion of your bullshit, you have no grounds to demand further cites.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama's assault on Christians and religious freedom.
This is so laughable as to take it seriously....
Your religious freedom starts where mine ends. Your religious freedom ends where mine begins.
Oh yes, so laughable that it went to the Supreme Court where the Administration got spanked twice. Sisters of the poor (iirc) and Hobby Lobby. Remember?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Oh, and while we're at it - lets talk about those bakers, who sold cupcakes to a lesbian couple, but refursed to put a customized message on a cake.
For which they were fined $135,000. And then the government confiscated all the rest of their money too. Which, frankly seems kind of illegal.
Yes, they were a...PUBLIC BUSINESS. They were open to the...PUBLIC. Lesbians are part of the public. Therefore, that business had to serve them in good faith. They did not serve them in good faith, an so were fined in damages.
Way to edit out the 8th amendment.
quote:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2]
When a fine is 4000% of the cost of the item, thats a pretty text book case of an excessive fine. So is confiscation of your business, and your life savings.
So you support the financial destruction of people opposed to your point of view?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But forgetting that what was it that that pesky 8th Ammendment says??
The 8th would not apply to that issue. Do you even know what the 8th covers? No of course not, otherwise you would have called for the impeachment the G. W. Bush administration.....
Another TOS violation - editing my words deceptively. I quoted it in my original reply, I'm quoting it again.
Clearly I know how what it says. Again BDS is not a defense for your president's actions.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Most people remember this as the reason many states don't allow capital punishment. But note the middle part...nor excessive fines imposed. So the wording on the wedding cake was $32 dollars. For failure to do that a fine of $135,000 was imposed.
Yeah, that's totally reasonable.
quote:
Original Joether
Except your missing one small part....the issue was decided upon by the jury. They decided on the damages. The judge had to enforce what the jury stated. The business has the right to appeal the issue to a higher court.
You dont like how that court ruled on something? I dont like how the US Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs DC.
Once again totally wrong. There was no jury. In fact - there wasn't really even a judge.
Oregon's Bureau of Industry and Labor employs administrative judge Alan McCulloug. Which is just fancy words for an employee of the Bureaus of Industry and Labor.
The head of the BOLI is Avarkian. He determined that charges should be brought against the Kleins.
Administrative judge Alan McCulloug works for Avarkian. Is it a surprise a guilty verdict was found? Sounds really fair, eh to have the boss bring up the charges and the underling decide guilt and fine..
So, no - no jury. And this is an administrative action - not a real court. It is, of course, heading to a real courtroom where the question of excessive will be raised.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Sure - confiscate the life savings of someone you disagree with. Cause them to lose their bakery. All for a pattern of behavior that had not yet been decided at the Supreme Court level.
Yeah. That is TOTALLY reasonable.
quote:
BTW, it doesn't force anyone to have health insurance. There are two ways to not have health care: make $0 grossing dollars of income in a year or pay the fine as per the law.
Multiple errors again. Actually there are dozens of ways not to have healthcare.
First, make less than poverty level (more than zero) and you are covered by medicaid, not obamacare.
Two apply for a hardship exemption. Such as death of an immediate family member - dozens of other reasons.
Three - be a protected class that doesn't have to comply. Indians on reservations for example.
The obamacare act doesn't require you to have health care, btw. It requires you to have ridiculous, useless insurance.
And yes, I'm glad you still have your policy. And I still don't.
But clearly, I know more about obamacare than you do - as that is your seventh major error in understanding of the ACA.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Lets recall that during the entire stump period for the ACA Obama was telling americans if you like your doctor, you can keep him. If you like your health plan, you can keep it.
And that is all 100% true. Before you have a cow...READ ON....
People's doctors and health plans are tied together by way of an insurance policy. Before many parts of the law when fully into effect (~2011-2012), insurance companies were consulting their lawyers on which policies would work under the new law's definitions. The lawyers came back with things broken down into three generalize categories:
1 ) Policies that could be grandfathered
2 ) Policies that have some grey area of dispute
3 ) Polices that had many areas of grey area dispute
Insurance companies....HATE....grey areas of legal issue. They usually lose court cases due to it. So the company heads pretty much ended any polices that had grey matter and re-assigned customers onto new plans that would conformed to the regulations of the ACA. The majority of Americans did not even notice this! The insurance company redefined which doctors and plans would be available at each of the four plan levels. But wait there is more...
The administration had predicted that 30-40% of such policies in the business place would be removed (based on information from 2007-2008). When I read the ACA, I figured that number was 50-70%. No, it turns out the insurance cancelled out over 80% of policies. How was the President to know in 2009 of events that would take place in 2011?
BTW, I still have my plan and my doctor!
Once again, your assertions are just flat out wrong.
Once an insurance plan made any change to coverage; formulary; or network it could no longer be offered. Since these changes happen every year, in virtually every insurance plan - the lie that you could keep your plan was exactly that - a lie.
Gruber is on record as saying that over several years all partipants would be forced from existing plans into ACA coverage.
He is correct.
How is the president to know? Because his own administration published the 60-80% in March. And reiterated it in the Federal register july 7.
Thats why its a *lie*. Both before and after publishing these statistics the president is on the road saying - if you like your healthcare - you can keep it.
LIE.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
All the while his administration had signed off on preliminary rules that March saying 60-80% of coverages would be terminated.
The exact same rules were passed in finalized form July 7.
This can not even be true due to timing issues. Oct 2009 marks the unofficial time in which the President's original health care plan went to Congress. Six months later (the March you are referring to), was when the ACA was passed into law. If the bill became law in March of 2010, how could the rules be finalized a few months later. That's not how bills work! Bills are finalized, BEFORE, they are voted upon, not after. HOWEVER, a bill could be finalized at a later date with the adjustment of an amendment.
The way you worded things, would make it impossible to progress through all the correct steps. I don't think you even realize the problem generated. Hence, not bashing you here....
And completely wrong (again) you are.
I suggest you google
"Interim Final grandfather regulations"
Here, let me help you moron:
From the federal register, June 17, 2010. https://webapps.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=23967
pg 34,551 - 34,559
Let me quote"...................................................................................................................2011...2012..2013
Small Employer Plans .......................................................................................................... 42% 66% 80%
Large Employer Plans .......................................................................................................... 29% 50% 64%
All Employer Plans ............................................................................................................... 33% 55% 69%"
So it is completely transparent that the idea that if you liked your healthcare you could keep it - was a DELIBERATE lie.
The obama administration was releasing into the record its expected cancellations, and telling the american public something else entirely.
And I quoted these exact statistics BEFORE the health care exchanges opened up Mr. "I know everything about the ACA".
Oh and for the record - this is after the Obamacare passed exceptions for thousands of democratic aligned groups, excluding them from provisions of the ACA. Including, ironically 13 major unions.. and the Democratic National Committee.
How ironic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You and I were debating the very healthcare bill (that you claimed you had read cover to cover multiple times). I told you the exact same statement then, I gave you a link to the federal register - and you said it was a bold faced lie.
Back then, I explained the process as I understood to have taken place. I recall reading it in The Wall Street Journal. Dry piece of journalism, but it was consistent with evidence. How could the Obama Administration have known how hundreds of insurance companies would issue on their products just before rules were set to go into effect in late 2014?
You are suffering under the ridiculous delusion that insurance companies voluntarily cancelled plans. Which is of course, idiotic.
The health insurance companies cancellations occurred for two reasons
A. One set of plans that the government required be cancelled. Which was in excess of 82% of all cancellations.
B. Plans where the insurance company could charge the customer MORE money by moving them to ACA coverage.
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama managed to secure passage of ObamaCare by one vote in the Senate by bribing senators.
Yeah I don't consider this bribery. Of course it sure stank to high heavens. I suggest you google Cornhouser Kickback, the Lousiana Purchase, and google some of the patronage jobs that were awarded for loyal democrats that fell on their sword.
Of course - if you had a DOJ that would actually investigate alleged misdoings, you might actually get evidence.
As I said - I don't agree with everything on this list. But it was a great walk down memory lane on how corrupt and inept this president is/was.
And they left a few things off. Like.. it was illegal for Clinton to be named secretary of state...
You do realize your attacking you own words here? Yeah, I think you got messed up and thought what you had quoted were my words. Here is a hint: I NEVER use ObamaCare. I refer to it as the Affordable Care Act or the ACA. What most likely happened is that you did not display good html as a uniform. Happens to all of us....
I told you I don't agree with everything in the article. I consider the cornhusker kickback et.al to be usual wheeling and dealing in politics. Doesn't change that it stunk to high heaven.
quote:
Why was it illegal for Mrs. Clinton to be Secretary of State?
Sigh. Because the constitution says so.
quote:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time [/quote}
January 2008, while Clinton was in office, the pay of the secretary of state was increased. This means clinton was ineligible to serve.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
In addition, Obama knowingly and blatantly lied to America and to Congress about how much ObamaCare would really cost.
The ten year cost of the program was done with ten years of tax revenues, but only 7 years of spending, thus leading to misleading statistics about the actual cost.
Baseline assumptions were mandated to the CBO, that caused the CBO scoring to be false.
And then theres Jonathan Gruber.
quote:
Gruber admitted that the Obama administration went through "tortuous" measures to keep the facts about the legislation from the American people, including covering up the redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick in the legislation that Obamacare is in fact a tax. The video of his comments just recently surfaced ahead of the second open enrollment period for Obamacare at Healthcare.gov.
"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Operation Fast & Furious.
"Operation Fast & Furious" was the Obama Administration's gun-running scheme that put thousands of American-made semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the death of at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress and the public, claiming he didn't know about his Justice Department's Fast & Furious operation.
If your bullshit about this one, check out Operation Wide Reciever.
Uh.. no. Theres a few yanno minor difference.
1. Unlike operation Wide Receiver, the Obama Administration made no attempt to trace firearms given to the drug cartels, unlike Wide Receiver.
2. More than 2000 guns were sold to Mexican cartels members under Fast & Furious. Zero arrests of gang members were made.
Unlike Operation Wider receiver - where 400 guns sales were made, resulting in 1440 arrests.
3. The Mexican government participated in operation Wide Reciever. It was not even made aware of F&F.
4. The ATF agent in charge under F & F went directly to congress to act as a whistle blower.
5. Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress for failure to release documents to congress for F&F. Wasn't that the first time
a sitting attorney general was found in contempt?
6. Fast and Furious resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens; the guns have never been recovered, and in fact are still being used to perpetuate murders.
In fact, many of the guns were passed to the cartel with identifying marks removed.
7. F&F resulted in the death of a US border patrol agent.
But yea - other than a few thousand deaths, and no arrests, the programs were the same.
Its an imperfect world. The border patrol agent was simply 'wrong place, wrong time'. Had nothing to do with F&F. Yes a few thousand Mexicans died. Before you bitch at me for being evil, you have no regard for the 100,000-600,000 civilians killed in Bush's Iraq war....
Yes, F&F was not a good idea. It had many flaws. The country paid a steep price. All we can do is make sure it doesnt happen again.
By which you are admitting that there is no comparison to Wide receiver, and it was, in fact an illegal act by the obama administration.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Congress has now held Holder in contempt for defying congressional subpoenas and refusing to turn over thousands of Justice Department documents on Fast & Furious. President Obama asserted Executive Privilege to try to protect Holder. But for Executive Privilege to apply, Obama would have had to have known about Fast & Furious, making the President as culpable as Holder.
Really? One's 5th amendments do not apply because the person is a Democrat to a Republican 'inquiry'? You might want to check that Constitution again....
No, I suggest you do. You clearly do not understand that contempt and the fifth amendment are not the same. Pleading the 5th does not prevent you from being held in contempt.
Yet it does prevent one's words from being twisted by individuals that hold less ethics and morals than the standard corrupt politician. Republicans wanted a kill. They really didn't care how Mr. Holder would handle things. It was forgone conclusion before things started to heat up. They did things for political reasons just like Benghazi. What did they get for all their efforts? Not much.
So lets recap shall we:
Congress asked Holder for all documents related to F&F because it had testimony from the head of the BATF program that illegal operations were occuring.
Holder declined to provide the documents.
Congress held hearings. F&F was shut down.
Now, I agree with you - Holder should have gone to jail.
So I have to ask you - why do you suppose your president - who is so hot for gun control - why do you think he would approve a program giving weapons to the mexican cartel?
And we're not just talking hand guns. Some of these guns were restricted access 50 caliber machine guns.
Why is it, do you think that your president waived background checks for the cartel, and removed identification remarks... hmmm?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
"Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Regulated the Internet despite a court order from the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
There is a law stating that the FCC can not interact with the Internet in any form? And that it is some how Mr. Obama'a fault?
The quote is actually accurate. Mr. OBama attempted to have the FCC regulate the internet to benefit google and Netflix, big contributors. The appeals court ruled that the FCC did not have authority to regulate the internet.
The FCC changed the classification of the nternet from a non telcom service to a telcom service under a 1934 law intended for telegraffs, and then reissued the regulaton.
Just like the gun industry spends many millions to get Republicans to reduce firearm control across the whole of the nation. Change laws here, amendments there. Again, how is the action Mr. Obama took illegal?
Because the FCC knowingly issued regulations outside its statutory authority? Duh.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Now there is no question that this is egregious crony-ism. although sold as a consumer protection bill, the actual purpose of this bill was to assure that google and Netflix which during some time periods consume more than
50% of the bandwidth in the US - could not be charged more. And they got that protection for a couple of million dollars in donations.
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/8/2016 4:37:26 PM >
|
RE: 25 Violations of law. - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread