Reality check: wingnuts encourage security threat

SmarterThanYou said:
now try reading my post again, in context, and in whole without the liberal translators. maybe then you'll actually understand just what it is I printed.
Click to expand...

Now try acting like an adult and just admit you were wrong...instead of BS'ing here like you actually live up to your screen name.

You made a statement, and I provided PROOF that a key portion of your statement is incorrect. Go back and read carefully and comprehensively. If you STILL don't get it, I'll explain.
 
nji098 said:
I note the "rebuttal" to your post in RED :

"Being that you have staunchly supported the Shrub's executive centric gov't and the sidestepping of probable cause and habeus corpus for our law enforcement...and the sidestepping of probable cause and habeus corpus for our law enforcement..." Just like the current President, his campaign blather aside...

P.S., Speaking of "support[ing] the Shrub's executive centric gov't" how many current "T'sars" can you count ? ?
Click to expand...

Okay, when you can provide PROOF of action by the current administration that copies the Shrub's (i.e., passage of a law like the Patriot Act and actions that have resulted from it), then you have a case.

If not, you're just blowing neocon smoke as usual.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pay attention, genius. YOU were the one mocking the article by threatening liberals in general. Being that you have staunchly supported the Shrub's executive centric gov't and the sidestepping of probable cause and habeus corpus for our law enforcement...you now chuckle with glee at the thought of threats against the President. See genius, one has to encompass everything in a discussion of a subject...and YOU have demostrated a willingness to support any type of quasi-fascist actions/legislation of a gov't that favors your viewpoints.

In other words, mastermind...YOU said it, I didn't. And since there is nothing fascist about offering a gov't alternative to private health care, you're statement above is absurd at best. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Where have I threatened liberals in general?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that you did? PLease stop fabricating stories and learn to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY(damn, I'm getting tired of typing that). Saves us all a lot of time.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Only a truly dumb neocon would try to take things out of context when the actual thread is present for all to see. All one has to do is follow the chronology to see your folly.

Your original response was to follow up that moron meme's neocon blathering. Your "sarcasm" was lame, as I adequately pointed out.

Secondly, the quote you gave was from a source that was provided as a response to another neocon numbskull who tried to dilute the original post here by bringing in an appropo subject.

Once again, NJ, you're dishonesty in a simple debate rings clear. Now, unless you're willing to discuss the subject matter in an honest, logical fashion...I'll just ignore your worthless drivel.
Click to expand...

So much blustering obfuscation, so little rebuttal. Seems like old times !

And like the old days, I'm happy to let the other posters follow the Thread and make up their own minds... ; )
 
nji098 said:
Just pointing out that the current President, despite his heated campaign trail indignation over Bushs' "immoral", "illegal" detention policies, is quietly continuing said "outrages", and appointing an unprecedented number of "Czars" accountable to no one after bemoaning Bushs' supposed attempts to centralize power in the Exective branch...
Click to expand...

Of course you leave out the FACT that the President is restoring Congressional oversight (albeit too slow for my tastes). Also, your LIE about "uprecedented number of Czars accountable to no one" has yet to be documented.....especially in light of the history of such actions by Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Delay, Cheney, the Office of Special Projects, etc., etc.

And of course, this is just a detour by you to avoid admitting the accuracy and truth of the original subject title. Typical NJ neocon BS.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, when you can provide PROOF of action by the current administration that copies the Shrub's (i.e., passage of a law like the Patriot Act and actions that have resulted from it), then you have a case.

If not, you're just blowing neocon smoke as usual.
Click to expand...

You're the one who's "blowing smoke". I said "continues" Bush policy, not "passes" any new laws. Not that your attempt at obfuscation comes as any great surprise...

Enjoy :

"NEW YORK – The Obama administration told a federal court late Friday that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their detention. The move, which is a continuation of the Bush administration's detention policy, comes in a lawsuit filed on behalf of several prisoners who have been indefinitely detained at the Bagram Air Force base for years without trial. The American Civil Liberties Union calls on the new administration to reconsider this troubling position."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38782prs20090223.html
 
Taichiliberal said:
Of course you leave out the FACT that the President is restoring Congressional oversight (albeit too slow for my tastes). Also, your LIE about "uprecedented number of Czars accountable to no one" has yet to be documented.....especially in light of the history of such actions by Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Delay, Cheney, the Office of Special Projects, etc., etc.

And of course, this is just a detour by you to avoid admitting the accuracy and truth of the original subject title. Typical NJ neocon BS.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. So how does one branch of the government "restore oversight" by another branch ?

Like this perhaps ?

"Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)"

http://www.infowars.com/senior-democrat-says-obamas-czars-unconstitutional/
 
Taichiliberal said:
Now try acting like an adult and just admit you were wrong...instead of BS'ing here like you actually live up to your screen name.

You made a statement, and I provided PROOF that a key portion of your statement is incorrect. Go back and read carefully and comprehensively. If you STILL don't get it, I'll explain.
Click to expand...

You Imbecile. try practicing what you preach

Only a truly dumb neocon would try to take things out of context when the actual thread is present for all to see.
Click to expand...

unless you're a dumb neocon also.

I made a statement with the word MOST, not ALL.

now that i've explained how your dumb liberal ass failed at logical comprehension, you can try coming back to the discussion. Otherwise, stay in the corner with your dunce hat.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
You Imbecile. try practicing what you preach



unless you're a dumb neocon also.

I made a statement with the word MOST, not ALL.

now that i've explained how your dumb liberal ass failed at logical comprehension, you can try coming back to the discussion. Otherwise, stay in the corner with your dunce hat.
Click to expand...

Ah, grasshopper, when you lose your cool, your lose your control! Deep breathe! In goes the good thoughts, out go the bad...
 
nji098 said:
You're the one who's "blowing smoke". I said "continues" Bush policy, not "passes" any new laws. Not that your attempt at obfuscation comes as any great surprise...

Enjoy :

"NEW YORK – The Obama administration told a federal court late Friday that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their detention. The move, which is a continuation of the Bush administration's detention policy, comes in a lawsuit filed on behalf of several prisoners who have been indefinitely detained at the Bagram Air Force base for years without trial. The American Civil Liberties Union calls on the new administration to reconsider this troubling position."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38782prs20090223.html
Click to expand...

You're a liar.....only in this post do you state "continues". I defy you to provide the exact quote from your previous posts here that state such (have a care, the system registers editing). Put up or shut up.
 
nji098 said:
Uh huh. So how does one branch of the government "restore oversight" by another branch ?

Like this perhaps ?

"Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)"

http://www.infowars.com/senior-democrat-says-obamas-czars-unconstitutional/
Click to expand...

Hey genius, YOU made a statement that Obama has created and "uprecedented" number of czars......I asked for proof of this. Instead, you give me a complaint by Sen. Byrd.....where's the comparison to other administrations that prove your claim?

And as to your question as to how to created oversight reform.


http://waxman.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4513
 
SmarterThanYou said:
You Imbecile. try practicing what you preach



unless you're a dumb neocon also.

I made a statement with the word MOST, not ALL.

now that i've explained how your dumb liberal ass failed at logical comprehension, you can try coming back to the discussion. Otherwise, stay in the corner with your dunce hat.
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm forced to school you on reading comprehension. I'll break it down for you:

Here's what you wrote: "most people in the 'militia' mindset don't have a huge problem with some social liberal ideologies. I have no problem with this statement. It's when those liberal ideologies start dictating how the 'conservative' side must adhere to some rule of law to implement those liberal ideologies. Gun control is a huge no no. This is what I point out is total BS on your part. My link clearly shows that to date there is NO such process going on, because the gun shops in my home area are having trouble keeping up with the orders. As I've said many times before, the ONLY state that nearly had virtual prohibited gun ownership was Washington, DC and that was overturned after 30 years. Law abiding citizens have access to guns and rifles.

Understand now, genius? I've just pulled out a cornerstone of the militia BS regarding weapons with FACTS. So wipe the spittle off the screen and stop braying like an ass everytime someone effectively proves you wrong on a point of contention. Like I said, you're screen name is a joke, and this little exchange (yet again) proves it. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Follow your own advice, the ARTICLE is about the threatening of liberals in general......I NEVER SAID YOU STATED SUCH. I SAID YOU MOCK THE ARTICLE'S CONCERN.

Damn, I have to explain everything to you like a you're in pre-school.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Now you're back tracking. First you claim that I "threaten[ed] liberals in general", and now you're saying that I didn't. If I didn't, then why make the accusation?
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're a liar.....only in this post do you state "continues". I defy you to provide the exact quote from your previous posts here that state such (have a care, the system registers editing). Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

As you say, the other posters can judge for themselves if you've posted a rebuttal or simply resorted to your customary semantic hair-splitting in a desperate attempt to stretch the Thread far beyond the point at which you lost the match...
 
Taichiliberal said:
Hey genius, YOU made a statement that Obama has created and "uprecedented" number of czars......I asked for proof of this. Instead, you give me a complaint by Sen. Byrd.....where's the comparison to other administrations that prove your claim?

And as to your question as to how to created oversight reform.


http://waxman.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4513
Click to expand...

Byrds "complaint", as you so dismissively characterize it, should suffice for all but the most semantically anal-retentive but this will do until a better source comes along :

"While other president's have appointed "Czars" none have appointed the number of Czar's that Obama has named-at last count we are up to 28. The reason for all of the Czar appointments is to circumvent the Constitution and create and imperial Presidency. These Czars do not have to be approved by the Senate, nor do they have to answer questions posed by congress."

http://kpr37.newsvine.com/_news/200...ama-uses-czars-to-circumvent-the-constitution


Doesn't sound much like "change you can believe in" does it ?

I'm afraid your link to The Phantom of the Operas' website wasn't much help in clarifying your assertion that "the President is restoring Congressional oversight".
 
Southern Man said:
Now you're back tracking. First you claim that I "threaten[ed] liberals in general", and now you're saying that I didn't. If I didn't, then why make the accusation?
Click to expand...


Why are you repeating something that I already logically and factually disproved. I stated that YOU MOCKED the article and it's subject by "threaten[ed] liberals in general"....I stated that you make light of the threat. Either you're just being insipidly stubborn, lying or you truly don't comprehend sentence structure.

Southern Man wrote: Be afraid Liberal; be very afraid.

Muhahaha!
Click to expand...

Not exactly a serious "threat", wouldn't you say?

Either way, you can't logically or factually disprove the original subject thread/post that I created here. Dwelling on something that has already been explained to you and settled is pointless.
 
Last edited:
nji098 said:
Byrds "complaint", as you so dismissively characterize it, should suffice for all but the most semantically anal-retentive but this will do until a better source comes along :

"While other president's have appointed "Czars" none have appointed the number of Czar's that Obama has named-at last count we are up to 28. The reason for all of the Czar appointments is to circumvent the Constitution and create and imperial Presidency. These Czars do not have to be approved by the Senate, nor do they have to answer questions posed by congress."

http://kpr37.newsvine.com/_news/200...ama-uses-czars-to-circumvent-the-constitution


Doesn't sound much like "change you can believe in" does it ?


That's it?!???!! A blip from some blogger who gives NO source material, no documentation? NJ, you're a complete neocon clown grasping at any straw.
Sen. Byrd's complaint is just that.... a valid complaint. YOU HAVE STILL NOT PROVEN YOUR CLAIM OF "UNPRECEDENTED" CZAR APPOINTMENTS. To do this you have to provide VALID DOCUMENTATION AND SOURCES, not some like minded neocon parrot squawking the same as you. Get your ass in gear, bunky....learn to do things right for a change and stop blowing smoke.

I'm afraid your link to The Phantom of the Operas' website wasn't much help in clarifying your assertion that "the President is restoring Congressional oversight".
Click to expand...

Every time you lose an argument, you claim the link doesn't work. Yet I recall how others can use the same link with no problem.
The link goes to Senator Waxman's sight...he was (and still is, I think) the Chairman of the Senate Oversight and Gov't Reform Committee. If this link doesn't work, google it yourself, read it and get educated on how things work before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less foolish.
http://waxman.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4513
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're a liar.....only in this post do you state "continues". I defy you to provide the exact quote from your previous posts here that state such (have a care, the system registers editing). Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

nji098 said:
As you say, the other posters can judge for themselves if you've posted a rebuttal or simply resorted to your customary semantic hair-splitting in a desperate attempt to stretch the Thread far beyond the point at which you lost the match...
Click to expand...

Translation: NJ makes a false claim, and when challenged to simply produce the post to support his claim in no uncertain terms, he bluffs and blusters and blows more neocon smoke.

You're a liar and a fraud, NJ....you are not interested in discussing the original thread, but instead to just attack, distort and discredit anything I post out of sheer childish vengence. I'm sorry if I make you look foolish, but you bring it upon yourself.

Say goodnight gracie...shows over for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top