TOES02800 wrote: "And if what a president does has no effect on anyone's life both positive and negative, then how can you sit and blame Bush everyday ?"
I challenge you to quote any sentence I have ever written in this forum, blaming former President Bush for anything other than for leading this nation into the war in Iraq under false pretenses.
my my inquired: "and O is doing what to grow the economy?"
Silly person. He, like every other President who has been faced with a lagging economy, whips out his magic wand and has been waving it about.
Whether or not you and other people like yourself care to admit it, the economy across the nation has been slowly improving for most of the nearly three and a half years he has been in office, with a few setbacks along the way.
I'm in no manner making the claim that the President deserves all or even most of the credit, but he definitely deserves more credit than you and others like yourself would or ever will give him.
President Obama has done as good a job as President as John McCain would have done had he been elected. No matter which man had inherited the mess that this country was in at the time, he would have had his hands full.
Contrary to my previous statement above, no man who has held the office as President, has ever waved a magic wand and transformed this nation's economy from bad to good overnight, and never in three and a half years.
Do some research on that simple statement to discover the simple truth that every recession that this country has experienced has taken no less than eight years to recover from.
The deep recession of 2008 was doggone near as bad as the Great Depression. Aspects of it are still not over, but there is light beginning to illuminate the path for the people of this nation to find their way out from a long tunnel of hard times.
And if people are not allowed to repeat the same mistakes that led us here, such as people in the know taking short cuts to seek extreme amounts of profit, or scam artists being allowed to thrive unchecked, we might have a chance at another economic boom in a few years.
If you are not any better off than you were at the beginning of 2009, then the problem might lie within yourself and your inability to run your life, rather than with the President of the United States.
Nothing the President has done has had any great affect on my life, in both positive or negative terms. I dare offer that the same is true for everyone who participates on this board on a regular basis.
If I am incorrect, then I would love for them to specifically cite a thing the President has personally done since he has been in office that has directly impacted their life.
mymy wrote: "Alprova: You are such a fool and deserve no response from anyone! So roll around in your stupidity like a pig in mud."
Aw...gee, why not just come on out and tell me how you REALLY feel?
Your opinion of me is of no consequence. You're never going to score many points in the debate department by quoting Fox News all the time. But you feel free to go right ahead and keep on posting those useless links to them anyway.
Timbo wrote: "alprova..... You are as dense as mountainlaurel... I am not talking about buying houses, I am talking about financing the 10-100 employee business that are the cornerstone of our economy."
That's not what you wrote about in the post I responded to. You specifically brought up a conversation you had just had with a "real estate developer" and his inability to find financing.
I will be happy to respond to what you are whining about now. Business people with good credit, who have a long time in business, and a working relationship with a bank or banks, are not having any difficulty finding financing for their needs.
"You know the ones that aren't subsidized by the government that take raw materials and make something and sell it. We don't need the Small Business Administration (Who loans very little money themselves, they guarantee half of a commercial loan) for handouts. We need financing unencumbered by the stupid government."
I've owned several businesses over the years and I've borrowed all that I need without any assistance or guaranteed loans by the SBA, so I have no idea what you are rambling about, nor how it applies to a thing you are arguing.
"You imbeciles are so dumb you work against your own interests. Is it better for the owners of a business and the employees getting the money or the government?"
Again, what exactly are you referring to? Taxes?
"I will quote the idiot VP Biden about liberals and businessmen, "..You people just don't get us." Yea, Biden I do get you...a millionaire who started a political career without a pot to piss in who made money as a career politician. How do these politicians make so much money without working a real job??????? Even dumba$$es like you can figure that out."
I have no idea how Joe Biden made his fortune. I really don't care. And apparently, a back and forth between you and I is going to be next to impossible, because you are all over the place in what you are railing about.
Let's try again sometime when you can stick to one subject at a time.
FPSE, the definition of a "belligerent act" is indeed set in stone.
A belligerent act involves waging an act of violence, such as taking up arms against our military members, as it applies in that defense bill.
It does not and never will involve someone verbally speaking out against the Government, as Francis claimed.
I again wish to state that I am in no manner defending the language in that bill that provides that any American arrested on U.S. soil can be held by the military indefinitely without access to our civilian courts.
But then, now that certain provisions are now signed and codified into law, if any American is caught taking up arms in sympathy with known terrorists or aids a known enemy in actions against our military, then I say they give up all rights as an American, up to and including any right to our legal justice system.
"Alice, You are a fool if you think your spin is working. Obastard said in his State of the Union address in January of this year: (quote snipped)"
What's this? Another diversion from addressing my challenge to your previous accusations? You're quite the dancer, aren't you? You tango around the truth all day long.
"This all falls in line with the power he seeks through the The National Defense Authorization Act as I have proven above."
1.) The President did not write, sponsor, introduce, or pass the bill in question. The powers awarded by Congress were not asked for by the President. The powers awarded by the Congress to the military were not asked for either.
2.) You have proven nothing. You have made wild and unsubstantiated accusations, at best.
"Obastard is all about positioning himself in a position to "rule". Get your head out of your ass and listen to what he and his blind followers say stupid."
You are hopeless.
"I have to get to work now so I can pay for you to sit on your sorry ass and continue to loot taxpayers like myself. Get a job moron."
Don't worry about me. I assure you, I am quite self-supported.
Your lashing out at me will never in a million years hide the simple fact that you cannot back up your claims.
Francis quoted: "Due process would be a thing of the past." -Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, four star generals, in a New York Times editorial."
Also written in that same editorial, which was written BEFORE the bill was passed with a two-thirds majority of Congress, was;
"Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism."
Neither General expressed any concern about the President when writing that editorial. Their concern extended to those in Congress who wrote, sponsored, introduced, and voted for the bill.
**"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." -Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.
He also wrote, "While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations."
"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law. ” -Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch."
The hypocrisy is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.
Francis, you have repeatedly identified yourself as being opposed to all things that involve Liberals, Democrats, or anything associated with the left-wing, correct?
Human Rights Watch was quite vocal in its opposition to the powers extended the military and then President, George Walker Bush, in the Patriot Reauthorization Act of 2005.
I've yet to read you reference the simple fact that similar wartime Presidential powers existed in that document that you are railing about now.
Your outrageous remarks and accusations about our current President will forever remain testimony to your utter ignorance.
President Obama was essentially forced to sign that legislation, and he did so while verbally citing his reservations and concerns about the rights of United States citizens at the time he signed it.
Your hatred for the man who happens to be our President prevents you from using your brain to discern fact from fiction, truth from lie, and that same hatred prevents you from adopting concepts regarding any and all logic.
You represent the most glaring example of an irrational human being imaginable.
Francis wrote: "Alice, You just proved a point. You are to stupid to acknowledge facts. Obastard signed the bill did he not moron? Do you not understand that the ACLU, NY Times, Human Rights Watch and a Judge from Manhatten ruled against this and you still are so stupid you think it is a good bill?"
I'm not defending the bill or its contents at all. Of course the bill has problems and issues that need to be resolved. Presidents are forced to sign bills they disagree with all the time.
It was passed with a two-thirds majority of Congress.
"You have not the power to convince the ACLU, NY Times and Human Rights Watch you are right so with that in mind you are not convincing anyone this bill is good. Give it up loser."
You can whine, call me names, speak ill of my wife, and rant all you want, but what you are still failing to answer to is my challenge to your ignorant assertion that people can be detained indefinitely for speaking out against the Government -- your prior claim.
"This bill leaves interpretation up to the president and sets it up where he can decide what "belligerent" is."
B.S. -- I posted the definition of "belligerent." It is what it is. Your version of the word is meaningless and totally ignorant.
"So therefore moron it gives obastard the power to determine who gets detained and who does not just for being what obastard decides as being "belligerent"."
You're making all this up off the top of your head. There has been no court hearing or dialogue regarding the use of the word "belligerent."
The court challenges from day one have involved concerns for any U.S. citizen being detained by the military, indefinitely or otherwise, for crimes cited in section 1021. No court challenge cited any concern about Presidential powers, and none of them were about anyone being detained for exercising free speech against the Government.
"The point is this part of the bill gives obastard more power than the constitution allows."
The same kind of crap was raised when the Patriot Act was passed when GWB was in office. Same crap -- different President. Same crap -- different political party.
Francis wrote: "Alice, If you would have removed your sisters panties from of your ass you might have been able to pay attention to what is actually going on with this bill."
Do tell...
"(b) COVERED PERSONS.-A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
I already quoted the above. Nowhere does it specify anyone exercising their free speech rights could be included.
"This paragraph starts out by reiterating the authority granted to the President under the AUMF, the power to detain those involved in the execution of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It then expands this authority, extending it to allow him to detain any person that he feels has committed a belligerent act. What is a "belligerent act"?"
A belligerent act is defined as an act committed by an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Look it up.
"The fact is that the term "belligerent" can be taken to mean many different things. This is one of the main criticisms of the law. What is a belligerent act? You'll have to ask the President."
Sorry Francis, but you're not going to find any definition anywhere of "belligerant" that involves the use of a person's mouth to express their free speech rights, as you previously claimed.
Don't you know how to Google something before you go spouting off about it? You are a class A fool.
"This is why the judge ruled against this moron. You are really that stupid aren't you?"
Uh no...I guess that description falls on your shoulders. No ruling came down against the President. The bill wasn't his idea or creation. Congressional Republicans sponsored that bill and overwhelmingly voted for it. The President signed it under protest, as I pointed out earlier.
"You look foolish now don't you? LOL"
Don't think so. I'm still looking for the proof that simply speaking one's mind in disagreement with our Government can land an American in military custody indefinitely, as you previously claimed.
You're totally ignorant and you apparently are the only person not to know it.
Deregulation
TOES02800 wrote: "And if what a president does has no effect on anyone's life both positive and negative, then how can you sit and blame Bush everyday ?"
I challenge you to quote any sentence I have ever written in this forum, blaming former President Bush for anything other than for leading this nation into the war in Iraq under false pretenses.
Deregulation
my my inquired: "and O is doing what to grow the economy?"
Silly person. He, like every other President who has been faced with a lagging economy, whips out his magic wand and has been waving it about.
Whether or not you and other people like yourself care to admit it, the economy across the nation has been slowly improving for most of the nearly three and a half years he has been in office, with a few setbacks along the way.
I'm in no manner making the claim that the President deserves all or even most of the credit, but he definitely deserves more credit than you and others like yourself would or ever will give him.
President Obama has done as good a job as President as John McCain would have done had he been elected. No matter which man had inherited the mess that this country was in at the time, he would have had his hands full.
Contrary to my previous statement above, no man who has held the office as President, has ever waved a magic wand and transformed this nation's economy from bad to good overnight, and never in three and a half years.
Do some research on that simple statement to discover the simple truth that every recession that this country has experienced has taken no less than eight years to recover from.
The deep recession of 2008 was doggone near as bad as the Great Depression. Aspects of it are still not over, but there is light beginning to illuminate the path for the people of this nation to find their way out from a long tunnel of hard times.
And if people are not allowed to repeat the same mistakes that led us here, such as people in the know taking short cuts to seek extreme amounts of profit, or scam artists being allowed to thrive unchecked, we might have a chance at another economic boom in a few years.
If you are not any better off than you were at the beginning of 2009, then the problem might lie within yourself and your inability to run your life, rather than with the President of the United States.
Nothing the President has done has had any great affect on my life, in both positive or negative terms. I dare offer that the same is true for everyone who participates on this board on a regular basis.
If I am incorrect, then I would love for them to specifically cite a thing the President has personally done since he has been in office that has directly impacted their life.
Deregulation
mymy wrote: "Alprova: You are such a fool and deserve no response from anyone! So roll around in your stupidity like a pig in mud."
Aw...gee, why not just come on out and tell me how you REALLY feel?
Your opinion of me is of no consequence. You're never going to score many points in the debate department by quoting Fox News all the time. But you feel free to go right ahead and keep on posting those useless links to them anyway.
Deregulation
Timbo wrote: "alprova..... You are as dense as mountainlaurel... I am not talking about buying houses, I am talking about financing the 10-100 employee business that are the cornerstone of our economy."
That's not what you wrote about in the post I responded to. You specifically brought up a conversation you had just had with a "real estate developer" and his inability to find financing.
I will be happy to respond to what you are whining about now. Business people with good credit, who have a long time in business, and a working relationship with a bank or banks, are not having any difficulty finding financing for their needs.
"You know the ones that aren't subsidized by the government that take raw materials and make something and sell it. We don't need the Small Business Administration (Who loans very little money themselves, they guarantee half of a commercial loan) for handouts. We need financing unencumbered by the stupid government."
I've owned several businesses over the years and I've borrowed all that I need without any assistance or guaranteed loans by the SBA, so I have no idea what you are rambling about, nor how it applies to a thing you are arguing.
"You imbeciles are so dumb you work against your own interests. Is it better for the owners of a business and the employees getting the money or the government?"
Again, what exactly are you referring to? Taxes?
"I will quote the idiot VP Biden about liberals and businessmen, "..You people just don't get us." Yea, Biden I do get you...a millionaire who started a political career without a pot to piss in who made money as a career politician. How do these politicians make so much money without working a real job??????? Even dumba$$es like you can figure that out."
I have no idea how Joe Biden made his fortune. I really don't care. And apparently, a back and forth between you and I is going to be next to impossible, because you are all over the place in what you are railing about.
Let's try again sometime when you can stick to one subject at a time.
Deregulation
mymy wrote: "You are too stupid to see where O is headed!"
Wherever the President is headed, one thing for sure is that it will be far more interesting and exciting than where you go during your average day.
You seem to be very enamored with landing on the Fox News channel -- not a very interesting destination, to say the least.
Deregulation
FPSE, the definition of a "belligerent act" is indeed set in stone.
A belligerent act involves waging an act of violence, such as taking up arms against our military members, as it applies in that defense bill.
It does not and never will involve someone verbally speaking out against the Government, as Francis claimed.
I again wish to state that I am in no manner defending the language in that bill that provides that any American arrested on U.S. soil can be held by the military indefinitely without access to our civilian courts.
But then, now that certain provisions are now signed and codified into law, if any American is caught taking up arms in sympathy with known terrorists or aids a known enemy in actions against our military, then I say they give up all rights as an American, up to and including any right to our legal justice system.
Deregulation
"Alice, You are a fool if you think your spin is working. Obastard said in his State of the Union address in January of this year: (quote snipped)"
What's this? Another diversion from addressing my challenge to your previous accusations? You're quite the dancer, aren't you? You tango around the truth all day long.
"This all falls in line with the power he seeks through the The National Defense Authorization Act as I have proven above."
1.) The President did not write, sponsor, introduce, or pass the bill in question. The powers awarded by Congress were not asked for by the President. The powers awarded by the Congress to the military were not asked for either.
2.) You have proven nothing. You have made wild and unsubstantiated accusations, at best.
"Obastard is all about positioning himself in a position to "rule". Get your head out of your ass and listen to what he and his blind followers say stupid."
You are hopeless.
"I have to get to work now so I can pay for you to sit on your sorry ass and continue to loot taxpayers like myself. Get a job moron."
Don't worry about me. I assure you, I am quite self-supported.
Your lashing out at me will never in a million years hide the simple fact that you cannot back up your claims.
Deregulation
Francis quoted: "Due process would be a thing of the past." -Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, four star generals, in a New York Times editorial."
Also written in that same editorial, which was written BEFORE the bill was passed with a two-thirds majority of Congress, was;
"Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism."
Neither General expressed any concern about the President when writing that editorial. Their concern extended to those in Congress who wrote, sponsored, introduced, and voted for the bill.
**"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." -Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.
He also wrote, "While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations."
"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law. ” -Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch."
The hypocrisy is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.
Francis, you have repeatedly identified yourself as being opposed to all things that involve Liberals, Democrats, or anything associated with the left-wing, correct?
Human Rights Watch was quite vocal in its opposition to the powers extended the military and then President, George Walker Bush, in the Patriot Reauthorization Act of 2005.
I've yet to read you reference the simple fact that similar wartime Presidential powers existed in that document that you are railing about now.
Your outrageous remarks and accusations about our current President will forever remain testimony to your utter ignorance.
President Obama was essentially forced to sign that legislation, and he did so while verbally citing his reservations and concerns about the rights of United States citizens at the time he signed it.
Your hatred for the man who happens to be our President prevents you from using your brain to discern fact from fiction, truth from lie, and that same hatred prevents you from adopting concepts regarding any and all logic.
You represent the most glaring example of an irrational human being imaginable.
Deregulation
Francis wrote: "Alice, You just proved a point. You are to stupid to acknowledge facts. Obastard signed the bill did he not moron? Do you not understand that the ACLU, NY Times, Human Rights Watch and a Judge from Manhatten ruled against this and you still are so stupid you think it is a good bill?"
I'm not defending the bill or its contents at all. Of course the bill has problems and issues that need to be resolved. Presidents are forced to sign bills they disagree with all the time.
It was passed with a two-thirds majority of Congress.
"You have not the power to convince the ACLU, NY Times and Human Rights Watch you are right so with that in mind you are not convincing anyone this bill is good. Give it up loser."
You can whine, call me names, speak ill of my wife, and rant all you want, but what you are still failing to answer to is my challenge to your ignorant assertion that people can be detained indefinitely for speaking out against the Government -- your prior claim.
"This bill leaves interpretation up to the president and sets it up where he can decide what "belligerent" is."
B.S. -- I posted the definition of "belligerent." It is what it is. Your version of the word is meaningless and totally ignorant.
"So therefore moron it gives obastard the power to determine who gets detained and who does not just for being what obastard decides as being "belligerent"."
You're making all this up off the top of your head. There has been no court hearing or dialogue regarding the use of the word "belligerent."
The court challenges from day one have involved concerns for any U.S. citizen being detained by the military, indefinitely or otherwise, for crimes cited in section 1021. No court challenge cited any concern about Presidential powers, and none of them were about anyone being detained for exercising free speech against the Government.
"The point is this part of the bill gives obastard more power than the constitution allows."
The same kind of crap was raised when the Patriot Act was passed when GWB was in office. Same crap -- different President. Same crap -- different political party.
Deregulation
Francis wrote: "Alice, If you would have removed your sisters panties from of your ass you might have been able to pay attention to what is actually going on with this bill."
Do tell...
"(b) COVERED PERSONS.-A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
I already quoted the above. Nowhere does it specify anyone exercising their free speech rights could be included.
"This paragraph starts out by reiterating the authority granted to the President under the AUMF, the power to detain those involved in the execution of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It then expands this authority, extending it to allow him to detain any person that he feels has committed a belligerent act. What is a "belligerent act"?"
A belligerent act is defined as an act committed by an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Look it up.
"The fact is that the term "belligerent" can be taken to mean many different things. This is one of the main criticisms of the law. What is a belligerent act? You'll have to ask the President."
Sorry Francis, but you're not going to find any definition anywhere of "belligerant" that involves the use of a person's mouth to express their free speech rights, as you previously claimed.
Don't you know how to Google something before you go spouting off about it? You are a class A fool.
"This is why the judge ruled against this moron. You are really that stupid aren't you?"
Uh no...I guess that description falls on your shoulders. No ruling came down against the President. The bill wasn't his idea or creation. Congressional Republicans sponsored that bill and overwhelmingly voted for it. The President signed it under protest, as I pointed out earlier.
"You look foolish now don't you? LOL"
Don't think so. I'm still looking for the proof that simply speaking one's mind in disagreement with our Government can land an American in military custody indefinitely, as you previously claimed.
You're totally ignorant and you apparently are the only person not to know it.