RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt

RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (Full Version)

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

Message

RacerJim -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 7:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL, and I am sure he could give a fuck less. For once you speak the truth about Obama. I am positive he could give a fuck less...about anyone and/or anything except himself and his Marxist fundamental transformation of the United States of America.

Musicmystery -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 7:10:38 AM)
[image]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IREZE97w4M8/TT17roKOD7I/AAAAAAAAATs/MXFcJjwIJ34/s1600/raindrop.jpg[/image]

RacerJim -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 7:17:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin We all know that if the Obamanistas hadn't botched the operation (like the Clintonistas with Reno and Waco), then they would have more political ammo to get these awful so called assault weapons banned. Have no fear Rob and Sannity, the committee should just send in pit bull Senator Luger to investigate and uncover any wrong doing. And when he doesn't uncover anything and it all blows over after the election then just hope the issue will have kept nippin at Obamas heels and this freakin affirmative action socialist hack along with his minions will have bitten the electoral dust as I know they will. [8D] It was a legit,on going long time operation that went wrong.People make mistakes.....they`re human. It`s happened since the beginning and will continue till the end.Can`t be helped. But taking the inevitable tragedies and trying to suggest there`s a scandal is just low-life dirty tricks and disgraceful. That however.....can be helped. Like claiming the Koreshian`s self-immolation........was Reno`s fault. People do indeed make mistakes. It has indeed happened since the beginning and will continue. But lying and/or intentionally misleading a Congressional committee is not a mistake, and hiding behind Obama's skirt does indeed suggest there's a scandal and is just low-life tricks and disgraceful as then Senator Obama himself said when Bush was POTUS. That

Sanity -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 7:25:34 AM)
Not vetted "Unknown" quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Nonetheless, not "unknown."

Musicmystery -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 7:32:46 AM)
The long primary didn't hash that out for ya?

subrob1967 -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Prosed and rejected.... Who rejected it Lucy? And when did budgets become one of the powers of the Executive branch?

Musicmystery -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:19:19 AM)
quote: when did budgets become one of the powers of the Executive branch? 1921 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#Overview

Lucylastic -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:19:33 AM)
it says who rejected it in my post ...cant you read??? Or do you need me to point it out to you??

subrob1967 -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:28:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Isn't it hilarious that rob is busy denying that this is all due to a conspiracy theory while sanity is admiting it is and actually believes it? Where did I deny it? I just refused to answer your loaded question, and point out your & Rachel's fallacious argument. Let me spell it out in language even you and Ms Maddow can understand... Gun Runner was the name of the over all mission to try and STOP Mexican drug dealers from obtaining guns from the US. Wide Receiver was ONE operation under the overall mission called Gun Runner. Wide Receiver's mission orders were to interdict or stop the guns sold in the US from reaching drug dealers hands. When the ATF agents running the mission failed to track of some guns, the mission was ended... Thus ends the Bush's involvement in Gun Runner. The Obama administration restarted Gun Runner in 09 and called the first operation Fast & Furious. Operation F&F had different parameters than the previous mission WR. WR's SOP was to interdict guns BEFORE they reached the drug gangs. F&F's SOP was to allow the guns to reach the Mexican drug gangs, so the US and Mexican authorities could track them. Even you and Ms Maddow should be able to see the difference between the operation procedures. Now one should ask why the administration thought it was a good idea to let the guns walk. What is the logic behind letting over 2000 guns get into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. One should want to know if the Obama administration was too stupid to know what the guns would be used for?

subrob1967 -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:30:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic it says who rejected it in my post ...cant you read??? Or do you need me to point it out to you?? Point it out to me... In detail... Please don't forget to point out that it was the Dem controlled Senate who rejected the President's proposal by a vote of 99-0

Musicmystery -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:37:00 AM)
You guys keep asking questions you're answering yourself. quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Now one should ask why the administration thought it was a good idea to let the guns walk. What is the logic behind letting over 2000 guns get into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 to allow the guns to reach the Mexican drug gangs, so the US and Mexican authorities could track them. Seems the Mexican drug gangs aren't in the yellow pages or on Facebook. Who knew? It's not like it's hard to get guns.

Lucylastic -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:44:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic it says who rejected it in my post ...cant you read??? Or do you need me to point it out to you?? Point it out to me... In detail... Please don't forget to point out that it was the Dem controlled Senate who rejected the President's proposal by a vote of 99-0 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The Obama administration proposed his 2012 budget on February 14, 2011. Obama's budget proposal aimed to reduce annual deficits to more sustainable levels by making selective cuts in spending, while increasing support in specific areas such as education and clean energy to foster long-term economic growth. The plan did not contain specific proposals to rein in spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are expected to make up much of the increase in the deficit in future years. The budget represented a shift from the Obama administration's strategy in previous years of using increased government spending, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, to combat the late 2000s recession. The 2012 budget plan was instead projected to reduce deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. Republicans criticized the plan for not going far enough to reduce future deficits.[4] A motion to proceed on President Obama's 2012 budget proposal was defeated in the Senate by a margin of 0-97 votes on May 25, 2011, the same day that the Ryan budget was also defeated.[5] wikipedia its out there if you can be bothered to actually try to be factual anymore research is up to you, Ive wasted enough time on you for one day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget Prosed and rejected.... there ya go.... do you need any more proof??? can you read now??? or is it your comprehension thats screwed?

subrob1967 -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:48:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic there ya go.... do you need any more proof??? can you read now??? or is it your comprehension thats screwed? Um, you missed Obama's 2012 budget proposal that was rejected by the Senate 99-0, but thanks for admitting Obama's proposal was so ridiculous that even the party he leads overwhelmingly rejected him.

Musicmystery -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 8:53:50 AM)
It's an election year, rob. "Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor. <-- [not the actual budget] "Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages." Theater. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

Lucylastic -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 9:01:13 AM)
oh for fucks sake, here we go again The Obama administration proposed his 2012 budget on February 14, 2011. Obama's budget proposal aimed to reduce annual deficits to more sustainable levels by making selective cuts in spending, while increasing support in specific areas such as education and clean energy to foster long-term economic growth. The plan did not contain specific proposals to rein in spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are expected to make up much of the increase in the deficit in future years.The budget represented a shift from the Obama administration's strategy in previous years of using increased government spending, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, to combat the late 2000s recession. Republicans criticized the plan for not going far enough to reduce future deficits.[4] A motion to proceed on President Obama's 2012 budget proposal was defeated in the Senate by a margin of 0-97 votes on May 25, 2011, the same day that the Ryan budget was also defeated.[5] wikipedia its out there if you can be bothered to actually try to be factual anymore research is up to you, Ive wasted enough time on you for one day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget Prosed and rejected.... BTW I was merely responding to the other idiots claim that there had been NO PROPOSAL NOTHING MORE FOCUS

Lucylastic -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 9:02:49 AM)
so the vote was out by 2 votes according to the wikipedia source, the facts are still there and I did post it....for the correct budget year

DomKen -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 9:48:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Or, the House could start solving problems instead of moving paper. Or, the Demoncrap Senate could at least PROPOSE a Federal Budget instead of ignoring their fiduciary duty for the past three years. Have you ever even read the Constitution? Article I Section 7 quote: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Musicmystery -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 9:49:42 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#Overview

Moonhead -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 10:09:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL, and I am sure he could give a fuck less. For once you speak the truth about Obama. I am positive he could give a fuck less...about anyone and/or anything except himself and his Marxist fundamental transformation of the United States of America. Have you read any Marx? Because if so, you could explain how the third term of the chimp he's wasted his first term on is a "fundamental Marxist transformation".

subrob1967 -> RE: AG Holder Hides Behind Obama's Skirt (6/22/2012 10:58:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's an election year, rob. "Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor. <-- [not the actual budget] "Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages." Theater. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/ Agreed it was theater, and election year politics. But was it a lie that the republicans used the President's numbers, when they omitted the wording of the proposal? The dems are bitching that the republicans didn't mention every word in the thousands of pages, the repubs are claiming that every word didn't need to be read because in the end, the budget comes down to the numbers. The irony of the situation that should be pointed out is Nancy Pelosi decided that bills should be voted on before they are read when she was Speaker, but now that the republicans proposed an amendment that deleted the President's terms of use, they're called obstructionists.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625