Obama's DOJ.

Obama's DOJ. (Full Version)

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

Message

Yachtie -> Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 10:05:23 AM)
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party. “The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.” (bolding added) Some people say it's better to go with what you know than take a chance on what you don't know. What we do know, sucks. Time for a change in November.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 10:20:57 AM)
Oh great.....images of scary black men....... Careful now.....race baiting often back-fires.......

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 10:24:44 AM)
It would be nice if the whole article was posted, not just clipped to make it sound like it was about anything other than awarding "fees" Im guessing that comes down the line... nice spin attempt tho

Owner59 -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 10:29:35 AM)
If it was George Zimmerman holding a Glock 9mm, doing the same thing.....the lunatic fringe would be all for it......[:D] What`s the difference here?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 10:32:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Oh great.....images of scary black men....... Careful now.....race baiting often back-fires....... The only "race baiting" I see, going on here, came from you. NOWHERE did that article suggest race was an issue. You should realize that when you point a finger at someone, there's three others, pointing back at you. Maybe the photo only scared you? What does that say about *your* possible bias? Peace and comfort, Michael

Yachtie -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 11:13:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It would be nice if the whole article was posted, not just clipped to make it sound like it was about anything other than awarding "fees" Im guessing that comes down the line... nice spin attempt tho What spin? The article discussed more than merely awarding fees. It's you who's downplaying it.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 11:21:03 AM)
No, not factually, factually it said that 3 of 4 criteria had been met for awarding fees, the DOJ wanted no fees because they felt it was a frivolous lawsuit, and that the lawyers shouldnt be allowed fees. But that was the fact, no overturn of the case, no illegal nothing. The rest was a talking dickhead telling the idiorati what it 'means'.

DomKen -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 11:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It would be nice if the whole article was posted, not just clipped to make it sound like it was about anything other than awarding "fees" Im guessing that comes down the line... nice spin attempt tho What spin? The article discussed more than merely awarding fees. It's you who's downplaying it. The article is all spin. For instance name the criminal charges dismissed by the Obama administration against the people in question. Then answer how the defendants could have simply ignored any criminal charges when levied against them by the Bush DoJ.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 11:36:39 AM)
Perhaps you're new here Its a TOS violation to post entire articles However you may click on the link provided in the OP and the entire article will magically appear on your computer screen quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It would be nice if the whole article was posted, not just clipped to make it sound like it was about anything other than awarding "fees" Im guessing that comes down the line... nice spin attempt tho

mnottertail -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 11:41:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Perhaps you're new here Its a TOS violation to post entire articles However you may click on the link provided in the OP and the entire article will magically appear on your computer screen quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It would be nice if the whole article was posted, not just clipped to make it sound like it was about anything other than awarding "fees" Im guessing that comes down the line... nice spin attempt tho Perhaps you are new here, as it has been stated in detail, the idea behind posting a whole article and one that is clearly clipped as a willful lie is something that aint cutting it. http://www.collarchat.com/m_2865734/mpage_3/tm.htm#2866721 Please review posts 57,58,and 59 for the whole story, which will not be reproduced in its entirety here.

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 11:42:36 AM)
LMAO the point being that the FEES were exactly WHAT the article about..and the OP did NOT mention that.. try again mr patronizing failure

Owner59 -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 1:50:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Oh great.....images of scary black men....... Careful now.....race baiting often back-fires....... The only "race baiting" I see, going on here, came from you. NOWHERE did that article suggest race was an issue. You should realize that when you point a finger at someone, there's three others, pointing back at you. Maybe the photo only scared you? What does that say about *your* possible bias? Peace and comfort, Michael Kinda slow on the pick-up aren`t ya?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 2:25:29 PM)
Not slow, at all. My response (1:32:53 PM EDT) was posted twelve minutes after your wild accusation (1:20:57 PM EDT). It was you who took another 3 hours and 17 minutes to come up with this rather ambiguous retort. Well-played, though ... NOT! Peace and comfort, Michael

Yachtie -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 3:33:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Perhaps you're new here Its a TOS violation to post entire articles However you may click on the link provided in the OP and the entire article will magically appear on your computer screen quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It would be nice if the whole article was posted, not just clipped to make it sound like it was about anything other than awarding "fees" Im guessing that comes down the line... nice spin attempt tho Perhaps you are new here, as it has been stated in detail, the idea behind posting a whole article and one that is clearly clipped as a willful lie is something that aint cutting it. http://www.collarchat.com/m_2865734/mpage_3/tm.htm#2866721 Please review posts 57,58,and 59 for the whole story, which will not be reproduced in its entirety here. What lie? Is not what I posted a salient point within the article? Dance little doggie, dance.[sm=banana.gif]

mnottertail -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 3:38:45 PM)
What lie? Is not what I posted a salient point within the article? NO, not even close, you need to look up salient because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yachtie -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 3:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What lie? Is not what I posted a salient point within the article? NO, not even close, you need to look up salient because it doesn't mean what you think it means. What I posted is of notable significance; salient. Your problem is that it casts bad light on your precious Obama and his DOJ. You're acting like a cockroach scurrying about in the light. Simply delightful.[:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 3:59:28 PM)
1: moving by leaps or springs : jumping 2: jetting upward <a salient fountain> 3a : projecting beyond a line, surface, or level b : standing out conspicuously : prominent; especially : of notable significance <similar to … Prohibition, but there are a couple of salient differences — Tony Gibbs> heres another: 1. Projecting or jutting beyond a line or surface; protruding.2. Strikingly conspicuous; prominent. See Synonyms at noticeable.3. Springing; jumping: salient tree toads.n. 1. A military position that projects into the position of the enemy.2. A projecting angle or part. And most dictionaries (ones websters ones american heritage)....gonna be the same, it needs a huge remarkability, a prominence to meet necessary and sufficient conditions, the W DOJ couldn't bust them in what? 8 years, 4 years, and now something nefarious is afoot? Much ado about nothing. This is the same judge did the coal thing and the roger clemons thing.....so.......and the fuckin guy is a W appointee...... You left out striking to minimize and misinform your malfeasant spin, nevertheless it does not stand up to the garish light of truth. Note the commonality of meaning proceeds in increasing ordination. So, no you aint even close. So, pretty much the OP is considerable dogshit. Don't use words over one syllable since you are less likely to misuse them.

DomKen -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 4:02:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What lie? Is not what I posted a salient point within the article? NO, not even close, you need to look up salient because it doesn't mean what you think it means. What I posted is of notable significance; salient. Your problem is that it casts bad light on your precious Obama and his DOJ. You're acting like a cockroach scurrying about in the light. Simply delightful.[:D] No the article isn't notable signifigance. The article lies in the very first paragraph. There was not an active prosecytion nor charges against the NBPP when Obama took office. So there is no way the Obama DoJ appointees could have interfered with things that didn't exist. Therefore the article is a lie from top to bottom.

Yachtie -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 4:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 1: moving by leaps or springs : jumping 2: jetting upward <a salient fountain> 3a : projecting beyond a line, surface, or level b : standing out conspicuously : prominent; especially : of notable significance <similar to … Prohibition, but there are a couple of salient differences — Tony Gibbs> heres another: 1. Projecting or jutting beyond a line or surface; protruding.2. Strikingly conspicuous; prominent. See Synonyms at noticeable.3. Springing; jumping: salient tree toads.n. 1. A military position that projects into the position of the enemy.2. A projecting angle or part. And most dictionaries (ones websters ones american heritage)....gonna be the same, it needs a huge remarkability, a prominence to meet necessary and sufficient conditions, the W DOJ couldn't bust them in what? 8 years, 4 years, and now something nefarious is afoot? Much ado about nothing. This is the same judge did the coal thing and the roger clemons thing.....so.......and the fuckin guy is a W appointee...... You left out striking to minimize and misinform your malfeasant spin, nevertheless it does not stand up to the garish light of truth. Note the commonality of meaning proceeds in increasing ordination. So, no you aint even close. So, pretty much the OP is considerable dogshit. Don't use words over one syllable since you are less likely to misuse them. [sm=popcorn.gif] So, the opening paragraph of the whole story (see first part of OP) is neither conspicuous, prominent, nor of notable significance. I see. [sm=popcorn.gif] Your Fu is weak. [sm=doh.gif]

Yachtie -> RE: Obama's DOJ. (7/31/2012 4:20:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What lie? Is not what I posted a salient point within the article? NO, not even close, you need to look up salient because it doesn't mean what you think it means. What I posted is of notable significance; salient. Your problem is that it casts bad light on your precious Obama and his DOJ. You're acting like a cockroach scurrying about in the light. Simply delightful.[:D] No the article isn't notable signifigance. The article lies in the very first paragraph. There was not an active prosecytion nor charges against the NBPP when Obama took office. So there is no way the Obama DoJ appointees could have interfered with things that didn't exist. Therefore the article is a lie from top to bottom. I guess the article, quoting the federal judge, is not sufficient for your simple mind. [sm=rofl.gif] You're not tall enough for this ride.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

5.785156