United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: On The Democrats Making Of The Death Of Bin Laden All About Themselves And Obama
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/05/on_the_democrat_1.php
Published: May 2, 2011
Author: hyscience
Post Date: 2011-05-02 16:04:40 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 12171
Comments: 42
As Michelle Malkin points out, Democrats are "all in a Twitter" praising Obama and taking all the credit for finally having nailed Osama Bin Laden. As a matter of fact, listening to the boasting of the Democrats, you'd think instead of just signing the executive order authorizing the action, that it was Obama himself, the one, who putting his life on the line, rappelled from the Black Hawk helicopter down to the compound, and pulled the trigger on Bin Laden. This, of course, without giving Bush - who set in place the policies that have kept us safe since 9/11, which Obama has been forced by the reality on the ground to uphold almost to the letter in spite of all his campaign promises, and that ultimately made the extermination of Bin Laden possible - any credit...you know, that "oaf " Bush! But, with 2012 fast approaching, what else would you have expected of the Democrats? First, the Democrats are "politically correct", Islamist-loving "doves", champions of Muslim terrorists' rights, demanding to shut Guantanamo - you know, that evil place of "torture" where Jihadists get three "Halal" meals a day, have "Goldilocks Accommodations" with rooms not too cold, not too hot / beds not too soft, not too hard, and where they torture Islamic inmates during interrogations by playing loud Dixie Chicks music (wait, that actually may constitute "torture") - advocating to ban Military Tribunals of enemy combatants in favor of Holder's "Judge Judy" Civilian Trial "Circuses" on American soil, calling the waterboarding responsible not only for the capture of Bin Laden but for much of the intel that has kept us safe for ten years "torture", riling to dismantle the Patriot Act and rendition, while rooting for the Islamists with their "bleeding hearts". But now that Osama Bin Laden has been killed, under Obama's watch - thanks to the policies that George W. Bush set in place, of the tireless efforts of our military and intelligence agencies over the last ten years, and the sobering fact that the elections of 2012 are just around the corner, all of a sudden the Democrats are "Hawks" and Obama's "Warmonger" policies (didn't Obama win the Nobel "Peace" Prize?) are the ones responsible for our continuing successful execution of the War on Terror! Wait, scratch that. The Democrats and Obama did manage to steer away from Bush policy in one crucial aspect! It is no longer called "War on Terror" under Obama, but an "Overseas Contingency Operation" which indeed nailed Osama Bin Laden. Seems the Democrats are a bit confused. They don't know whether they want to be Muslim-appeasing Jihadist-loving doves ... that changed the name of the "Terror Attacks" to "Man-made Disaters" and of the "War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operations"....or now that Osama Bin Laden has been killed under Obama's watch ... he's all of a sudden no longer the mild-mannered, Marxist, Harvard professor, but "Conan-bama the Barbarian" And they, the Democrats, the "Scourge of Islam" - warriors that kill the people that want to kill us! As Ripley would have put it: "Believe it or not..." ROFL!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
From the camp who voted for against the war, before they voted for it... Seriously- being a democrat is a mental disorder. They do not care what they have to do to steal power.
Which is why the SCOTUS stole the election for Bush and ruled corporations could unanimously give as many dollars as they can to try to steal control of the rest of the government in future elections, right?
Mike- that makes no rational sense at all!
What other type of sense could it have made, Bitsy?
America...My Kind Of Place... You get used to it....(laughing)
I hear you knockin...go back where you been....
Damn right. Shove Bush's 8 years of failures in your Republican faces. Over and over. Bush declared: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Obama never stopped saying he would find and kill Bin Laden. Mission Accomplished. Campaign Promise fulfilled.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
If something makes sense to a metrosexual (war)- is it rational? heh.. lol.. lmpbo.. fdl... ah too much fun..
Except I provided citation that shows exactly what I spoke of.
Wrong. Ever read this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, "? You want the government to shut up corporations from hiring people to speak for them. That would require a law, part of which would be abridging free speech. Those kind of laws aren't allowed.
I am assuming you speak of the dustruction of well crafted campaign spending law here. If you don't control the deep pockets, they buy the government. It doesn't get anymore simpler and obvious as that.
If you don't control the deep pockets, they buy the government. It doesn't get anymore simpler and obvious as that. I'm not going to argue what you say is true or untrue for the moment. But that isn't the point. The point is if the decision Citizens United case was decided according to the words of the constitution.
I disagree. For one thing, I don't buy the concept of corporations as having or deserving to be considered individuals. Second, the elections called for in the U.S. Constitution calls for a choice by the people, not the best candidate money can buy. The purpose of campaign spending law was to keep the vote of the people from being tainted by those who can buy too large a voice in the media buy dropping a money bomb on an election. I know that the American Civil Liberties Union has traditionally agreed with your POV, but even they are speaking up about reconsidering this for the first time after observing the shenanigans of corporate money giving this last election.
The Electoral College just called and called you ignorant.
Doesn't matter. Buildings can't talk. People talk. That would require a law to stop them from speaking. You can't get around that. If you were honest with yourself you would admit it.
That would be a violation of equal protection. If you succeed in taxing all the rich out of existence. It will be that much harder for people to challenge the government.
I'm familiar with how presidential elections are run, but I also know that the president is not the only official the Constitution calls for elections for. And yes, I am aware senators used to be appointed and many people argue that they still should be. But that was a post, not a legal document where I had to frame everything about elections talked about in the U.S. Constitution in such a manner every aspect of them and stipulation was covered. As someone who did qualify as a paralegal and knows his way around a law library, I can do that. But I don't need to, and all too often my posts are too long and chatty anyway. SO I didn't write a tutorial on presidential election process, sue me.
This country was the most prosperous immediately after WW II when the wealth was spread more evenly and people had spending power enough to fuel industry and commerce. I most certainly would not want to tax the rich into extinction, but too much wealth in too few hands kills economic prosparity extremely effectively. However, they do not pay their fair share, and we need to change that. We also need to change the status of corporations from the concept of them as individuals. That has been a legal precedent that has caused intense nightmares in so many aspects of our collective lives, I'd have to write a book to cover this. And one of the things this manner of defining them does is hurt the concept of equal protection under the law. It turns the golden rule into, "He who has most of the gold makes the rules.
If there are enough examples to write a book about it. How about just 5 examples.
Do you know who is the real star is here? Leon Panetta. When he was first nominated CIA Director, everyone was dismissive. I would never want him in any kind of economic or budgetary position because of his big spending views, but he did a GREAT job as CIA director. Yes, Obama deserves credit as well for focusing on bin Laden. Bush could have done this too, but he f'd up by focusing on Sadam.
So then my dog can donate as much money as she likes to the political cause or politician of her choice.
The Republican budget goes after children and the poor. Courage would be going after defense and the rich. Bill Maher
Yes.
To consider a corporation a kind of person for the purpose of law is such an inexact metaphoric fit that it needs to be addressed and changed. Rather than consider a corporation a person who cannot die, be imprisoned, or swear on a deity who created them, corporations should be recognized as something like countries without sovereignty. Think about it, their actions are like the action of a state, rather than a person in that they are collective actions then that of a person. Their crimes are more like something in the nature of war crimes than felonies commited by a human being. I am more of the mind to consider corporate charters as being treaties, and that corporations operate on the sufferance of the *people* upon whose land they sit. This would place corporations on a more constrained level, whose existence carries no implied protections under the constitution of the United States. Much of the worst damage corporations do is indemnified by their state as a fake person. Remove that, and then you redefine the nature of the American economy for the better.
People run corporations. They are responsible for their actions. You didn't answer the question.
Did you just state that you have "pretty balls", Bitsy?
America...My Kind Of Place... No they are not responsible for the actions of corporations. That is why people form corporations rather than a partnership or proprietorship. By doing so, they protect their assets from tort actions. They can't be sued, but the corporate 'person'/entity can. This means people can safely be irresponsible and greedy in how they operate. A corporation generally has a deep pocket and pay to pay in a civil and criminal legal system much more easily and effectively than a person. And that indeed was an appropriate answer for your interrogatory. I am posting in a give and take format and responding to another interlocutor. Were I to be writing an assignment for an instructor, I would want school credit for such effort.
Trust me, I'm way too stubborn to allow another to tell me how to format my responses.
Citizens United was one of the most inane decisions ever rendered by the court and most certainly will be overturned. There are volumes of case law which recognizes that the people running a corporation have an existence, often immune, from the existence of a corporation and its liabilities. Case law has also recognized that a corporation can be altered or abolished by law. People, on the other hand, are either alive or dead. Only the truly stupid believe the decision to be sound.
America...My Kind Of Place... Tell that to Ken Lay.
war take your case law and stick it up your ass. Case law doesn't trump the constitution. NO LAW NO LAW NO LAW
You can hold your breath and stomp your feet too for all I care. A corporation is not a person. You are willing to fight and die for your rights? Tell me how Exxon can do that.
America...My Kind Of Place... It's what I learned in Business Law 101. I got an 'A' in that class.
I don't give either of those oafs credit.
You're the one holding your breath and stomping your feet. The decision is in place and isn't going anywhere. Whine about all you want though. Nothing is changing.
Tell that to Ken Lay.
Is that your response to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
There are plenty of examples if reversal of legal precidents by new rulings overturning old ones. For example, Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 reversed the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896 when the Supreme Court declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
Ken Lay was procecuted for his own securities fraud and other related charges he did within the context of his leadership as CEO for Enron Corp. He would not of been liable for what the entity known as Enron did to cause injury to others outside the preview of that corporation. There is a difference.
In some cases, yes, people who won't, or once shown, don't see the obvious ARE stupid. And compared to Stone calling me and others here a murderer, it's somewhat tame.
America...My Kind Of Place... I rather thought my response to you was tame. Were I to respond in a manner similar to yours I'd have called YOU truly stupid.
America...My Kind Of Place... Ken Lay was convicted of just about everything with which a corporate officer or director could be charged with which is to say that almost all were either related to and included actual insider trading.
America...My Kind Of Place...
Comments (41 - 42) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: diva betsy ross (#1)
"Seriously- being a democrat is a mental disorder. They do not care what they have to do to steal power."
#3. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
#4. To: diva betsy ross (#3)
Mike- that makes no rational sense at all!
#5. To: diva betsy ross (#3)
Mike- that makes no rational sense at all!
#6. To: no gnu taxes, diva betsy ross, Ferret Mike, war (#0)
As Michelle Malkin points out, Democrats are "all in a Twitter" praising Obama and taking all the credit for finally having nailed Osama Bin Laden.
#7. To: war (#4)
(Edited)
#8. To: Badeye (#5)
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
Which is why the SCOTUS stole the election for Bush and ruled corporations could unanimously give as many dollars as they can to try to steal control of the rest of the government in future elections, right?
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
#11. To: Ferret Mike (#10)
I am assuming you speak of the dustruction of well crafted campaign spending law here.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
Second, the elections called for in the U.S. Constitution calls for a choice by the people,
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
I disagree. For one thing, I don't buy the concept of corporations as having or deserving to be considered individuals.
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
the vote of the people from being tainted by those who can buy too large a voice
#16. To: socalv8 (#13)
#17. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
We also need to change the status of corporations from the concept of them as individuals. That has been a legal precedent that has caused intense nightmares in so many aspects of our collective lives, I'd have to write a book to cover this.
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#20. To: A K A Stone (#9)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, "?
#21. To: lucysmom (#20)
So then my dog can donate as much money as she likes to the political cause or politician of her choice.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#18)
#23. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
#24. To: diva betsy ross (#7)
lmpbo..
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#25)
No they are not responsible for the actions of corporations.
#29. To: war (#27)
There are volumes of case law
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#32. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
This, of course, without giving Bush - who set in place the policies that have kept us safe since 9/11, which Obama has been forced by the reality on the ground to uphold almost to the letter in spite of all his campaign promises, and that ultimately made the extermination of Bin Laden possible - any credit...you know, that "oaf " Bush!
#33. To: war (#30)
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
It's what I learned in Business Law 101. I got an 'A' in that class.
#35. To: war (#27)
Only the truly stupid
#36. To: A K A Stone (#33)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)
#38. To: We The People (#35)
#39. To: A K A Stone (#33)
#40. To: A K A Stone (#34)
(Edited)
Tell that to Ken Lay.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]