Hypocrisy Alerts!

[Comet]

Constitution vs Patriot Act!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! View that AMERICA! IGNORAMOUSES!

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Feingold was the only one with titanium balls who looked at the PATRIOT Act at a time like 9/11 and still vetoed it because it violated the constitution.

 

[Comet]

Feingold was the only one with titanium balls who looked at the PATRIOT Act at a time like 9/11 and still vetoed it because it violated the constitution.

SOME OF US STILL BELIVEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION! UGH...... politics + stupid masses = chaos and NO FREEDOM!

 

[zer0]

SOME OF US STILL BELIVEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION! UGH...... politics + stupid masses = chaos and NO FREEDOM!

That should be the first thing we learn in math.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The company that owns the Deepwater Horizon oil rig is Transocean Ltd. You remember, the rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico last year, killing 11 people immediately, spilling 200 million gallons of oil, costing untold amounts of money, killing dolphins and other sea life, and causing major ruin and destruction on the gulf coast. The company that — along with BP and Halliburton — was blamed by the presidential commission investigating the spill for making too many money-saving measures that resulted in an unacceptable amount of risk. Yeah, those guys.
Well, they just awarded their top executives big bonuses for achieving the “best year in safety performance in our company’s history” and for “significantly improving the company’s safety record”. I kid you not. They had the balls to claim that the company has an “exemplary” safety record.






-Source: Political Irony.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

In the small town of Mt. Vernon, Texas, the local bar started to build a new building to increase business. The town’s Baptist church was strongly opposed, and attempted to block the opening of the new bar with petitions and prayer. Just before the bar opened their prayers were answered — lightning struck and the new bar burned to the ground.
The bar owner sued the church, claiming that they were responsible for the loss of his business. At the end of the hearing, the judge commented “I don’t know how I’m going to decide this, but it appears from the paperwork that we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not.”


-Source: political irony.



Lol, that made me laugh:biglaugh:

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What did we ever do before the Innertubes allowed us to instantly figure out when someone was lying to us. Here’s a case in point.
Last week, Donald Trump appeared on Fox News and praised Reagan as one of the presidents he admired most.

HANNITY: Who are our past presidents that you admire most?
TRUMP: Well, I really like and knew a little bit Ronald Reagan, and I really liked him. You know, not only his policies, smart guy and so much smarter, you know, I always sort of have to laugh to myself when people try and criticize that level of intelligence. And I loved his style. I loved what he represented. … I thought he represented something very special for this county.
​

But in the last year of the Reagan administration, on page 60 of his book “Art of the Deal”, Trump used Reagan as an example of someone who could con people, but couldn’t deliver the goods.

You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on. [...] Ronald Reagan is another example. He is so smooth and so effective a performer that he completely won over the American people. Only now, nearly seven years later, are people beginning to question whether there’s anything beneath that smile.
- source Political Irony.

​

 

[horizon_mj1]

Sigh* some more military hater crap

Don't you know it's wrong to do your job?

 

[horizon_mj1]

Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What did we ever do before the Innertubes allowed us to instantly figure out when someone was lying to us. Here’s a case in point.
Last week, Donald Trump appeared on Fox News and praised Reagan as one of the presidents he admired most.

HANNITY: Who are our past presidents that you admire most?
TRUMP: Well, I really like and knew a little bit Ronald Reagan, and I really liked him. You know, not only his policies, smart guy and so much smarter, you know, I always sort of have to laugh to myself when people try and criticize that level of intelligence. And I loved his style. I loved what he represented. … I thought he represented something very special for this county.
​

But in the last year of the Reagan administration, on page 60 of his book “Art of the Deal”, Trump used Reagan as an example of someone who could con people, but couldn’t deliver the goods.

You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on. [...] Ronald Reagan is another example. He is so smooth and so effective a performer that he completely won over the American people. Only now, nearly seven years later, are people beginning to question whether there’s anything beneath that smile.
- source Political Irony.

​

Lol! As long as people forget what he says, he'd make a good president (just throw in some political education and there you go!)

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

 

[Revoltingest]

SOME OF US STILL BELIVEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION! UGH...... politics + stupid masses = chaos and NO FREEDOM!

Yer off there, young fella.
Politics + Stupid Masses = Control & Order & No Freedom

 

[Revoltingest]

Do some supporters of Obamacare support it only for others?

Health Care Law | San Francisco | Nancy Pelosi | The Daily Caller

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Do some supporters of Obamacare support it only for others?

Health Care Law | San Francisco | Nancy Pelosi | The Daily Caller

Heh. I didn't know that. Thanks for posting!

 

[gnomon]

Well, Friday is the deadline for any military action by the US in Libya as described by the War Powers Act. If the US continues strikes without any legislation from Congress, essentially the Executive continues on its own, than Obama could be called a hypocrite. But there is still time to see what politicking takes place in the US and between the US and NATO between now and then.

However, I call Obama a hypocrite based on his policies implied by his statements, and Eric Holder's, on the issue of States with legal medical marijuana. Delaware just passed a law allowing 6 oz. possession of marijuana for medical purposes and the joke is that Delaware is the latest State to open itself up to federal raids.

 

[Revoltingest]

The man who would be president blames his mistress for his downfall....
John Edwards rages at mistress Rielle Hunter for not destroying sex tape | Mail Online

 

[gnomon]

Obama's time under the War Powers Act has expired.

This will probably not make a major news story. Though it should be the biggest news story this week. I predict a cadre of left wing politicians and their supporters to take the side of the administration of unilateral intervention for "humanitarian" reasons and thus allowing for the continued military engagement of US forces in Libya. And I predict the right winger establishment will of course challenge Obama on this but they will not push the Constitutional argument as much because, frankly, if the people just continue to laze about and allow yet another POTUS to ignore part of the law than that means future Presidents can do the same.

 

[linwood]

Obama's time under the War Powers Act has expired.

This will probably not make a major news story. Though it should be the biggest news story this week. I predict a cadre of left wing politicians and their supporters to take the side of the administration of unilateral intervention for "humanitarian" reasons and thus allowing for the continued military engagement of US forces in Libya. And I predict the right winger establishment will of course challenge Obama on this but they will not push the Constitutional argument as much because, frankly, if the people just continue to laze about and allow yet another POTUS to ignore part of the law than that means future Presidents can do the same.

I was under the belief that American forces in Libya were acting under UN mandate.

If they are the war powers act doesn`t apply, I don`t think.

Am I incorrect in this belief?

 

[gnomon]

I was under the belief that American forces in Libya were acting under UN mandate.

If they are the war powers act doesn`t apply, I don`t think.

Am I incorrect in this belief?

I honestly don't think constitutional scholars have worked out exactly what all a President can do under the War Powers Act or what exactly Congress can do about it when the POTUS simply ignores it.

As far as whether or not our troops are under the command of the UN or NATO I think Congress takes it that all our military forces and action remain under US law. The War Powers Act makes no distinction between whether we use our military troops under the command of an allied organization only the use of military forces outside the borders of the United States.

So as far as I understand it the President cannot simply give military troops to the UN without adhering to US Constitutional law and that current law makes no distinction between what command our troops are placed under.

But I might be wrong about that. Given that Obama has asked Congress to extend the use of force pursuant to the requirement of the War Powers Act I can only assume that the UN mandate is ultimately irrelevant to Constitutional law.

Of course, this all means nothing if Congress and Obama just really don't care either way.

edit: Further looking shows I don't know as much as I did. Obama has sent a letter asking for a resolution on the use of force in Libya. If Congress doesn't approve he has basically until June 21st, I think, to withdraw any US military personnel from the conflict. There is an option to allow for an extended time if necessary for a safe withdrawal however we are only conducting an air campaign thus military forces could be withdrawn very easily in the 30 day withdrawal time limit. That this route has so far been taken by Obama, seeking a resolution, gives the appearance that our air campaign must still comply with the War Powers Act. Of course, this doesn't rule out that both the Executive and the Legislative branches are merely giving a show in this point and that the intention is to stick with the no fly zone aspect of the UN mandate which, in that it does not call for the removal of Qadafi, could last indefinitely.

edit: And in any event it appears I should have posted this in a different thread rather than the hypocrisy one.

 

[Kathryn]

September 2008 - Senator Obama on the campaign trail:
“Senator McCain’s first answer to the economic crisis was . . . get ready for this . . . a commission. That’s Washington-speak for ‘we’ll get back to you later.’ Folks we don’t need a commission to spend a few years and a lot of taxpayer money, to tell us what’s going on in our economy.”

February 18, 2010 press release from the White House:
“President Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.”

 

[Comet]

Good Ole' Obama just signed a 4 year extention of the Patriot Act!!!!! WOW! Never thought it would happen.... WOW! Good-bye health care? YEP... now good-bye FREEDOM as well... yet again... WOW!