|
|
| Dan |
quote:
2000monkey wrote:
McCain will win if he gets that nasty abscess taken off his face.
Hopefully the special prosecuter law will be re-enacted and they can investigate the hell out of him. Just because. |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
I could live with a Cindy as first lady.
Mrs. Obama is too tall.
And Bill as the the first first man?
|
|
|
| CrissCrossMind |
Gypsy or Cindy ... tough choice ... oo))- |
|
|
| Joey |
" Gypsy or Cindy ... tough choice ... oo))- "
< -- Really ?!
You tell 'em Lil' Fella ( Lil' Fijikins )
|
|
|
| Scottfree |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Then the President should follow the Constitution (remember that piece of paper?) and declare it. Congress will not declare it, so we have the GOP perverting the Law and the Vision of the Framers. Friggin' unpatriotic right wing loonies like them would be much more at home in North Korea...
Kosovo? |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Scottfree wrote:
Kosovo?
LOL! Don't confuse him with facts!
Hell, not only was Kosovo never a declared war, but neither was The Gulf War, The Vietnam War, or The Korean War! In fact the last declared war in US history was WWII.
Jizzbot just likes to pretend that Bush is somehow subverting the US Constitution by going to war in Iraq. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The President can't declare war anyway. LOL! Only the Congress can declare war as per the very same Constitution that Jizzy trys to use in his faulty argument. The President can only request a declaration of war. The Congress must approve the request, and then pass it into law first though. This is what the Congress did back in 1941 before FDR stood in front of the entire Congress and country made that famous Declaration Of War after the Peral Harbor attack.
Yet Bush did in fact, request permission to respond with military action against Iraq after Saddam thumbed his nose to the entire world via 17 seperate UN resolutions. They gave him bipartisan support to engage Iraq. This little fact is seemingly still lost on Jizzy.
There are many very good reasons not to declare war anyway. It's a red herring argument, and Jizzy knows it.
Riffy |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
fighting a war without declaring war is certainly not what the Framers had in mind, but military statists like Rifftard keft the Framers behind long ago and now look to big government domination as their lodestar...why a declaration of War, besides that it is required...one example, the status of those incarcerated at Guantanomo would be clarified--they would prisoners of WAR and not just those in US custody who are entitled to many more rights...you want those taken captive to be treated like the Shrub administration wants, than you should want a declaration of War....in the meantime, the Constitution and Federal Law gets shredded by the exigencies deemed needed by those here captivated by Mideast politcs... |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Once United Technologies acquires Diebold we won't have a Constitution to worry about anymore. The IRS will be abolished and we'll all send 33% of our paychecks directly to UTX! |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Firstly I could give two shits about those held at Gitmo. Please show me a terrorist camp that holds US POWs. You can't. Because when US troops or civilians are captured by these animals they are either killed outright or held captive until a dramatic beheading can be arranged to rally the troops of these zealot fucks. So you'll have to forgive me if my heart does not bleed at their fate in Gitmo while they recieve three hots and a cott. Not to mention their little Mien Kampf in the form of the Koran and a linen head covering. In other words. Fuck em.
Which brings us to another very salient point about why it wise not to declare war on them. That would legally bind us to treaties which they themselves are not binded to. See Jizzstain this is why you can't point to any US POWs. Because they don't take prisoners. They kill them. Yet you want us to abide by a treaty just to show that we have good faith?! That's fucking pretty goddamned rich right there!
Leave it Jizzstain to try and place the guilt squarely on the USA, and a President which he openly hates, by trying to imply that it is us rather than the terrorists that are the ones in the wrong here.
Again. Fuck em. Fuck em hard.
Riffy
|
|
|
| sirmoonie |
The only thing higher than my IQ is my sperm count. |
|
|
| moonies sperm |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
The only thing higher than my IQ is my sperm count.
Word! |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Again. Fuck em. Fuck em hard.
Amazing...he foamed on for an entire paragraph without ever addressing what was said, but rather what he wished had been said...and that's why he's rifftard.....'reading is fundamantal' 'tard |
|
|
| Scottfree |
quote:
moonies sperm wrote:
Word!
Hall of fame variety post.... |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
The retard is not even in office yet and he costing American's jobs...
Pelosi points finger at McCain on Boeing
By James Politi and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: March 7 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 7 2008 02:00
The controversy over the Pentagon decision to award a $35bn refuelling tanker contract to EADS spilled into the presidential race yesterday, when a senior Democrat suggested that John McCain, the Republican nominee, was responsible for the deal being "outsourced" to a European company.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, said Boeing had been on course to supply the US Air Force with tankers until Mr McCain "intervened".
"My understanding is that it was on course for Boeing before. I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it," Ms Pelosi told reporters.
"Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be - this work may be outsourced."
The air force originally chose Boeing to supply it with 100 tankers. But Congress cancelled the deal after it emerged that Darleen Druyun, a former top air force acquisitions official, had held illegal job discussions with Boeing while still negotiating the deal. Ms Druyun admitted boosting the value of the deal to help Boeing.
Mr McCain has pointed to his aggressive investigation into the Boeing deal as evidence that he is willing to stand up to powerful corporate interests.
The tanker scandal claimed the career of former Boeing chief executive Phil Condit. Ms Druyun and Mike Sears, Boeing's former chief financial officer, were sent to jail.
The suggestion by Ms Pelosi came as Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill opened a new line of attack against the deal, which ultimately could be worth more than $100bn as the air force replaces its entire fleet of about 600 in-flight refuelling tankers.
Pat Roberts, a Republican senator from Kansas, where Boeing has a strong presence, claimed the decision to award the deal to EADS and Northrop Grumman, its US partner, ran counter to US trade policy.
Mr Roberts said the decision "defies common sense" because the US was pursuing a subsidies case against Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, at the World Trade Organisation.
"This is an outrage. It truly makes me question our trade agenda," the Kansas senator told the Senate finance committee.
Mr Roberts' attack follows a spate of criticism in Congress. The decision stunned most analysts, who expected Boeing, which has supplied the US military with in-flight refuelling tankers for five decades, to win.
Boeing will have 10 days to lodge a protest with the Government Accountability Office, the oversight arm of Congress, after it receives an air force briefing. |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Amazing...he foamed on for an entire paragraph without ever addressing what was said, but rather what he wished had been said...and that's why he's rifftard.....'reading is fundamantal' 'tard
You are, once again, as you always are, wrong. I know what you said, but I, being a good judge of character, also know what you really meant. You meant that President Bush somehow subverted the law by not declaring war on Iraq. You meant that the Islamic Jihadists held in Gitmo are a great tool for hammering Bush on this very issue. Not that you really give two flying fucks about these animals, that would just as soon kill you and your entire family, but rather you like to use them as a device to once again attack a President that a partisan hack like yourself can't stand.
You fancy yourself a pretty smart guy for some reason. However, you have yet to address the fact that no Declaration of War has been made since WWII. That means that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton have all entered into a state of war with various nations, and have done the exact same thing that Bush did. Yet, from you? Nothing. These Presidents don't enter into your sphere of hatred because you are a partisan hack. You can't have a civil disagreement with anyone for this very reason.
I, and no doubt most on this board, find it amusing that a supposed high powered attorney like yourself from Rhode Island repeatedly gets his ass handed to him by a radio personality. If I chose to go into law I would wipe the floor with you Jizzstain. That is a stone cold fact. You are the Board Pariah plain and simple. You have once again been dispatched.
Riffy |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
moonies sperm wrote:
Word!
Hey there, little guys!
Wow, I finally got one of those mocking alias type dealies. I don't know whether to be flattered or freaked. Or both. Or neither! Help me, help help me, Starbash. It was just a late night joke!
Anyways, alls I be knowing is its friday in white upper-class white suburbia of white. Yup, weekend alcohol abuse is nigh on the calendar - the great social compact we "3rd ringers" have made with the Invisible Hand for our toils. |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
You fancy yourself a pretty smart guy for some reason. However, you have yet to address the fact that no Declaration of War has been made since WWII. That means that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton have all entered into a state of war with various nations, and have done the exact same thing that Bush did. Yet, from you? Nothing.
You never asked you dumb fascist huckster. They all deserve condemnation, a concept a party hack like you would not grasp. Bringing up such side issues not in dispute to mask you ignorance of the subject at hand seems to be your 'modus operandi'. That is rather typical of your ilk.
>>>>>I would wipe the floor with you
[/quote]
In your dreams, weenie tot, now go back to selling pimple cream and playing censored classics....you wouldn't make it past your first month of law school based on what you display here...shit, you could not even get into an unaccredited night program, Readingisfundamantaltard!!
[Edited by lotsajizz] |
|
