I think Glenn Beck Will Have a Real Breakdown Very Soon!!

[Philbert]

Ahem...err...if they are mere advisors and he's the ultimate policy maker....how again are they to "control" things???

We obviously know no POTUS can be an expert on ALL things...NOR can we reasonably expect any POTUS to be pouring over the minutia of every issue small or large for which he may set policy over. Ergo, he as all Presidents has a cabinet and advisors.

We indirectly approved of his judgement to make such appointments when he was elected by majority last Nov.

NOW....if you REALLY care one iota about shadow policy making I don't know how you conveniently overlook the almost criminal nexus between Cheney, KBR, Frank Carlucci, The Carlyle Group, Rumsfeld, "advisors" like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and the Bush's with respect to dummying up the Iraq war.

BTW, if Obama's is making all these non transparent moves....how on earth do YOU know about them???

Also congress passed the stimulus....

How is it you seem to keep missing the equation...Obama says go get'em, they do so,however they think it will best serve their worldview...they have his go ahead and can defacto be in control with his basic confering his power to them. Like borrowing a car...it ain't yours, but you can legally drive it around like it was.
Is that easier for you to see?
The Iraq War...the one all the Dems backed with up votes and later said it wasn't me, musta bin that other fella? What about it? Is that all you can see, the stuff done way before...while the shit is lapping at your ankles you can only see what is behind you? You are quite a bit more foolish than I thought, seems to me...
Another headshaker...how do I know what he's doing if I don't get secret emails from Obama the One?
Just rest your brain, don't even think about how anyone knows anything they don't see happen or receive emails from the Prez when he does something...just rest easy and call me a GOPer 'cause I watch Fox. You seem to feel better with easy and homogenous descriptions of things as they are...like no one watches Fox and CNN in the same night...which would make them ignorant Indies, right? Probably...
I hope your meds work well and keep the rest of us safe...:rofl:

 

[Hot Mega]

Yet Obama and his king's/Czars/Advisors/Comrades whatever basicly do not believe in the constitution anyway so what is there to stop them from strong arming this counrty and its people. Wake up man they are seizing more and more power everyday. Reciently Obama wants to send the national guard down to the border for the excelating violence. Thought that is why we have the DEA and Border partol? Drug violence is a major problem in ever major city, but I dont see the gurad in NYC, LA, DC, Detroit etc... We have police forces for this reason.

The Army National Guard may be called up for active duty by the state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[1] I don't see where it says its the police force in the drug war.

With the consent of state governors, members or units of the Army National Guard may be appointed, temporarily or indefinitely, to be federally recognized armed force members, in the active or inactive service of the United States


The President may also call up members and units of state Army National Guard, with the consent of state governors, to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute federal laws if the United States or any of its states or territories are invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there's a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government, or if the President is unable with the regular armed forces to execute the laws of the United States

See it says with the govenors CONSENT. Also another part he must first moblize the regular army before tapping into the national guard. Or his "advisors" can just pressure the governors to give in i.e. strong arm till they get what they want. next thing you know put up a socialist poster of Obama and say hello to Gitmo oops thats closed I ment somewhere in Michigan with all the other domestic terrorist, cause the real ones were released and are partying with Quaddafi :lovecoupl

My man...you are so lost on a variety of issues it's pretty frightening if you are representative of the people who listen to Beck, Hannity, etc.

Never mind the fact that the consideration is to utilize the National Guard to relieve the US Border Patrol from the more menial tasks they perform in order for them to focus more on interdiction and apprehension.

Why couldn't the deployment simply be considered to fall under these purposes?? "..to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute federal laws if the United States or any of its states or territories are invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there's a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government, or if the President is unable with the regular armed forces to execute the laws of the United States."

Certainly if the drug war is spilling over our border wouldn't that fall under the "repel invasion, suppress rebellion, etc." condition??? If not, why not??

History has shown that the National Guard has been deployed to suppress riots EVEN THOUGH there are local law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction....Explain the difference???

Again for the final time....Czars have NO AUTHORITY!!!! How then are they supposed to strong arm ANYTHING????

 

[jasonk282]

The drug war has been in our borders for years decades even. The war on drugs started in the 80's, they knew where they were comming from just that Regan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 never moblized the national guard to be the nations police force. We have the DEA, FBI and Border Patrol for that. And you missing the point that the guard can only be mobolized with the CONSENT of the governor of the state. POTUS does not have the constitutional authority to use the national guard at his whim and will.


http://open.salon.com/blog/djohn/2009/06/05/obamas_czars this article flat out says
"Make no mistake, he knows exactly what he is doing. This is a first-rate power grab by a power-hungry President. You see the great thing about czar's is that they operate with impunity and they are "under the radar" when it comes to making policy. They are accountable to nobody, except the administration.

So in effect we have NON-ELECTED officials, who are backed by The White House, who are given the tools and resources to do the bidding of the President and they are accountable to NO ONE! These czar's don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, they just get appointed.

So as long as we are going to be serving all of these "kings" we should at least know who they are. In case we need to bow to them at some point. The following is a list of Obama's Czar's/Kings:"

So HM I was wrong the czars answer to the adminstration and to Obama and his leftwing revoluntaries only.

 

[Facetious]

^ Archive pertaining to "the drug war" - "Good" Read .

It's worse than I thought :o

 

[Facetious]

Again for the final time....Czars have NO AUTHORITY!!!! How then are they supposed to strong arm ANYTHING????

On paper

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

The drug war has been in our borders for years decades even. The war on drugs started in the 80's, they knew where they were comming from just that Regan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 never moblized the national guard to be the nations police force. We have the DEA, FBI and Border Patrol for that. And you missing the point that the guard can only be mobolized with the CONSENT of the governor of the state. POTUS does not have the constitutional authority to use the national guard at his whim and will.


http://open.salon.com/blog/djohn/2009/06/05/obamas_czars this article flat out says
"Make no mistake, he knows exactly what he is doing. This is a first-rate power grab by a power-hungry President. You see the great thing about czar's is that they operate with impunity and they are "under the radar" when it comes to making policy. They are accountable to nobody, except the administration.

So in effect we have NON-ELECTED officials, who are backed by The White House, who are given the tools and resources to do the bidding of the President and they are accountable to NO ONE! These czar's don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, they just get appointed.

So as long as we are going to be serving all of these "kings" we should at least know who they are. In case we need to bow to them at some point. The following is a list of Obama's Czar's/Kings:"

So HM I was wrong the czars answer to the adminstration and to Obama and his leftwing revoluntaries only.

Actually they have not. Until the Mexicans Drug Groups, which at first were just low paid mules, finally figured out that they could control the supply to the U.S. from Central America. They then became the direct source to our borders.

The Mexican government has been at war. Whole Cities and towns have been torn apart in the past few years. Now it is spilling over to Laredo and the border towns.

So who cares who initates more law enforcement along the border? National Guard, DEA, ATF, CIA? People who live in those areas, Americans have had their communities disrupted due to the overspill.

I love how we spend valuable resources in Iraq or Afghanistan, which both are unwinnable overall, but somewhat a POTUS spends resources that are not being untilized along our true borders and directly affect our day to day lives and that is a mistake.

 

[jasonk282]

Actually they have not. Until the Mexicans Drug Groups, which at first were just low paid mules, finally figured out that they could control the supply to the U.S. from Central America. They then became the direct source to our borders.

The Mexican government has been at war. Whole Cities and towns have been torn apart in the past few years. Now it is spilling over to Laredo and the border towns.

So who cares who initates more law enforcement along the border? National Guard, DEA, ATF, CIA? People who live in those areas, Americans have had their communities disrupted due to the overspill.

I love how we spend valuable resources in Iraq or Afghanistan, which both are unwinnable overall, but somewhat a POTUS spends resources that are not being untilized along our true borders and directly affect our day to day lives and that is a mistake.

I never said it was a mistake. I simple said that he does not have the constitutional authortiy to use the national guard in that manner. Now if he wanted to take the 3rd Corps of the US Army from Ft. Hood Tx and place them on the border thats is fully his constitutional right to do so.

And yes the Mexican cartels have not been in America before, but Reagan declared a war or drugs in the 80's when crack and cocain were ramped in places like Miami and La. So the war on drugs has been going on for over 20 years also which is unwinnable.

 

[Hot Mega]

The drug war has been in our borders for years decades even. The war on drugs started in the 80's, they knew where they were comming from just that Regan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 never moblized the national guard to be the nations police force. We have the DEA, FBI and Border Patrol for that. And you missing the point that the guard can only be mobolized with the CONSENT of the governor of the state. POTUS does not have the constitutional authority to use the national guard at his whim and will.

You should look up the chain of command for the NGB. Further though, never before has the escalation of violence by foreign nationals in the drug war encroached upon our borders. Therefore, unprecedented circumstances sometimes require unprecedented measures.

http://open.salon.com/blog/djohn/2009/06/05/obamas_czars this article flat out says
"Make no mistake, he knows exactly what he is doing. This is a first-rate power grab by a power-hungry President. You see the great thing about czar's is that they operate with impunity and they are "under the radar" when it comes to making policy. They are accountable to nobody, except the administration.

So in effect we have NON-ELECTED officials, who are backed by The White House, who are given the tools and resources to do the bidding of the President and they are accountable to NO ONE! These czar's don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, they just get appointed.

Just another goofy, hyperbolic off-based opinion by another Obama hater...

Apparently this fool doesn't understand that EVERYONE the POTUS employs with the exception of his VP is unelected and accountable only to him. You apparently don't know better either. Sheesh.

So as long as we are going to be serving all of these "kings" we should at least know who they are. In case we need to bow to them at some point. The following is a list of Obama's Czar's/Kings:"

So HM I was wrong the czars answer to the adminstration and to Obama and his leftwing revoluntaries only.

Well apparently you forgot your claim that they weren't accountable to anyone but themselves. I see you changed that notion but even in so doing you forgot the reality that EVERYONE who works for the POTUS answers only to the administration. When has it ever been different???

 

[Mrs Jolly]

I find it pretty strange that Color of Change came out to call Glenn Beck racist when the co-founder of Color of Change Van Jones is actually one of Obama's Czars and a self admitting Communist after the 1992 Rodney King verdict. He later got involved in STORM and was going to creat a "multiracial socialist utopia".
Van Jones also wokred for Moveon.org as well.

Obama's czars answer to no one but themselves. I would love to find out other that have such a revoluntary background as Van Jones. Kinda like how the FCC Czar is praising Chavez for his revolution.

In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

"And we've had complaints about this ever since."

Yea cause the property owners and media rebelled becuase the goverment was SEIZEING their property.

People like these two are in control and making decisions that affenct our life. Just Amazing

This kind of posting neatly sums up the problems that arise when an audience member of a partisan, circus sideshow mistakes the style and tone of that forum for real debate and argument. What do I mean? Well try to stay with me.......

Paragraph one. You find it strange that the organization Color Of Change have called Glenn Beck out as a racist. This is after Mr Beck, in a well publicised and highly disparaged remark, stated that he firmly believed a sitting US president was a racist. Apparently (and I'm guessing here because the structure of the sentence is chronically poor) this disquiet on your part has something to do with a member of the Color of Change organization possibly being a communist. Rodney King is also mentioned - I have no idea why. One is forced to deduce that the author of this twaddle is of the belief that, an organization containing a communist disbars that organization from having an opinion on matters of racism. Or if they do have an opinion, it is somehow a "strange" occurence. For the life of me I am unable to see the connection. You might as well say that it is "strange" for candlestick makers to have an opinion about mousetraps. Or Africans to opine about bicycles. Also the gentleman named Van Jones worked for Moveon.org and did something with something called STORM. I don't know what and I don't know why. However, it must be important as it has been included in the explosive opening paragraph.

Paragraph two. Obama's czars are not married as they answer to, "no one but themselves." That's nice. What that has got to do with any of the preceeding? Don't ask me. One of them has a "revoluntary" background. I'm guessing that this is meant to be "revolutionary" but there is no description supplied of any revolutionary acts (ie evidence) so once again, who knows what the author is aiming at? Someone at the FCC is "praising Chavez for his revolution." Looks like everything is nice and clear and in context then.

Paragraph three. You could call it a free standing pair of sentences about Chavez and Venezuela. You could also call it gibberish.

Paragraph four. It begins as a quote, from whom I have no idea, to whom I also have no idea. In response to what inquiry? Who knows?

Paragraph five. Is a quote. Someone has been getting complaints. So that's nice and clear then.

Paragraph six. Incoherent ramblings. I'm sensing a stab at irony. For some reason the phrase, "like wet spaghetti," resonates through my mind.

Paragraph seven. The conclusion. Two people are in charge and making decisions. It does not say if it is Beck and Chavez. That is quite a pairing if it is true.


So there we have it. I'm all for giving a million monkeys a typewriter and sitting back to examine the evidence. I guess we are still waiting for the new shakespeare to manifest itself.

On a slighty more serious note. You appear to have a desire to investigate public figures for signs of radicalism and communism. I recall a senator from Wisconsin with similar aims. Nice to see that you want to follow in such distinguished footsteps.

 

[jasonk282]

This kind of posting neatly sums up the problems that arise when an audience member of a partisan, circus sideshow mistakes the style and tone of that forum for real debate and argument. What do I mean? Well try to stay with me.......

Paragraph one. You find it strange that the organization Color Of Change have called Glenn Beck out as a racist. This is after Mr Beck, in a well publicised and highly disparaged remark, stated that he firmly believed a sitting US president was a racist. Apparently (and I'm guessing here because the structure of the sentence is chronically poor) this disquiet on your part has something to do with a member of the Color of Change organization possibly being a communist. Rodney King is also mentioned - I have no idea why. One is forced to deduce that the author of this twaddle is of the belief that, an organization containing a communist disbars that organization from having an opinion on matters of racism. Or if they do have an opinion, it is somehow a "strange" occurence. For the life of me I am unable to see the connection. You might as well say that it is "strange" for candlestick makers to have an opinion about mousetraps. Or Africans to opine about bicycles. Also the gentleman named Van Jones worked for Moveon.org and did something with something called STORM. I don't know what and I don't know why. However, it must be important as it has been included in the explosive opening paragraph.

Paragraph two. Obama's czars are not married as they answer to, "no one but themselves." That's nice. What that has got to do with any of the preceeding? Don't ask me. One of them has a "revoluntary" background. I'm guessing that this is meant to be "revolutionary" but there is no description supplied of any revolutionary acts (ie evidence) so once again, who knows what the author is aiming at? Someone at the FCC is "praising Chavez for his revolution." Looks like everything is nice and clear and in context then.

Paragraph three. You could call it a free standing pair of sentences about Chavez and Venezuela. You could also call it gibberish.

Paragraph four. It begins as a quote, from whom I have no idea, to whom I also have no idea. In response to what inquiry? Who knows?

Paragraph five. Is a quote. Someone has been getting complaints. So that's nice and clear then.

Paragraph six. Incoherent ramblings. I'm sensing a stab at irony. For some reason the phrase, "like wet spaghetti," resonates through my mind.

Paragraph seven. The conclusion. Two people are in charge and making decisions. It does not say if it is Beck and Chavez. That is quite a pairing if it is true.


So there we have it. I'm all for giving a million monkeys a typewriter and sitting back to examine the evidence. I guess we are still waiting for the new shakespeare to manifest itself.

On a slighty more serious note. You appear to have a desire to investigate public figures for signs of radicalism and communism. I recall a senator from Wisconsin with similar aims. Nice to see that you want to follow in such distinguished footsteps.

:dunno: your point? I don't speak or write as well as you?:dunno:
When the people that are advising this president have clear radicalist and communist ideas I think we should investigate them before it's to late. If Bush was appointing "czars" that had clear rightwing radical and nationalism ideas he would be strung up. Liberals are pissed cause the republicans and independants are calling "bullshit". This is not change it's more of the same.

 

[Hot Mega]

:dunno: your point? I don't speak or write as well as you?:dunno:
When the people that are advising this president have clear radicalist and communist ideas I think we should investigate them before it's to late. If Bush was appointing "czars" that had clear rightwing radical and nationalism ideas he would be strung up. Liberals are pissed cause the republicans and independants are calling "bullshit". This is not change it's more of the same.

Bush appoints "advisors" who exploited 9/11 and coaxed us into a war with Iraq. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld all had one agenda item for the Bush presidency...invade Iraq facts be damned.

We shouldn't have gone there in the first place but even in so doing, Gen. Shinseki told these idiots what force was necessary in theater to not only route the Baathist but to then stabilize the country.

His recommendations were dismissed by Wolfowitz...and Wolfowitz and Perle's advice was used. Men with ZERO military background

With all the lives and ransom lost, don't you think it's worth a little bit of your time to investigate?????

As opposed to some guy Obama puts in place to keep track of the bailouts for example????

 

[Nasophilia]

That dude gets pretty emotional when he talks.

 

[Facial_King]

Following his own logic, he seems to plainly admit that he's a racist here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tgvWxC_6A&feature=related

Also, he's dumb as a stump (this vid is quite funny!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0OUXkZO8vE

 

[Hot Mega]

Following his own logic, he seems to plainly admit that he's a racist here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tgvWxC_6A&feature=related

Also, he's dumb as a stump (this vid is quite funny!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0OUXkZO8vE

:rofl2: What a :jester:

Missing one letter huh?????? "OLIGARH" :rofl: The "one" letter missing was "Y"??? Just one letter???

The fool is losing it....

Ratings??? Hell, I'd watch this live meltdown night after night for these kinds of laughs.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

:dunno: your point? I don't speak or write as well as you?:dunno:
When the people that are advising this president have clear radicalist and communist ideas I think we should investigate them before it's to late. If Bush was appointing "czars" that had clear rightwing radical and nationalism ideas he would be strung up. Liberals are pissed cause the republicans and independants are calling "bullshit". This is not change it's more of the same.

Well, yes and no. It is not a question of camparing writing styles it was aquestion of it not making any sense. Lot's of anger and trepidation not much detail. You really do have to lay out your train of thought in a more logical and coherent manner. Otherwise, you just generate more heat than light. You really do owe it to yourself to proof read for basic grammar and spelling, sure we all make mistakes - it is only a porno forum for crying out loud - but if you are making a serious point and the errors change the meaning, well you can leave yourself open to teasing.

Just as importantly, you have to support your declarations. The answer above is a good example. The United States has already tried to investigate communists and remove them from participation in civic life. It was called a witch hunt and was headed by Joe McCarthy. It was widely regarded as a dark and shameful episode in American government. It is not enough for you to just say we should investigate people and then walk away from the statement. Tell us how you would do this and not have a system that would rapidly degenerate into the worst excesses of blackmail and cronyism? Again, details and evidence. You may perhaps expand on how isolated individuals with communist leanings will leverage these positions to mount a coup or some such passing. Do you have some theory about a possible fifth column?

You also openly state that if Bush had tried some of the manoeuvres exhibited by the Obama administration he would have been "strung up." Now that really is a kind of tabloid TV statement. You obviously believe it, so I would ask you for an example of a specific occurence on which you base this opinion. ie Bush attempting to bring in personnel that were blocked by the democrats. Do not include the woefully under qualified Harriet Miers - please. (I should also point out that I believe that Karl Rove did more to politicise the attorney general's office than any other administration.) I can supply plenty of examples upon request.

 

[jasonk282]

Your right I said "if" Bush did this. I never said Bush did or here are examples of what Bush did. I said "if" plain and simple. Like I said before Liberals are getting made because Republicans are openly asking questions that the media won't ask.

Even when Obama began to name his cabinet nominees it appeared he would govern as a moderate, with centralists such as Leon Panetta at CIA, Bush appointee Gates at Defense, or even Hillary Clinton at State, for that matter.

However, one has to look at what Obama is doing beneath the surface in order to understand his true objectives. Ever since taking office, Obama has been appointing 'czars' who are charged with overseeing key policy initiatives, such as the 'car czar' who supervised the government takeover of General Motors.

Obama has surrounded himself with over 50 advisors, czars, 'officers,' and other appointees who represent the most radical far-left element in the country today.

Why does he need these people when he has a Cabinet? Why does he need extra 'oversight' of programs when Congress is charged with that responsibility?

I would like to postulate a theory,as Obama continues to add czars, officers, and advisors who are not approved by nor responsible to Congress, he is quickly approaching the time when there would be enough of these people to run the government without Congress or the Supreme Court.

Thus, Obama is forming a 'shadow government' that is responsible to no one but himself.

The question is, why?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/it-has-begun-business-owner-removed.html Business Owner removed from a mall because he was selling "impeach Obama" t-shirts and stickers? Why was it ok to sell Anti-Bush stickers, but now we cant sell Anti-Obama stickers? The left are a bunch of hypocrites! If we say anything negative or opposed to Obama we are labled as racist. Weather it's true or not we have the right to speak openly about over goverment and leaders, a right that is in the constitution as free speech. Comediens do this all the time, they had a field day with Bush but they won't touch Obama. People if you can't see that the adminstration is going to rule the next 3 years with an iron fist and the race card then your going to be in for a rude awaking in the comming years.

Also this is a porn forum sorry if my sentence structure, puncuation and over all grammer is bad. it's hard to type with my left hand only, my right to to busy jerking off to Glenn Beck and Hannity.:rubbel:

 

[Hot Mega]

Your right I said "if" Bush did this. I never said Bush did or here are examples of what Bush did. I said "if" plain and simple. Like I said before Liberals are getting made because Republicans are openly asking questions that the media won't ask.

Even when Obama began to name his cabinet nominees it appeared he would govern as a moderate, with centralists such as Leon Panetta at CIA, Bush appointee Gates at Defense, or even Hillary Clinton at State, for that matter.

However, one has to look at what Obama is doing beneath the surface in order to understand his true objectives. Ever since taking office, Obama has been appointing 'czars' who are charged with overseeing key policy initiatives, such as the 'car czar' who supervised the government takeover of General Motors.

Obama has surrounded himself with over 50 advisors, czars, 'officers,' and other appointees who represent the most radical far-left element in the country today.

Why does he need these people when he has a Cabinet? Why does he need extra 'oversight' of programs when Congress is charged with that responsibility?

I would like to postulate a theory,as Obama continues to add czars, officers, and advisors who are not approved by nor responsible to Congress, he is quickly approaching the time when there would be enough of these people to run the government without Congress or the Supreme Court.

Thus, Obama is forming a 'shadow government' that is responsible to no one but himself.

The question is, why?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/it-has-begun-business-owner-removed.html Business Owner removed from a mall because he was selling "impeach Obama" t-shirts and stickers? Why was it ok to sell Anti-Bush stickers, but now we cant sell Anti-Obama stickers? The left are a bunch of hypocrites! If we say anything negative or opposed to Obama we are labled as racist. Weather it's true or not we have the right to speak openly about over goverment and leaders, a right that is in the constitution as free speech. Comediens do this all the time, they had a field day with Bush but they won't touch Obama. People if you can't see that the adminstration is going to rule the next 3 years with an iron fist and the race card then your going to be in for a rude awaking in the comming years.

Also this is a porn forum sorry if my sentence structure, puncuation and over all grammer is bad. it's hard to type with my left hand only, my right to to busy jerking off to Glenn Beck and Hannity.:rubbel:

Give it up Jason....I for one am sick of schooling you. We're in the middle of warfare. Unless Gates comes across as utterly incompetent or intransigent to the new administration's policies....most POTUS would not replace him under those circumstances.

Also if you're in a place of business attempting to sell whatever product you are subject to the whims of the private owner's approval of a product that represents what he/she wants to convey to the larger consumer.

Just like the case where a chain of conservative movie theaters banned Fahrenheit 9/11 but opted to exclusively premier an anti-Kerry documentary.

Give it a rest...All you're doing is tossing out a load of nonsense in expectation and hopes that it gains traction without investigating the merits yourself.

That is weak dude.

 

[Jane Burgess]

<chuckle> I surely hope poor Jane B honestly believes Obama is obsessed with a goofy little punk on a tv tabloid like Hannity. Maybe she'll be willing to buy this beach front Alaskan property with a view of Russia and a "bridge to nowhere" I've been trying to sell.

Oh Hot Mega you really have to get over being bitter when people do not agree with you. Obama is so great, that is why his numbers are dropping and he has to appeal to school children on Tuesday. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

 

[Facial_King]

Your right I said "if" Bush did this. I never said Bush did or here are examples of what Bush did. I said "if" plain and simple. Like I said before Liberals are getting made because Republicans are openly asking questions that the media won't ask.

Even when Obama began to name his cabinet nominees it appeared he would govern as a moderate, with centralists such as Leon Panetta at CIA, Bush appointee Gates at Defense, or even Hillary Clinton at State, for that matter.

However, one has to look at what Obama is doing beneath the surface in order to understand his true objectives. Ever since taking office, Obama has been appointing 'czars' who are charged with overseeing key policy initiatives, such as the 'car czar' who supervised the government takeover of General Motors.

Obama has surrounded himself with over 50 advisors, czars, 'officers,' and other appointees who represent the most radical far-left element in the country today.

Why does he need these people when he has a Cabinet? Why does he need extra 'oversight' of programs when Congress is charged with that responsibility?

I would like to postulate a theory,as Obama continues to add czars, officers, and advisors who are not approved by nor responsible to Congress, he is quickly approaching the time when there would be enough of these people to run the government without Congress or the Supreme Court.

Thus, Obama is forming a 'shadow government' that is responsible to no one but himself.

The question is, why?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/it-has-begun-business-owner-removed.html Business Owner removed from a mall because he was selling "impeach Obama" t-shirts and stickers? Why was it ok to sell Anti-Bush stickers, but now we cant sell Anti-Obama stickers? The left are a bunch of hypocrites! If we say anything negative or opposed to Obama we are labled as racist. Weather it's true or not we have the right to speak openly about over goverment and leaders, a right that is in the constitution as free speech. Comediens do this all the time, they had a field day with Bush but they won't touch Obama. People if you can't see that the adminstration is going to rule the next 3 years with an iron fist and the race card then your going to be in for a rude awaking in the comming years.

Also this is a porn forum sorry if my sentence structure, puncuation and over all grammer is bad. it's hard to type with my left hand only, my right to to busy jerking off to Glenn Beck and Hannity.:rubbel:

The "czars" thing, like it or not, is hardly new. Nixon had 'em. The whole "drug czar" thing was started under Bush I.

"sorry if my sentence structure, puncuation and over all grammer is bad. it's hard to type with my left hand only, my right to to busy jerking off to Glenn Beck and Hannity."

Don't forget your spelling! Just from this last post of yours, we got:

made (for mad)
your (for you're)
centralists (instead of centrists)
cant (for can't)
weather (for whether - ??!!)
labled (for labeled)
goverment (for government)
comediens (for comedians)
comming (for coming)
adminstration (for administration)
puncuation (for punctuation)
grammer (for grammar)
to (for too)

Perhaps I missed something, but I'm still thinking you might've set a FO record with that post. :dunno:

"Weather it's true or not we have the right to speak openly about over goverment and leaders, a right that is in the constitution as free speech."

And you and your fellow right-wing zombies are doing a fine job of running with that "weather [sic] it's true or not" part!! :1orglaugh

Also, can you please elaborate on how he's packing his administration with people "who represent the most radical far-left element in the country today." Okay, since you would probably consider Michael Moore to be one of those, why doesn't he have a job with Obama yet? Also what about actual people from the Communist Party, or the Socialist Equality Party, just for starters? "the most radical far-left element"??? Okay, what about the Black Bloc? They don't necessarily (always) see themselves as "left" (as anarchists often avoid such dichotomies as right-left), I admit, but generally they have had more sympathies with leftist causes and ideas. Where are the Black Bloc people in the Obama administration? Also, quick question now that it struck me - just how far left is someone allowed to be in the United States before you stop considering them to be an American? I'm already getting the idea that you don't have any demarcation for that on the right side of things...

And I actually don't doubt for a minute that you might pleasure yourself while taking in some Beck or Hannity.

Here's hoping that President Obama sends you off to a war on Canada, so we can see just how serious you are about just following orders from the CIC!! :hatsoff: (Okay, I'm not ENTIRELY serious, there...)

Oh, and your rant about "shadow government" was classic. Did you happen to ever open a newspaper in the couple of years after 9/11, btw??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900891.html

I bet you were really upset then!! Oh, no wait, I bet you were upset at the liberal media for their wild, leftist accusations against God's Warrior, George W. Bush!

 

[bodie54]

Oh Hot Mega you really have to get over being bitter when people do not agree with you. Obama is so great, that is why his numbers are dropping and he has to appeal to school children on Tuesday. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Appealing to school children?
Like every other past president, he's going to reinforce the value of getting a good education and encourage them to study hard.
That anyone sees any other motive in this is absolutely astounding