(06-20-2012 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I suppose you want me to say I am a lazy liberal, right?

No need for you to actually say it.

(06-20-2012 12:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 12:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 12:27 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 12:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Don't you just love that the cons are basically arguing for gun control in their witch hunt?

so not want the *government* to hand guns to mexican drug lords = gun control... wow...

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but these Progs aren't very bright.

Neither are you two schmucks who can't remember that you go ape **** and claim that guns don't kill people and that only the criminals will get and have the guns when someone argues FOR gun control.

Not to mention that someone suggesting that Holder handed the gun directly to the guy who did the shooting, might just be a few cards short of 52.

Tom if the govt gave them money to buy knives to kill people I would be just as upset. This is about Giving violent criminals guns, nobody on this board is ok with that.

The fact you, like most leftist, can't distinguish between a law abiding American using the second amendment and a Mexican drug lord is very, very telling.

(06-20-2012 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:05 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 12:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Weak.

Your brain activity? Come to think of it, your brain activity is less than weak, it is non-existent.

someone who makes 20k a year is talking like this?

i made 20k when i was 16 years old

why dont you go get another job or two?

I suppose you want me to say I am a lazy liberal, right?

20k posts later

how many jobs do you have?

Bull, what Obama said in that clip was that Bush repeatedly and reflexively used EP. He didn't say he opposed all use of EP.

And qualified privilege means the opposite of what someone said here-- ie the burden is now on Issa to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case." So he has to outline his case (and first and foremost define the crime he's alleging, and no giving guns to a Mexican who months later uses the gun to kill someone is not a crime) and show how he can't go forward without this material. It looks to me like this is just a fishing expedition by Issa in which case I'd probably tell him to go F himself if I was in Obama's shoes too.

(06-20-2012 01:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:05 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 12:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Weak.

Your brain activity? Come to think of it, your brain activity is less than weak, it is non-existent.

someone who makes 20k a year is talking like this?

i made 20k when i was 16 years old

why dont you go get another job or two?

I suppose you want me to say I am a lazy liberal, right?

20k posts later

how many jobs do you have?

I have one job. THat doesn't mean I am lazy.

Haha! You can't beat Obama. #teflondon

(06-20-2012 01:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Bull, what Obama said in that clip was that Bush repeatedly and reflexively used EP. He didn't say he opposed all use of EP.

And qualified privilege means the opposite of what someone said here-- ie the burden is now on Issa to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case." So he has to outline his case (and first and foremost define the crime he's alleging, and no giving guns to a Mexican who months later uses the gun to kill someone is not a crime) and show how he can't go forward without this material. It looks to me like this is just a fishing expedition by Issa in which case I'd probably tell him to go F himself if I was in Obama's shoes too.

...but Obama said he had no knowledge of Fast and Furious. If he had no knowledge, he wouldn't need to invoke EP. So.....which is it?

(06-20-2012 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:05 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Your brain activity? Come to think of it, your brain activity is less than weak, it is non-existent.

someone who makes 20k a year is talking like this?

i made 20k when i was 16 years old

why dont you go get another job or two?

I suppose you want me to say I am a lazy liberal, right?

20k posts later

how many jobs do you have?

I have one job. THat doesn't mean I am lazy.

could you hold two?

(06-20-2012 01:31 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:05 PM)maximus Wrote:  someone who makes 20k a year is talking like this?

i made 20k when i was 16 years old

why dont you go get another job or two?

I suppose you want me to say I am a lazy liberal, right?

20k posts later

how many jobs do you have?

I have one job. THat doesn't mean I am lazy.

could you hold two?

Maybe. Depends on the job.

(06-20-2012 01:29 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Haha! You can't beat Obama. #teflondon

how grown up. call up the dead border patrols family and say that.

pr!ck

(06-20-2012 01:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:31 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I suppose you want me to say I am a lazy liberal, right?

20k posts later

how many jobs do you have?

I have one job. THat doesn't mean I am lazy.

could you hold two?

Maybe. Depends on the job.

then why dont you

(06-20-2012 01:33 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:31 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  20k posts later

how many jobs do you have?

I have one job. THat doesn't mean I am lazy.

could you hold two?

Maybe. Depends on the job.

then why dont you

As I said. It depends on the job. I have not found a second job that would work.

(06-20-2012 01:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Bull, what Obama said in that clip was that Bush repeatedly and reflexively used EP. He didn't say he opposed all use of EP.

And qualified privilege means the opposite of what someone said here-- ie the burden is now on Issa to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case." So he has to outline his case (and first and foremost define the crime he's alleging, and no giving guns to a Mexican who months later uses the gun to kill someone is not a crime) and show how he can't go forward without this material. It looks to me like this is just a fishing expedition by Issa in which case I'd probably tell him to go F himself if I was in Obama's shoes too.

Oh we all know what he was trying to say and this is extreme, and excessive. When taken with his use of "signing statements" (which he explicitly said he would never do) it shows he is *just* as much of an imperial president as Bush..

(06-20-2012 01:30 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Bull, what Obama said in that clip was that Bush repeatedly and reflexively used EP. He didn't say he opposed all use of EP.

And qualified privilege means the opposite of what someone said here-- ie the burden is now on Issa to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case." So he has to outline his case (and first and foremost define the crime he's alleging, and no giving guns to a Mexican who months later uses the gun to kill someone is not a crime) and show how he can't go forward without this material. It looks to me like this is just a fishing expedition by Issa in which case I'd probably tell him to go F himself if I was in Obama's shoes too.

...but Obama said he had no knowledge of Fast and Furious. If he had no knowledge, he wouldn't need to invoke EP. So.....which is it?

You're not making sense. The executive privilege can be invoked by the president in defense of anyone in the executive branch. Obama can have no knowledge of FF and still invoke the privilege on behalf of Holder.

EP exists so members of Congress and their staff can't spend their free time on fishing expeditions poring over (often classified) executive documents for political gain and subpoenaing to harass.

(06-20-2012 02:13 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:30 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Bull, what Obama said in that clip was that Bush repeatedly and reflexively used EP. He didn't say he opposed all use of EP.

And qualified privilege means the opposite of what someone said here-- ie the burden is now on Issa to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case." So he has to outline his case (and first and foremost define the crime he's alleging, and no giving guns to a Mexican who months later uses the gun to kill someone is not a crime) and show how he can't go forward without this material. It looks to me like this is just a fishing expedition by Issa in which case I'd probably tell him to go F himself if I was in Obama's shoes too.

...but Obama said he had no knowledge of Fast and Furious. If he had no knowledge, he wouldn't need to invoke EP. So.....which is it?

You're not making sense. The executive privilege can be invoked by the president in defense of anyone in the executive branch. Obama can have no knowledge of FF and still invoke the privilege on behalf of Holder.

EP exists so members of Congress and their staff can't spend their free time on fishing expeditions poring over (often classified) executive documents for political gain and subpoenaing to harass.

Quote:Historically, presidents have claimed the right of executive privilege when they have information they want to keep confidential, either because it would jeopardize national security or because disclosure would be contrary to the interests of the Executive Branch.

So tell me, what exactly is it that he wants to keep confidential or that he feels would be a breach of "national security", especially seeing as how he "claims" he had exactly no knowledge of it to begin with? Does he really not understand that he's not a dictator and can't just do whatever the hell he wants?

(06-20-2012 01:57 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Bull, what Obama said in that clip was that Bush repeatedly and reflexively used EP. He didn't say he opposed all use of EP.

And qualified privilege means the opposite of what someone said here-- ie the burden is now on Issa to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case." So he has to outline his case (and first and foremost define the crime he's alleging, and no giving guns to a Mexican who months later uses the gun to kill someone is not a crime) and show how he can't go forward without this material. It looks to me like this is just a fishing expedition by Issa in which case I'd probably tell him to go F himself if I was in Obama's shoes too.

Oh we all know what he was trying to say and this is extreme, and excessive. When taken with his use of "signing statements" (which he explicitly said he would never do) it shows he is *just* as much of an imperial president as Bush..

This is the first time Obama has claimed it. Bush did it 4 times in 2 months, over Harriet Miers and the US attorney firing scandals.

Obama's use of signing statements isn't an end run around Congress when he uses them to indicate that he believes a part of the law to be unconstitutional.

(06-20-2012 02:18 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:Historically, presidents have claimed the right of executive privilege when they have information they want to keep confidential, either because it would jeopardize national security or because disclosure would be contrary to the interests of the Executive Branch.

So tell me, what exactly is it that he wants to keep confidential or that he feels would be a breach of "national security", especially seeing as how he "claims" he had exactly no knowledge of it to begin with? Does he really not understand that he's not a dictator and can't just do whatever the hell he wants?

Political fishing expeditions are what I would call contrary to the interests of the Executive Branch.

Does Issa understand that he's not entitled to see every classified document without a showing of cause and necessity?

Lets take a roll call....

Please reply to this and state if you approve or disapprove of Obama invoking EP is THIS instance. No need to explain why...just if you approve or not. I'm curious how deep some peoples partisanship really goes.

Oh..I disapprove

(06-20-2012 02:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:57 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 01:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Bull, what Obama said in that clip was that Bush repeatedly and reflexively used EP. He didn't say he opposed all use of EP.

And qualified privilege means the opposite of what someone said here-- ie the burden is now on Issa to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case." So he has to outline his case (and first and foremost define the crime he's alleging, and no giving guns to a Mexican who months later uses the gun to kill someone is not a crime) and show how he can't go forward without this material. It looks to me like this is just a fishing expedition by Issa in which case I'd probably tell him to go F himself if I was in Obama's shoes too.

Oh we all know what he was trying to say and this is extreme, and excessive. When taken with his use of "signing statements" (which he explicitly said he would never do) it shows he is *just* as much of an imperial president as Bush..

This is the first time Obama has claimed it. Bush did it 4 times in 2 months, over Harriet Miers and the US attorney firing scandals.

Obama's use of signing statements isn't an end run around Congress when he uses them to indicate that he believes a part of the law to be unconstitutional.

How many times in eight years? (serious question)....