Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Doove · 06-21-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

Only problem is, it's not. It's only worse than they've ever known it to be. Big difference.

And to that, i'll add that with all the information floating around being used to manufacture one so-called scandal after another.....maybe things are just a little more transparent than you wish to give 'em credit for.

I B Hankering · 06-21-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

Where was the need to issue an Executive Order?

China!!! Tienanmen Square!!! Bush notified the AG, the DOJ and Dept of State that IT WAS NOT A ROUTINE SITUATION! Jackass.

Doove · 06-21-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

China!!! Tienanmen Square!!! Bush notified the AG, the DOJ and Dept of State that IT WAS NOT A ROUTINE SITUATION! Jackass.

I think he could have done that with a phone call.

So again, where was the need for an Executive Order?

I B Hankering · 06-21-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

I think he could have done that with a phone call.

So again, where was the need for an Executive Order?

Notice (and this might prick your supercilious ego a bit), what you think, Doofus, doesn't amount to jack-shit; nor does it matter.

Blade78633 · 06-21-2012, 09:20 PM

Has anyone predicted that he will push martial law to avoid the election? I thought I read something about the possibility of this happaning.

Doove · 06-21-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Notice (and this might prick your supercilious ego a bit), what you think, Doofus, doesn't amount to jack-shit; nor does it matter.

Nope, it doesn't matter. Kinda the point. Which is why i find it rather funny that you took the time to try to seek out laws which you thought would prove yourself correct.

It was an Executive Order. Nobody cares. Except the fools like you.

Doove · 06-21-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade78633

Has anyone predicted that he will push martial law to avoid the election? I thought I read something about the possibility of this happaning.

Oh i'm sure you did.

I B Hankering · 06-21-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

Nope, it doesn't matter. Kinda the point. Which is why i find it rather funny that you took the time to try to seek out laws which you thought would prove yourself correct.

It was an Executive Order. Nobody cares. Except the fools like you.

The Nobody-Doofus cared; it was the center piece to your worthless argument!!!

CuteOldGuy · 06-21-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

You don't miss Bill Clinton. You miss the era in which Bill Clinton was President.

The reason you think corruption is escalated like it has is because you now have 20 million webmasters all reading each other, feeding into each other, and trying to propagandize every little atomic sized piece of information into a major scandal of some sort. And with people like you who get off spending 14 hrs a day perpetuating it all in your rambling postings on internet forums, forums that didn't exist 15 or even 10 years ago, of course people are going to think it's worse than it's ever been. Only problem is, it's not. It's only worse than they've ever known it to be. Big difference.

You didn't read the article on the progression of tyranny, did you? It dealt only with what lawmakers have done. Not what was said about them.

I'll try to find it and post it again for your edification. And I don't miss the era. I miss Billy. I like this era, because I can find out about things more easily. There are alternative media outlets that haven't sold their souls to the system.

CuteOldGuy · 06-21-2012, 10:05 PM

Here it is. Enjoy!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...VHfIXA.twitter

CuteOldGuy · 06-21-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade78633

Has anyone predicted that he will push martial law to avoid the election? I thought I read something about the possibility of this happaning.

They've made those claims since Nixon was President, every time an election comes up. The opposition always starts saying things like that.

I'm not sure even Obama could pull that off. However, if he did, you can be sure there are more than a few Obamatons on here that would say he was justified in taking away our freedom in order to preserve our democracy.

CJ7 · 06-21-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Doofus, invest in a dictionary.

COG is right, CBJ7, the public wasn't given enough time to read it. Even Pelosi said: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Notice, there's no connotation that your number one bitch said: "You had time to read the bill; so we can pass it." Quite the opposite.

given the fact you didnt know shit about EO's and made a fool out of yourself, I have to ask this ......

did the public have time to read the 1100 spending bills Bush passed in 1700 days?

does the PUBLIC decide if bills are OK to pass before they go to a vote?

and last, was the year long congressional debate about the bill based on the mere title of the bill or was the partisan debate about content of said bill?

youre up, sport.

IIFFOFRDB · 06-21-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

given the fact you didnt know shit about EO's and made a fool out of yourself, I have to ask this ......

did the public have time to read the 1100 spending bills Bush passed in 1700 days?

does the PUBLIC decide if bills are OK to pass before they go to a vote?

and last, was the year long congressional debate about the bill based on the mere title of the bill or was the partisan debate about content of said bill?

youre up, sport.

Thanks Bitch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_F2W...eature=related

CuteOldGuy · 06-21-2012, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

given the fact you didnt know shit about EO's and made a fool out of yourself, I have to ask this ......

did the public have time to read the 1100 spending bills Bush passed in 1700 days?

does the PUBLIC decide if bills are OK to pass before they go to a vote?

and last, was the year long congressional debate about the bill based on the mere title of the bill or was the partisan debate about content of said bill?

youre up, sport.

Why do you INSIST on bringing up Bush? Of course it was wrong when he did it.

Obama promised to be DIFFERENT! He promised OPENNESS! He's the president now, not Bush. And he is turning out to be a bigger liar than Bush ever was.

Deal with the issues, man! BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT!! IF HE DID SOMETHING WRONG IT DOES NOT GIVE OBAMA THE RIGHT TO TELL THE SAME LIE!!

Geez, CBJ7, get a grip.

CJ7 · 06-22-2012, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why do you INSIST on bringing up Bush? Of course it was wrong when he did it.

Obama promised to be DIFFERENT! He promised OPENNESS! He's the president now, not Bush. And he is turning out to be a bigger liar than Bush ever was.

Deal with the issues, man! BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT!! IF HE DID SOMETHING WRONG IT DOES NOT GIVE OBAMA THE RIGHT TO TELL THE SAME LIE!!

Geez, CBJ7, get a grip.

damn cof since when did you morph into IB ... didnt notice who I quoted ?

I keep telling you I use Bush to show what hypocrites you idiots really are. How many times in one day do I need to remind you? ... comprehension problems?

do you want to answer the questions I posed to IB or not?