Riddle me this, Libruls!

[mal]

Clinton's failed effort to takeover health care gave us a Conservative Congress.

It Certainly did... That and the Corruption in the DemocRAT Congress...

If William Jefferson (D) and other DemocRATS had been REPUBLICans, it would Appear that there was ALL kinds of Scandal in this one...

Because the Liberals Lapdog Media would have Made it so.

I wonder how many People Realize that Jefferson (D) was Convicted?...



peace...

 

[Care4all]

If tried in Military Tribunals and found not guilty, the military can still arrest them and keep them contained, as well RGS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If tried in Military Tribunals and found not guilty, the military can still arrest them and keep them contained, as well RGS.

Just till the war is over. Now answer the questions in the other thread.

Ohh and cite for me where the Supreme Court agreed that if they were not found guilty in a tribunal we could hold them. Thanks.

 

[amrchaos]

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

Tell us, what in the hell did McCain run on?? The neo-conservative princple of fiscal responsibility?

 

[Care4all]

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?

The most fiscally responsible president of that last 30 years was Clinton, who was neither Republican nor conservative.

Yes. Clinton couldn't work with his Dem Congress. It wasn't until the Reps took over that he was able to get things done. That comes from Dick Morris who was with him at the time.

Nope. and Yes

This is what started Clinton on his fiscal responsibility: Not one republican voted for it.

In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[48] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.[49] Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years.Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was before the Republicans took over Congress.

And after they took over, Clinton and the republican lead congress continued in being fiscally responsible....along with the benefit of a very healthy economy.

Care

 

[amrchaos]

OK, I'll give it a shot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals

Let me add onto your number three, RW.

The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).

Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.

 

[rightwinger]

OK, I'll give it a shot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals

Let me add onto your number three, RW.

The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).

Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.

Couldn't agree more

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OK, I'll give it a shot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals

Let me add onto your number three, RW.

The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).

Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.

Another lying piece of dog shit. They have rights, has anyone shot them yet? The Supreme COURT ruled that Military Tribunals are what they rate and until Obama and Holder STOPPED them that was what they were getting.

Back to your "RIGHTS" argument though. SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OK, I'll give it a shot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals

Let me add onto your number three, RW.

The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).

Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.

Couldn't agree more

COWARD, answer my questions. What rights do they have if they have been denied every safe guard provided for in Federal Court AND the Attorney General has ANNOUNCED to the world that even if the charges are dismissed or they are found not guilty they will be rearrested by the military and held for Military Tribunal?

 

[amrchaos]

OK, I'll give it a shot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

Fiscal responsibility is not a Conservative vs Liberal trait. If it was, how do you explain that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscally responsible while Ronald Reagan was not?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

No idea what a PDB is. After two planes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon, it became obvious what the intent of the hijackings were

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?
The Constitution does not just apply to American citizens, it gives the rights of the accused. Throughout our history we have used US laws to prosecute foreign nationals

Let me add onto your number three, RW.

The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).

Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.

Another lying piece of dog shit. They have rights, has anyone shot them yet? The Supreme COURT ruled that Military Tribunals are what they rate and until Obama and Holder STOPPED them that was what they were getting.

Back to your "RIGHTS" argument though. SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal?

First off--I said that they CAN BE TRIED.
Nothing about military tribunals at all. So please point out the lie!!

second--your following statement
"SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal"

Guess what--if they are found innocent, or a mistrial occurs, they are freed!!

The attorney General will not have the authority to re-arrest them!! Horrible, is it not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me add onto your number three, RW.

The idea is that we Americans believe in human rights--that includes those that transgress against us. The idea that only us citizens have a right to US courts when it pertains to issues inside the United States is a lie. Any human being that we apprehend in breaking the laws of the United States CAN BE TRIED in the United States as if they were a citizen. Normally people that seeks to argue against such an idea usually want the ability to determine who has human rights and who does not. They are usually called fascists or statists or some other ugly term for "scared shitless authoritarian"(abbreviated SSA).

Americans are normally not SSA's, but we do recognize such a trend among people that says the terrorists does not have rights. The bottom line is:they are human, they have human rights. Regardless what a fascists may think or feel.

Another lying piece of dog shit. They have rights, has anyone shot them yet? The Supreme COURT ruled that Military Tribunals are what they rate and until Obama and Holder STOPPED them that was what they were getting.

Back to your "RIGHTS" argument though. SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal?

First off--I said that they CAN BE TRIED.
Nothing about military tribunals at all. So please point out the lie!!

second--your following statement
"SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal"

Guess what--if they are found innocent, or a mistrial occurs, they are freed!!

The attorney General will not have the authority to re-arrest them!! Horrible, is it not.

You are a pathetic IDIOT. It has already been announced to the world that if freed they will immediately be held and returned to military control. HOLDER announced it with the Permission of Obama. On NATIONAL TV.

SO are you now telling us Holder is an abject LIAR and his boss Obama is too?

 

[amrchaos]

Another lying piece of dog shit. They have rights, has anyone shot them yet? The Supreme COURT ruled that Military Tribunals are what they rate and until Obama and Holder STOPPED them that was what they were getting.

Back to your "RIGHTS" argument though. SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal?

First off--I said that they CAN BE TRIED.
Nothing about military tribunals at all. So please point out the lie!!

second--your following statement
"SO remind us of all these rights they have when they will not be presumed innocent in Federal Court? What rights will they have when they were DENIED every Federal safe guard we have? When the Government has publicly stated through the Attorney General that even if found not guilty or the charges are dropped they will be rearrested by the Military and face a military Tribunal"

Guess what--if they are found innocent, or a mistrial occurs, they are freed!!

The attorney General will not have the authority to re-arrest them!! Horrible, is it not.

You are a pathetic IDIOT. It has already been announced to the world that if freed they will immediately be held and returned to military control. HOLDER announced it with the Permission of Obama. On NATIONAL TV.

SO are you now telling us Holder is an abject LIAR and his boss Obama is too?

The attorney General does not have the authority to place a person into double jeorpardy.

The only way Holder could ARREST KsM and the others if they win the court cases(and found innocent) is if he found new charges. Now if it is a mistrial, the attorney general can hold them.

By the way, I am not an idiot, you are just scared shitless over what could happen. Stop lashing out at me in your rage.

 

[barenakedislam]

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?

The most fiscally responsible president of that last 30 years was Clinton, who was neither Republican nor conservative.

And it was the Republican majority congress that forced him to sign welfare reform, cutting out a lot of liberal-inspired entitlements. Not to mention the dotcom surge which filled the Treasury coffers until the bubble burst and the economy started to tank in the last year of Clinton's term.

But compared to the POS in the WH now, Clinton was a saint.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, why didn't Obama run on a platform that promised to spend more money than anyone in human history, why run on the "discredited" Conservative platform of fiscal responsibility?

 

[Care4all]

So far, president bush holds that title for his 2009 fiscal budget CF....Obama's first fiscal budget was due february 1st to congress and came in effect, beginning in October of 2009, for the fiscal year of 2010.

So, my dear Frank, President bush holds the record of spending more than any president in our history and adding more to the national debt than any president in our History...

This is not to say that when Obama's first fiscal budget ends for 2010 on September 30, 2010 that he will not exceed President Bush's budget...but so far, it is president bush that holds the title of the absolute worst FISCAL president, when it comes to the Budget.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So far, president bush holds that title for his 2009 fiscal budget CF....Obama's first fiscal budget was due february 1st to congress and came in effect, beginning in October of 2009, for the fiscal year of 2010.

So, my dear Frank, President bush holds the record of spending more than any president in our history and adding more to the national debt than any president in our History...

This is not to say that when Obama's first fiscal budget ends for 2010 on September 30, 2010 that he will not exceed President Bush's budget...but so far, it is president bush that holds the title of the absolute worst FISCAL president, when it comes to the Budget.

That wasn't the question, but thank you for your reflexive defense of anything dealing with Obama.

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

 

[Care4all]

So far, president bush holds that title for his 2009 fiscal budget CF....Obama's first fiscal budget was due february 1st to congress and came in effect, beginning in October of 2009, for the fiscal year of 2010.

So, my dear Frank, President bush holds the record of spending more than any president in our history and adding more to the national debt than any president in our History...

This is not to say that when Obama's first fiscal budget ends for 2010 on September 30, 2010 that he will not exceed President Bush's budget...but so far, it is president bush that holds the title of the absolute worst FISCAL president, when it comes to the Budget.

That wasn't the question, but thank you for your reflexive defense of anything dealing with Obama.

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

I have nothing to gain CF, I did NOT support Obama in the election past, I did NOT vote for him.

 

[rightwinger]

So far, president bush holds that title for his 2009 fiscal budget CF....Obama's first fiscal budget was due february 1st to congress and came in effect, beginning in October of 2009, for the fiscal year of 2010.

So, my dear Frank, President bush holds the record of spending more than any president in our history and adding more to the national debt than any president in our History...

This is not to say that when Obama's first fiscal budget ends for 2010 on September 30, 2010 that he will not exceed President Bush's budget...but so far, it is president bush that holds the title of the absolute worst FISCAL president, when it comes to the Budget.

That wasn't the question, but thank you for your reflexive defense of anything dealing with Obama.

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

Why keep repeating the myth? It doesn't make it any more true

Liberals are fiscally responsible- Look at Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
Conservatives are not fiscally responsible- Look at Ron Reagan and Bush

Cutting taxes when you don't have a ballanced budget is not fiscally responsible

 

[Sarah G]

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?

Frank, the Neocons of that last decade were not fiscally responsible. In fact they were very irresponsible.

Obama ran on hope and change as a response to the Bush/Cheney 8 years of complete failure.

 

[Misty]

1. If Conservatism is dead, why did Obama run on the Conservative, not Republican, principle of fiscal responsibility?

2. You got the Aug 6 PDB, at what point on the morning of 911 do you give the order for the USAF to shoot down fully loaded, yet off course US commercial air liners?

3. If KSM and other terrorists have standing as a US citizen and should be brought to trial in criminal court, how can we order the execution of other terrorists who also have standing as US citizens, isn’t that murder?

The most fiscally responsible president of that last 30 years was Clinton, who was neither Republican nor conservative.

Correct. The best combo for government so far has been democrat president, republican congress.