The New Obama Scoundrel List

[Gord]

Its pretty fun to see the righties try to make hay out of nothing.


The truth is going to help you people too.

You will just whine about it all day long and never admitt to all the wrong you voted for and ignored during the Bush admin.

If your claims are correct about the current admin do you want it investigated even if it has to happen after they are out of office?

Or does EX admins get a pass?

All I want to do is laugh at you Obamabots and your Obamessiah.

 

[AllieBaba]

People are already laughing. Sadly.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Blago was given the boot by unanimous vote. Inquiring minds want to know what Blago has on these people. Time will tell I suppose; he's quite the chatter box.

 

[Truthmatters]

Is every person hwo ever had a tax problem a criminal?

Why do you people refuse to answer the question about actually investigating anyone in the Government?

Lets investigate these people who you seem to think are "criminals" but first lets also investigate the ones who broke the laws under Bush including Bush.

 

[Gord]

People are already laughing. Sadly.

Yup. It's the only way not to cry over this pompous, braindead, no-experience, radical who liberals elected soley on the Kool Aid mantra of "hope" and "change"...

 

[Tech_Esq]

Is every person hwo ever had a tax problem a criminal?

Why do you people refuse to answer the question about actually investigating anyone in the Government?

Lets investigate these people who you seem to think are "criminals" but first lets also investigate the ones who broke the laws under Bush including Bush.

"Tax problem" = euphemism for acting contrary to the law.

People who act in contravention of the law are often labeled criminals.

Whether they are "actually" criminals depends on whether they are convicted of a crime. However, you'll find very little understanding for hypocrites. The people understand that Dems are all about taxes. It's very important to them. They never think rich people pay enough of them. So when rich Democrats show up who haven't paid their taxes, people see a hypocrite. Sure, all other rich people should pay taxes, but rich Democrats who make the rules don't have to? Please!

 

[driveby]

As if it's any surprise his talent pool is polluted with criminals.

No more than your side is polluted.

I thought the dems were the party with the integrity ? Your position is that it's ok, because " your side " did it too ?

 

[Gord]

What do you get when you put the smartest man in the world and the smartest woman in the world together on the same team? Stupidity.

After Hillary assured Gen. Anthony Zinni that he had the job as ambassador to Iraq, he began getting ready for the job. But after hearing nothing from the administration for a week he called them and was told they gave the job to someone else without explanation.

I guess there are just too many smart people in this administration...

 

[Gord]

Uh oh - Panetta has lobbying problems and possible conflict of interest problems...

 

[Dr Grump]

possible conflict of interest problems...

I like the term "possible". And after having the Puppet Master in chief as your vice president for the past 8 years, I wouldn't be bringing up conflict of issue problems. Especially if they are "possible" and not "actual". I know your right wingers wrote the book on unprovable character assassination, but most people don't get sold snake oil twice..

 

[Gord]

possible conflict of interest problems...

I like the term "possible". And after having the Puppet Master in chief as your vice president for the past 8 years, I wouldn't be bringing up conflict of issue problems. Especially if they are "possible" and not "actual". I know your right wingers wrote the book on unprovable character assassination, but most people don't get sold snake oil twice..

Face it - Obama is more of a sleezebag than even Bill Clinton. The list will grow and grow. And you will excuse and excuse...

 

[jillian]

You voted for Bush/Cheney twice and you have the chutzpah to call anyone else sleeze?!?!?!

RAFLMAO!

 

[Gord]

You voted for Bush/Cheney twice and you have the chutzpah to call anyone else sleeze?!?!?!

RAFLMAO!

I'd ask you for evidence, but I'm still waiting for you to explain how Bush's tax cuts triggered the credit crisis...

 

[jillian]

where did i say tax cuts, specifically and solely, were the cause of the credit crisis?

I'll wait.

 

[Gord]

where did i say tax cuts, specifically and solely, were the cause of the credit crisis?

I'll wait.

There's this feature on the board called subscriptions... Funny how it doesn't work for you.

 

[Gord]

Well we have number 19!

David Ogden - nominee for Deputy Attorney General
Supported blocking parental notification of 14 year old girls seeking abortions
Frequently worked for Playboy and others in the porn industry
Argued against Children's Internet Protection Act designed to protect children from exposure to porn
Defended porn groups from having to verify if models were 18 years old

 

[driveby]

Well we have number 19!

David Ogden - nominee for Deputy Attorney General
Supported blocking parental notification of 14 year old girls seeking abortions
Frequently worked for Playboy and others in the porn industry
Argued against Children's Internet Protection Act designed to protect children from exposure to porn
Defended porn groups from having to verify if models were 18 years old

Ehhh, thats the worst kind of scum ....

But i'm sure there was someone worse the the Bush Admin. , right Jillian ?

 

[Gord]

Well we have number 19!

David Ogden - nominee for Deputy Attorney General
Supported blocking parental notification of 14 year old girls seeking abortions
Frequently worked for Playboy and others in the porn industry
Argued against Children's Internet Protection Act designed to protect children from exposure to porn
Defended porn groups from having to verify if models were 18 years old

Ehhh, thats the worst kind of scum ....

But i'm sure there was someone worse the the Bush Admin. , right Jillian ?

Hey! Get in line!

I'm still waiting for her to explain how Bush's tax cuts caused the credit crisis...

 

[Gord]

Annie just came up with some more dirt on Leon Panetta here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/68921-is-panetta-the-next-problem.html

 

[indago]

Is every person hwo ever had a tax problem a criminal?

Why do you people refuse to answer the question about actually investigating anyone in the Government?

..."Tax problem" = euphemism for acting contrary to the law.

People who act in contravention of the law are often labeled criminals.

Whether they are "actually" criminals depends on whether they are convicted of a crime.

I was having some discussions concerning law and politics on another message board, and one of the participants posted a link to a site showing an edict from the "Justice Department", wherein it was declared that there had been created a task force called: "National Tax Defier Initiative", or TAXDEF, for short. It declared that "The purpose of this initiative is to reaffirm and reinvigorate the Tax Division's commitment to investigate, pursue and, where appropriate, prosecute those who take concrete action to defy and deny the fundamental validity of the tax laws." It was noted: "the tax defier is someone who rejects the legal foundation of the tax system".

I posted this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is noted, in the report:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
the tax defier is someone who rejects the legal foundation of the tax system
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, then, that would be the TAX OPPRESSORS, for nowhere to be found in the Constitution of the United States is the power granted to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the TAX OPPRESSORS that posts there wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 does. So does the 16th Amendment (assuming you think the income tax is a direct tax, which it isn't).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another poster wrote, responding to the TAX OPPRESSOR:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please show me anywhere in the "law" that Congress has authority to print money out of thin air to the tune of $700 billion and tax the American people for it. This is plain outright fraud. All those involved in it should go to prison and the keys thrown away.

I am tired of listening to your crap and all the other trolls on this site. You are worthless pond scum in my opinion. You would sell your mother down the river for this fraud. You are not worth the spit to blow you to hell. And if Weis or any other mod wants to ban me for this so be it. I am sickened by your worthless diatribe. Why don't you and all the other frauds go crawl in a hole and rot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Being rather more subtle than the previous poster, I queried of the TAX OPPRESSOR:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, show all of us here just where in "Article I, Section 8, Clause 1", and "the 16th Amendment" the government was granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another TAX OPPRESSOR chimed in:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes there is, it just says direct taxes have to be apportioned. The Supreme Court has held that the income tax is an indirect tax, however.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I, then, referred this second TAX OPPRESSOR to a previous posting I had made on this same message board system:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James Madison's notes of the Federal Convention of delegates from the several States which formed the Constitution of the United States show that the subject of direct taxation was discussed on the date 13 July 1787, a Friday, during convention . On the proposal for imposition of direct taxation, Mr. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate at the convention from Massachusetts, moved to add an amendment that the direct taxes "be assessed on the inhabitants of the several States according to the number of their Representatives respectively in the 1st branch". This amendment failed to pass.

"Mr Gerry finding that the loss of the question had proceeded from an objection with some, to the proposed assessment of direct taxes on the inhabitants of the States, which might restrain the Legislature to a poll tax, moved his proposition again, but so varied as to authorise the assessment on the States,..." — Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States Sixty-ninth Congress First Session House Document No. 398 pg 370

This proposition passed. It is also shown, from Mr. Madison's journal, that on the date 21 August 1787, Tuesday, Mr. Luther Martin, a delegate to the Convention from the State of Maryland, proposed:

"And whenever the Legislature of the US: shall find it necessary that revenue should be raised by direct taxation, having apportioned the same, according to the above rule on the several States, requisitions shall be made of the respective States to pay into the Continental Treasury their respective quotas within a time in the said requisitions specified, and in case of any of the States failing to comply with such requisitions, then and then only to devise and pass acts directing the mode, and authorizing the collection of the same."

Mr. James McHenry, another delegate from Maryland, seconded the motion. There was no debate. The motion was put to vote, and defeated by a vote of 8 to 1. The Congress was denied the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States, but was granted the power to apportion the direct taxes to the States to pay. In 1789, during a session of the House of Representatives, considering the Bill of Rights, one of the amendments proposed:

"No direct tax shall be laid, unless any State shall have neglected to furnish, in due time, its proportion of a previous requisition; in which case Congress may proceed to levy, by direct taxation, within any State so neglecting, its proportion of such requisition, together with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time it ought to have been furnished, and the charges of levying the same." — Annals of Congress Tuesday 18 August 1789 pg 762; Saturday 22 August 1789 pg 773-777

What the proposition had in mind was that if the State failed to pay its proportional part of the direct tax levies upon it, the Congress could go into the State and levy the direct tax upon the inhabitants of the State, and collect the money owed by the State, with interest. This proposition failed by a vote of 39 to 9. On the date 7 September 1789, Monday, the Amendments that had been assembled by the House of Representatives were considered by the Senate. The Senate proceeded to add the same proposition concerning direct taxes that had failed in the House (Annals of Congress, pg 76). This proposition failed in the Senate also.

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After a few days, and no response from either TAX OPPRESSOR, I noted of the first TAX OPPRESSOR:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmmm! No response! Well, let's try this: Point out where in the Constitution the power was granted to lay an indirect tax as a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first TAX OPPRESSOR wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's because I've already answered your question before, pointing out the utter absurdity of the notion that a tax collected from individuals by the federal government is a direct tax under the Constitution. Your statement iis meaningless, and you obviously have no conception of what a direct tax is under the Constitution. You can't seem to get it through your head that the requisition method under the Articles of Confederation was a colossal failure and something that the Constitution wasn't going to continue to require the federal government to use.

I predict that you'll run away from this question like a scalded cat, complaining about the "corrupt courts" and how they've allowed Congress to "usurp" power they weren't granted under the Constitution. You'll also continue to ignore the fact that Congress has been levying taxes without apportionment and collecting them from individuals for over 200 years; that these taxes have been enacted by the people's representatives who continue to get reelected despite their "usurpations"; and and that not once have the people demanded via a constitutional amendment that they suddenly be apportioned. And you call this usurpation? What a joke.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wrote back:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had queried:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point out where in the Constitution the power was granted to lay an indirect tax as a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And did he "Point out where in the Constitution the power was granted to lay an indirect tax as a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States"? Of couse not! But then, why am I not surprised...

and "usurpation" was mentioned:

USURPATION, government. The tyrannical assumption of the government by force contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. — Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

Review of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary by Harvard jurist Edwin Vieira:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An unconstitutional statute is not a "law" though it may have the "color of law" when sustained by judicial fiat. Thus, the exercise of a more judicial edict without lawful authority is not binding or obligatory. Justices on the bench in a reflective moment of sobriety have affirmed the primacy of the Constitution itself to court rulings: "[T]he tendency to encrust unwarranted judicial interpretations upon the Constitution and thereafter to consider merely what has been judicially said about the Constitution, rather than to be primarily controlled by a fair conception of the Constitution... But the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what [some majority of the Supreme Court] have said about it." Hence, judicial fiat does not justify the constitutionality of an unlawful statute nor does it confer any constitutional authority for any public official to enforce it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com: Ryan Setliff "Interne...'s review of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary

Also:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll also continue to ignore the fact that Congress has been levying taxes without apportionment and collecting them from individuals for over 200 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But still it is insisted, that there has been a general submission, and no action brought to try the right. I answer, there has been a submission of guilt and poverty to power and the terror of punishment. But it would be strange doctrine to assert that all the people of this land are bound to acknowledge that to be universal law which a few criminal booksellers have been afraid to dispute." — Lord Camden - Entick v Carrington


------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't waive your rights and give it to us, we'll take it! — Government On The Take
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It must be noted that the TAX OPPRESSOR wrote about all the things that government was doing, but when it came to pointing out just where all this power was granted in the Constitution, he failed, and miserably too, I might add. I had also previously pointed out that the natural person, under Article Four of the Bill of Rights — where it is shown the individuals right to privacy in his papers and effects — has no obligation whatsoever to report to government agencies his personal affairs.

That particular string died there. No further postings.



-