Zeb, Dude, get real here. You started the trash talk, the new guy was perfectly civil untill you started to act like an asshole towards anyone and everyone that disagreed with you, or even asked questions you didn't like. If you are going to dish it out you have to be prepared to take it.
On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > >Do you want to keep it civil today? > > Do you mean like this?: > > - your pointless fucking > - You don't make fucking sense. > - 10 fucking > - your fucking ranting insults. > - Well fuck you cake-boy > - you are a fucking idiot. > - what the fuck a debate is > - the ranting of degenerate, stupid fucking pricks like yourself. > - find it overrun by nerd raging assholes > > And all in one post LOL! > > On Oct 5, 10:42 am, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chuckle.... > > > I think I'm going to go cry now. The little board fairy said my wrists > > are limp. > > > And so what if I chat on aol all day, I can't help it that I love kids > > so much. I just wish that skinny twerp will let me eat some of those > > cookies next time. > > > Coffee time.. I've got class for a little bit today but after that, > > well, I'll have all day to chat with you Zeb. Do you want to keep it > > civil today? > > > On Oct 5, 9:23 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Listen, you limp-wristed sissy boy, I don't have the time or > > > inclination to follow the links to the twisted web sites you frequent > > > just to try to divine some sort of sense out of your ranting. If you > > > have an opinion and facts, state them yourself or go back to the AOL > > > teen chat room to which you are more suited. > > > > On Oct 4, 1:44 am, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Listen up numb-nuts. I'm sick and gd tired of your pointless fucking > > > > ranting. You don't make fucking sense. I posted like 10 fucking > > > > articles by various sources all stating that bush tried to expand > > > > executive power more-so than any other president. All you have given > > > > as proof to the opposite is your fucking ranting insults. Well fuck > > > > you cake-boy, two can play that game. > > > > > It's pointless to try to debate with you, you are a fucking idiot. I > > > > wish turtle and perp would come back here, I can see now why most of > > > > the sensible people on this board left. Plain, holly and a couple > > > > others are the only people on this gd board with enough sense to know > > > > what the fuck a debate is. This board is filled with the ranting of > > > > degenerate, stupid fucking pricks like yourself. I leave this board > > > > for a while and come back to find it overrun by nerd raging assholes > > > > who think the word "proof" is the sound a fucking genie makes when it > > > > dissapears. > > > > > On Oct 3, 11:03 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Holly, > > > > > You're just plain butt assed stupid. Whether or not I served in the > > > > > military has nothing what so fucking ever to do with the President > > > > > getting input from his commanders in the field to make decisions. But > > > > > keep talking. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into your > > > > > moron's abyss. > > > > > > On Oct 3, 5:11 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > Jeez, but you're an idiot. Have you ever actually served in the U.S. > > > > > > military? You have any idea what you're talking about? > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 3:47 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yeah, yer right bright boy! Why would the commander in chief want > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > speak to the commander who is directly in charge of theater of > > > > > > > operation that he has to make a crucial decision about? LOL! > > > > > > > Second > > > > > > > hand information is much better, huh? You really don't know when > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > quit. > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 4:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > > Yeah sure, go ask anyone that has actually served in the > > > > > > > > military what > > > > > > > > "flimsy minutia" the chain of command it. Dumbass. > > > > > > > > > The POTUS can ALSO NOT speak to anyone under his command if he > > > > > > > > chooses > > > > > > > > and instead speak to the person through the chain of command. > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >there is a system (called Chain of Command) > > > > > > > > > > Why do you libs try to run smokescreens behind this flimsy > > > > > > > > > minutia. It > > > > > > > > > is so transparent. The "chain of command" is not something > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > prevents communication between command levels. It is a > > > > > > > > > protocol. > > > > > > > > > Nothing more. The President can AND DOES speak to anyone and > > > > > > > > > at any > > > > > > > > > level in the military he chooses to. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:15 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No one is saying it wouldn't be better if he talked to > > > > > > > > > > McCrystal more. > > > > > > > > > > My point is, there is a system (called Chain of Command) in > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > McCrystal does not report directly to Obama. He is not "not > > > > > > > > > > doing what > > > > > > > > > > he is supposed to" by not talking to him directly. And to > > > > > > > > > > imply he is, > > > > > > > > > > would be false. > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 3:46 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is 45 minutes with the President's time the right amount > > > > > > > > > > > in 6 months > > > > > > > > > > > for the top general??? Less time than what he spent on > > > > > > > > > > > trying to get > > > > > > > > > > > the Olympics... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2:44 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > > > > > > He made his point in the very first sentance of his > > > > > > > > > > > > post. What was it > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 8:48 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SO? WHats your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 11:08 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are isolated incedents. Not permanent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expansion to executive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > power. You are comparing apples and oranges. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cheney's office has taken the lead in challenging > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many of these laws, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials said, because they run counter to an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expansive view of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive power that Cheney has cultivated for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > past 30 years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > place restrictions or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirements on how the president runs the military > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and spy agencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor can it pass laws giving government officials > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the power or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility to act independently of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > president. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mainstream legal scholars across the political > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spectrum reject > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheney's expansive view of presidential authority, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constitution gives Congress the power to make all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regulations for the military and the executive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch and the Supreme > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Court has consistently upheld laws giving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bureaucrats and certain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prosecutors the power to act independently of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > president." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After an unprecedented number of signing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statements, the White House > > > > > > > > > > > > > > laid low for a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here's the first Bush signing statement in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > three months , quietly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > filed away two weeks ago in response to the deeply > > > > > > > > > > > > > > threatening Coastal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The law, sponsored by five Republicans from both > > > > > > > > > > > > > > houses, and passed by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the House, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Congress on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creation of digital maps of the John H. Chafee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coastal Barrier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resources System units and other protected areas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under a digital > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping pilot project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But here's what Bush's signing statement says: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Section 3(c)(2) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials to submit legislative recommendations to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Congress. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch shall construe such provisions in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a manner consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the Constitution's commitment to the President > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the authority > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to submit for the consideration of the Congress > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such measures as the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > President judges necessary and expedient and to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supervise the unitary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL200606... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Congress, courts push back against Bush's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assertions of presidential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > power > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc etc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And in response to your second statement, yes they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have tried it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bush: Congress can't stop troop > > > > > > > > > > > > > > increasehttp://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress cannot reverse last > > > > > > > > > > > > > > week's decision to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, President Bush > > > > > > > > > > > > > > said in an interview > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended to rally popular support for his plan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Frankly, that's not their responsibility," Bush > > > > > > > > > > > > > > said in an interview > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the CBS News program "60 Minutes," which aired > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "It's my responsibility to put forward the plan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I think will > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
