Now now Zeb, stop crying about it, and stop being haughty. As hollywood pointed out, you started it and I warned you to stop. <<Hug>>, there do you feel better now?
On Oct 5, 11:46 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't say I couldn't take it. I just think its hilarious for a guys > who just erupted into a total vulgarity fest to be calling for > civility. > > On Oct 5, 12:01 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
