Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
How's this new turn in foriegn policy working out?
- Thread starter Ishmael
- Start date
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Hey Ish,
You may like this
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: GOP Dropping the Ball on Energy Debate?“Surprisingly, the energy revolution has been something of a no show in the presidential race so far. This is too bad. As the Economist‘s Lexington columnist notes, neither candidate has yet shown that he has a clear grasp of what U.S. energy policy should look like. Obama’s policies, in particular leave much to be desired.”
A reader emailed me the other day to suggest that Romney should open every appearance by asking the crowd how they like those ___ gas prices, with the blank being filled in by whatever the local number is. It would be a good approach, I think.
You may like this
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: GOP Dropping the Ball on Energy Debate?“Surprisingly, the energy revolution has been something of a no show in the presidential race so far. This is too bad. As the Economist‘s Lexington columnist notes, neither candidate has yet shown that he has a clear grasp of what U.S. energy policy should look like. Obama’s policies, in particular leave much to be desired.”
A reader emailed me the other day to suggest that Romney should open every appearance by asking the crowd how they like those ___ gas prices, with the blank being filled in by whatever the local number is. It would be a good approach, I think.
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
Not to worry, the thoroughbred Boston liberal will gallop in to save the day.
(I know, don't bother, you're voting for the weak horse
)
garbage can
North by Northeast
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Posts
- 57,302
IMO, Romney is a loser on energy policy.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
About free speech...
Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act has been ruled to provision the President to indefinitely detain American citizens with no regard for the 5th Amendment...
...President Obama personally insisted that the language of 1021 be modified by Congress to infer exactly that before he would sign it into law. Then, at the law's enactment, Obama made the strange move of intentionally pronouncing he personally wouldn't actually indefinitely detain American citizens.
After earlier ruling Section 1021 of the NDAA was "facially unconstitutional" and placing a temporary injunction against any execution of 1021, Federal judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York also demanded that the Executive branch answer whether or not it is complying with her injunction...
...the Obama administration refused to answer the judge's demand.
Now, earlier this past week, judge Forrest made permanent her injunction against Section 1021...
...and it was only a matter of hours before the Obama administration appealed.
Judge Forrest mentioned in her ruling that Section 1021 can be used to arrest and detain citizens indefinitely, even if their actions are protected by the First Amendment...
...an opinion the Obama administration has yet to deny in a court of law.
As the General Board clearly exhibits everyday:
1. His supporters endorse Obama's unconstitutional intent to abduct and indefinitely detain American citizens with total illegal disregard for the 5th Amendment (their vote for him is the evidence), and
2. as so many of their words on this Board have figuratively highlighted in the last few days, his supporters endorse Obama's unconstitutional intent to detain American citizens for free speech violations they and he deem are somehow offensive to the 1st Amendment which was specifically amended to guarantee the right of offensive speech to all.
Mommy tried to tell you that sticks and stones could break your bones, but words could never physically hurt you...
...and Mrs. Poindexter in 1st grade tried to teach you that when the alarm shouted FIRE! in a crowded classroom it wasn't the alarm that mattered as much as the individual response and action to the alarm.
But, you chose not to listen...
...or learn.
Now look at you:
Imagining yourself all growed-up posting on one of the world's most free places for adult speech...
...but whining exactly like the politically immature children you still are.
Too friggin' funny...
Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act has been ruled to provision the President to indefinitely detain American citizens with no regard for the 5th Amendment...
...President Obama personally insisted that the language of 1021 be modified by Congress to infer exactly that before he would sign it into law. Then, at the law's enactment, Obama made the strange move of intentionally pronouncing he personally wouldn't actually indefinitely detain American citizens.
After earlier ruling Section 1021 of the NDAA was "facially unconstitutional" and placing a temporary injunction against any execution of 1021, Federal judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York also demanded that the Executive branch answer whether or not it is complying with her injunction...
...the Obama administration refused to answer the judge's demand.
Now, earlier this past week, judge Forrest made permanent her injunction against Section 1021...
...and it was only a matter of hours before the Obama administration appealed.
Judge Forrest mentioned in her ruling that Section 1021 can be used to arrest and detain citizens indefinitely, even if their actions are protected by the First Amendment...
...an opinion the Obama administration has yet to deny in a court of law.
As the General Board clearly exhibits everyday:
1. His supporters endorse Obama's unconstitutional intent to abduct and indefinitely detain American citizens with total illegal disregard for the 5th Amendment (their vote for him is the evidence), and
2. as so many of their words on this Board have figuratively highlighted in the last few days, his supporters endorse Obama's unconstitutional intent to detain American citizens for free speech violations they and he deem are somehow offensive to the 1st Amendment which was specifically amended to guarantee the right of offensive speech to all.
Mommy tried to tell you that sticks and stones could break your bones, but words could never physically hurt you...
...and Mrs. Poindexter in 1st grade tried to teach you that when the alarm shouted FIRE! in a crowded classroom it wasn't the alarm that mattered as much as the individual response and action to the alarm.
But, you chose not to listen...
...or learn.
Now look at you:
Imagining yourself all growed-up posting on one of the world's most free places for adult speech...
...but whining exactly like the politically immature children you still are.
Too friggin' funny...
Last edited:
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
VaticanAssassin
God Mod
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Posts
- 12,391
" On the day I am inaugurated Muslim hostilities will ease "
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
VaticanAssassin
God Mod
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Posts
- 12,391
Right up there with... " thats why today I am promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office "
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
Right up there with..."mission accomplished"
VaticanAssassin
God Mod
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Posts
- 12,391
But but but.... Bush!!!!!!
Head meet sand
Head meet sand
garbage can
North by Northeast
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Posts
- 57,302
The scary thing is.... he believes his own lies.
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
Just showing how easy it is to find "broken promises" from all Presidents. My heads so far in the sand I can't see that yours is up your asshole
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
merc, just because you think something is bullshit, doesn't make it bullshit and following the DNC talking points memo to the T is not exactly the stuff of conversation...
Yet you're here fabricating repeatedly and I'm not. Take responsibility for your posts.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,663
Personal responsibility to a Glibertarian like AJ is like garlic to a vampire.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
remember when every week there was a US turdball or English Turdball taken hostage in Lebanon?
YES, WE DO!
how many Soviet Union citizens were taken?
ONE!!!!!!!!!!!! The Soviets then took a few Hezbollah turds, CUT EM TO PIECES and sent em to the families
and said
For eveyone of our guys you take, WE CUT UP 5 OF YOURS
They never had another abduction
ILYA SOMIN: Just Say No To Terrorism.“Giving in to the terrorists incentivizes further terrorism, while refusing to do so reduces the risk of future violence. This principle applies to terrorism more broadly: An excellent way to reduce the risk of attacks is to refuse to give in to the terrorists’ demands. Over time, a government that develops a reputation for saying no to terrorists is likely to suffer fewer attacks in the first place. . . . Saying no has many advantages over alternative antiterrorism policies. Unlike defensive security measures, it doesn’t require much in the way of extra government spending or violations of civil liberties. It is also less costly than offensive military action against the terrorists and creates fewer collateral risks.”
This does not seem to be our current approach.
YES, WE DO!
how many Soviet Union citizens were taken?
ONE!!!!!!!!!!!! The Soviets then took a few Hezbollah turds, CUT EM TO PIECES and sent em to the families
and said
For eveyone of our guys you take, WE CUT UP 5 OF YOURS
They never had another abduction
ILYA SOMIN: Just Say No To Terrorism.“Giving in to the terrorists incentivizes further terrorism, while refusing to do so reduces the risk of future violence. This principle applies to terrorism more broadly: An excellent way to reduce the risk of attacks is to refuse to give in to the terrorists’ demands. Over time, a government that develops a reputation for saying no to terrorists is likely to suffer fewer attacks in the first place. . . . Saying no has many advantages over alternative antiterrorism policies. Unlike defensive security measures, it doesn’t require much in the way of extra government spending or violations of civil liberties. It is also less costly than offensive military action against the terrorists and creates fewer collateral risks.”
This does not seem to be our current approach.
U
unregistered
Guest
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
VaticanAssassin
God Mod
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Posts
- 12,391
HAL_9000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Posts
- 3,536
The solution to islamic extremists is to bomb Iran?
Similar threads
