PDA

View Full Version : Lib Rep. "I dont worry about the Constitution." !



Sev
04-02-2010, 08:07 AM
Democrat Congressman Phil Hare has stated he doesn't worry about the constitution.

Proof that the democrats have an agenda other than supporting the constitution. Hares statement is in direct violation to the oath that he swore when taking office.

Where you find one cockroach there are always others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8

You can support the constitution and properly approach and solve problems within its confines. It appears the left doesn't believe this.
This guy has just gotten his party lynched.

pooltchr
04-02-2010, 08:25 AM
What a low-life. They really believe that the end justifies the means....even when it means ignoring the constitution they vowed to uphold.

Steve

LWW
04-02-2010, 08:53 AM
Was anybody honestly surprised by that?

LWW

llotter
04-02-2010, 09:07 AM
I have often wondered if the Oath of Office has any legal standing for a law suit. If someone swears to uphold the Constitution, and they have no process in place to insure that they are following through on that responsibility, it would seem to me to be dereliction of duty and charges should be brought against them.

I heard the Speaker of the House once say that it was not her responsibility to follow the Constitution but the Courts. Isn't that a blatant failure to uphold her Oath?

Under
04-02-2010, 09:08 AM
The exercise of raw power. Nothing else.

I would be surprised if he reads several short letters a day.

Claiming that he read the bill 3 times is unbelievable.

Claiming the improbable certainly puts one in the running for the title of Liar.

LWW
04-02-2010, 09:22 AM
Claiming that the COTUS says what is actually in the D of I is where he lost all credibility.

LWW

Sev
04-02-2010, 10:58 AM
Cant wait to see the rebuttals.

pooltchr
04-02-2010, 11:44 AM
I hope the reps are saving clips like this for their campaigns in November. This should be saturating the airwaves where he will be running!

Steve

LWW
04-02-2010, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cant wait to see the rebuttals. </div></div>

Plausible deniability will be maintained on this forum.

The silence of the left here, which used to wrap themselves in the COTUS when it was a convenient prop, is once again deafening.

LWW

pooltchr
04-02-2010, 02:17 PM
What choice do they have?
They can't defend the comment.
They can't defend the Dem who made the comment.
They can't admit that their team is wrong.
Silence is their only option.

Steve

Sev
04-02-2010, 04:15 PM
It must be painful to be so fully exposed to the world.

Qtec
04-02-2010, 10:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a low-life. They really believe that the end justifies the means....even when it means ignoring the constitution they vowed to uphold.

Steve </div></div>

I'm thinking you suffer from some kind of amnesia because the whole Bush Doctrine was based on 'the end justifies the means'.
eg, Gitmo, kidnapping, torture, invasion of Iraq, etc.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Russ Feingold is not one to say: "I told you so."

But Feingold did tell us so.

In 2005, when the Wisconsin Democrat <u>who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the Constitution</span>,</u> learned of the Bush-Cheney administration's<span style='font-size: 14pt'> warrantless wiretapping program,</span> he said it was illegal.

As more details about the undermining of privacy rights that are clearly protected by the Fourth Amendment became clear, Feingold proposed that the Senate censure President Bush <span style='font-size: 20pt'>for his assaults on the Constitution.</span> Censure, Bush (and Obama) It was a lonely struggle to challenge lawlessness on the part of the executive branch.

But Feingold is no longer so lonely.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>He has the federal courts on his side.</span>

A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that it was illegal for government investigators to wiretap the phone conversations of an Islamic charity group and two American lawyers without a search warrant. </div></div>



Q

Qtec
04-02-2010, 10:58 PM
It could be argued that it is a matter of Nat Sec that the Govt ensure that all citizens are healthy in case of war.

Q

sack316
04-03-2010, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It could be argued that it is a matter of Nat Sec that the Govt ensure that all citizens are healthy in case of war.

Q </div></div>

It could be argued that if a frog had wings it would screw a bird.

Sack

LWW
04-03-2010, 06:28 AM
Are you aware that other people can see and read what you post?

LWW

Sev
04-03-2010, 06:35 AM
When somebody states that they dont care about he constitution and they are an elected official it is time for them to go.
Their actions can not be trust to not be traitorous to the nation.

LWW
04-03-2010, 06:40 AM
The argument could be made that the statement in itself is treason.

LWW

ugotda7
04-03-2010, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It could be argued that it is a matter of Nat Sec that the Govt ensure that all citizens are healthy in case of war.

Q </div></div>


Congratulations, this post is the new front runner for the highly coveted "Dumbest Post of 2010" award.

Gayle in MD
04-03-2010, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a low-life. They really believe that the end justifies the means....even when it means ignoring the constitution they vowed to uphold.

Steve </div></div>

I'm thinking you suffer from some kind of amnesia because the whole Bush Doctrine was based on 'the end justifies the means'.
eg, Gitmo, kidnapping, torture, invasion of Iraq, etc.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Russ Feingold is not one to say: "I told you so."

But Feingold did tell us so.

In 2005, when the Wisconsin Democrat <u>who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the Constitution</span>,</u> learned of the Bush-Cheney administration's<span style='font-size: 14pt'> warrantless wiretapping program,</span> he said it was illegal.

As more details about the undermining of privacy rights that are clearly protected by the Fourth Amendment became clear, Feingold proposed that the Senate censure President Bush <span style='font-size: 20pt'>for his assaults on the Constitution.</span> Censure, Bush (and Obama) It was a lonely struggle to challenge lawlessness on the part of the executive branch.

But Feingold is no longer so lonely.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>He has the federal courts on his side.</span>

A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that it was illegal for government investigators to wiretap the phone conversations of an Islamic charity group and two American lawyers without a search warrant. </div></div>



Q
</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Hilarious! The right! Worrying about The Constitution! After eight years of George Bush breaking laws, ignoring the Constitution! Illegal Wire Taps, Torture. Outing a covert agent. Cheney Burning up his office! Rove, Missing over 5 million official business e-mails! gopnzales "I don't remember" one hundred and ninety seven times!!! BWA HA HA HA HA!

Get over it righties! YOU LOST THE ELECTION!</span> </span>

LWW
04-03-2010, 09:01 AM
As much as it pains the left, winning an election does not void the constitution.

LWW

pooltchr
04-03-2010, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
Get over it righties! YOU LOST THE ELECTION!
</div></div>

Sounds like what we kept trying to tell you durnig the last administration!

Steve

Sev
04-03-2010, 11:00 AM
Nov is coming fast.

pooltchr
04-03-2010, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ <span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Hilarious! The right! Worrying about The Constitution! After eight years of George Bush !</span> </span> </div></div>

Halarious! After 8 years of Gayle whining and crying about Bush and the constitution, now all of a sudden, someone from her team says he doesn't care about the constitution, and she's alright with that!!!!!!!

Hypocrite!!!!!!!

Steve

Sev
04-03-2010, 04:59 PM
You have to keep an eye on fanatics.

Qtec
04-03-2010, 05:47 PM
I am. Obviously you are not.
Q

Qtec
04-03-2010, 05:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It could be argued that it is a matter of Nat Sec that the Govt ensure that all citizens are healthy in case of war.

Q </div></div>


Congratulations, this post is the new front runner for the highly coveted "Dumbest Post of 2010" award. </div></div>

Why?

Q

Qtec
04-03-2010, 06:14 PM
When they wrote the US Con were there Uzi's and AK 47's?

Eh.... NO.

If the US Con is not a living document and there is no rooom for common sense, then everyone has the right to own a musket. NO MORE THAN THAT!

Yes, I can defend the comment that was made under harassment. [by a RW a-HOLE.]

The guy says he will do his best to help his fellow Americans and he gets slammed for it!

Where was the guy so is <u>NOW </u>so hot on the US Con when Bush ignored it and did what he wanted?



From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the Tea Party crap and all this negativity from the GOP etc can only be explained by the fact that they can't accept a black President.

Q

pooltchr
04-03-2010, 07:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Where was the guy so is <u>NOW </u>so hot on the US Con when Bush ignored it and did what he wanted?


Q </div></div>

Sorry, Q, but Gayle owns the "but Bush" arguement. You need to find your own.

Steve

LWW
04-04-2010, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It could be argued that it is a matter of Nat Sec that the Govt ensure that all citizens are healthy in case of war.

Q </div></div>


Congratulations, this post is the new front runner for the highly coveted "Dumbest Post of 2010" award. </div></div>

Why?

Q </div></div>

Asking that question is, IMHO, tantamount to seconding the nomination.

LWW

LWW
04-04-2010, 05:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When they wrote the US Con were there Uzi's and AK 47's?

Eh.... NO.

Q </div></div>

And your point is what?

What's that?

You don't actually have one?

LWW

LWW
04-04-2010, 05:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WIf the US Con is not a living document and there is no rooom for common sense, then everyone has the right to own a musket. NO MORE THAN THAT!

Q </div></div>

Pay close attention, as the following is the definition of a "LIVING DOCUMENT" according to the document itself:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Article V</span></u>
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.</div></div>

What you are begging for is what Jefferson warned us of ... a terror of the judiciary, where a gang of 5 can trump both the congress and the executive branch and the states themselves.

Why do you hate liberty?

Why do you love tyranny?

LWW

Sev
04-04-2010, 08:39 AM
The problem is they want instant gratification rather than passing legislation that may not have that feel good aspect but rather is far more commonsense and will be far more effective in the long run rather than short term.