PDA

View Full Version : Gingrich Warns Obama of Impeachable offense.



Sev
02-25-2011, 04:18 PM
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Yah Baby!!</span>


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455
<span style="color: #000000">
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

Friday, 25 Feb 2011 02:53 PM
Article Font Size
By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law could lead to a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. (Speaker Gingrich stressed that we are not currently in a constitutional crisis, nor was he calling for the direct impeachment of the president. His statements were meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media.)

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.

Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.

Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.

Story continues below video.

http://www.newsmax.com/video/viewid/8db50e8e-4c91-4fb5-9e39-3014ac1235a8


“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich said it is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.

“His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.

“Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”

Gingrich adds: “I don’t think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. I think they didn’t understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional.”



Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!</span>

LWW
02-25-2011, 05:19 PM
Obama has committed several impeachable offenses along these same lines.

LWW

pooltchr
02-25-2011, 05:27 PM
Obama clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants. I hope someone talks some sense into him, and if not, I hope they bring impeachment charges against him.

He is President...he is not God!!!

Even a President has to answer to the people for his actions.

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-25-2011, 07:01 PM
Gingrich's middle name is hyperbole. Everything is the worst, most despicable (reaching for the Roget's now...).

Fact is that Obama did not 'suspend' this law. He explicitly WILL enforce it, which is an odd thing if it is 'suspended.' It's hard to understand how the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution can become null and void via a mere law, so there's not much doubt this thing is indeed unConstitutional. One cannot override a Constitutional provision with anything less than a Constitutional amendment.

Now, riddle me this: after DADT was ruled unConstitutional, Obama had his DOJ continue to defend it in court cases (to much outcry and outrage on the left, btw).

As we know this board asserts, since the (one) federal judge ruled it unConstitutional, it WAS unConstitutional. Should Obama have stopped the DOJ defense of that bill in the courts, or not?

Steve, Obama WILL have to answer to the people. It's called an election.

pooltchr
02-25-2011, 07:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Steve, Obama WILL have to answer to the people. It's called an election.

</div></div>

It is the hopefulness of that thought that keeps me going!

If we can just survive the next 23 months!

Steve

Sev
02-25-2011, 09:36 PM
Obama has no authority to order the justice department to stop defending a law he deems unconstitutional.

That is province of the judicial branch. Not the executive.

Soflasnapper
02-26-2011, 12:48 PM
Thomas Jefferson stopped ENFORCING a law on Constitutional grounds, far more than still enforcing it, but refusing to DEFEND it in court, which is Obama's move here.

Gingrich has had his team totally walk back any suggestion of impeachment, saying it is not warranted in this fact situation.

Poor Newt-- open mouth, insert foot, perform cleanup operation.

LWW
02-26-2011, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gingrich's middle name is hyperbole.
</div></div>

Actually ... it's Leroy.

LWW

LWW
02-26-2011, 03:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thomas Jefferson stopped ENFORCING a law on Constitutional grounds</div></div>

And, yet again, you are wrong.

If you repeat this myth again, you will still be wrong.

LWW

JohnnyD
02-26-2011, 03:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thomas Jefferson stopped ENFORCING a law on Constitutional grounds</div></div>

And, yet again, you are wrong.

If you repeat this myth again, you will still be wrong.

LWW </div></div>Slay the myth,GRAND MASTER.

JohnnyD
02-26-2011, 03:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama has no authority to order the justice department to stop defending a law he deems unconstitutional.

That is province of the judicial branch. Not the executive. </div></div>This fact and it is the truth.

LWW
02-26-2011, 03:48 PM
I slay leftist mythology wherever I find it JohnnyD.

The problem is that every time I throw another rotting corpse of leftist mythology onto the pile, they reanimate another thinking that somehow if the myth is repeated enough times it will become believable.

LWW

JohnnyD
02-26-2011, 03:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I slay leftist mythology wherever I find it JohnnyD.

The problem is that every time I throw another rotting corpse of leftist mythology onto the pile, they reanimate another thinking that somehow if the myth is repeated enough times it will become believable.

LWW </div></div>The truth will set them free.

LWW
02-27-2011, 05:39 AM
Obama will one day meet his Waterloo.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama has no authority to order the justice department to stop defending a law he deems unconstitutional.

That is province of the judicial branch. Not the executive. </div></div>

Well, the current Chief Justice, John Roberts, disagreed just a few years back, when he was Solicitor-General, when he convinced the Bush administration to do just that.

I happen to disagree with Roberts on many things, but nobody would suggest he doesn't know his Constitutional law, or that he would do something unConstitutional, illegal, in his role as the government's chief lawyer before the SCOTUS.

LWW
02-27-2011, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama has no authority to order the justice department to stop defending a law he deems unconstitutional.

That is province of the judicial branch. Not the executive. </div></div>

Well, the current Chief Justice, John Roberts, disagreed just a few years back, when he was Solicitor-General, when he convinced the Bush administration to do just that.

I happen to disagree with Roberts on many things, but nobody would suggest he doesn't know his Constitutional law, or that he would do something unConstitutional, illegal, in his role as the government's chief lawyer before the SCOTUS. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 04:41 PM
LWW, neither you nor I agreed to do that, Q's request notwithstanding.

So as the presidents say when reporting under the War Powers Act, I'll do it, but not out of any obligation.

At the end of the page you'll find this... (http://mediamatters.org/research/201102250041)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under Acting Solicitor General John Roberts, DOJ Declined To Defend Federal Statute Encouraging Minority Ownership Of Broadcast Stations. According to a post written by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Georgetown University professor Marty Lederman:

The Washington Post reports today that John Roberts was the point person in the Office of the Solicitor General in 1990 when that office decided not to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast licensing. (In fact, Roberts was the Acting Solicitor General for purposes of the case, because SG Starr had a conflict.) The case in question was Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, and it raised very interesting questions about the circumstances under which the Department of Justice will refrain from defending the constitutionality of federal statutes.

[...]

The FCC Commissioners and General Counsel unanimously urged the Department to defend the statutes as well, emphasizing that the U.S. Court of Appeals had upheld the central policy and that "there is a solid foundation in the Supreme Court's precedents for the government to argue that the FCC's policies are constitutional." But, as the Post story today reports, a memo in the files of Associate White House Counsel Fred Nelson (see the back page of this) reveals that Roberts was "[r]eluctant to defend [the] commission's position." In the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice not only did not defend the federal statutes -- it urged the Court to declare them unconstitutional. Acting Solicitor General Roberts, appearing on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, argued that insofar as the federal statutes required the FCC to continue its preference policies, they were unconstitutional. The Acting SG's amicus brief went further still: It urged the court to reject the deference to Congress suggested in Fullilove, and to apply strict scrutiny to federal affirmative action programs (a position that would, of course, restrict Congress's future legislative prerogatives -- i.e., that would substantially limit federal power). [Balkinization, 9/8/05]
</div></div>

The quoted piece supplies 3 or 4 other examples.

*In my original claim, I said Roberts was Solicitor-General when this occurred just a few years back.

Both these are slightly wrong. It occurred under GHW Bush, so it was considerably more than 'a few' years back, having taken place in 1990.

Also, Kenneth Starr was the S-G at the time. Roberts was only the deputy, although Acting-S-G in this case, since Starr had a conflict that prevented his involvement in the case.

I regret and hereby correct these errors.

LWW
02-28-2011, 02:00 AM
Arguing a case against a law in the SCOTUS is not the same thing as refusing to enforce said law until the court overturns it.

Sorry dude ... I truly expected better.

That being said, had Bush done the same thing as Pharaoh Obama I would view it as equally wrong.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-02-2011, 05:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Arguing a case against a law in the SCOTUS is not the same thing as refusing to enforce said law until the court overturns it.

Sorry dude ... I truly expected better.

That being said, had Bush done the same thing as Pharaoh Obama I would view it as equally wrong.

LWW </div></div>

Don't look now, but in the DOMA matter, Obama is doing exactly what you say he isn't-- that is, continuing to enforce DOMA, just not authorizing defense of its constitutionality in court.

Both Holder's and Obama's statements are crystal clear on this distinction-- enforcing still, not defending in court.

Do you not know that, having relied on false claims in the media that he was 'suspending' or 'canceling' the law, when he's doing nothing of the sort?

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 06:13 PM
Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

And I have to wonder if he had his boss's approval when he dropped those charges. How many racists does it take to run an administration?

Steve

LWW
03-03-2011, 02:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

And I have to wonder if he had his boss's approval when he dropped those charges. How many racists does it take to run an administration?

Steve </div></div>

I wonder if anyone on the left wondered if he asked his mammy?

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-03-2011, 05:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

And I have to wonder if he had his boss's approval when he dropped those charges. How many racists does it take to run an administration?

Steve </div></div>

He didn't admit racist tendencies-- that is your spin. There were no thugs, PLURAL-- one was an appointed poll watcher there doing what he was supposed to, entirely unarmed.

There was no voter intimidation, let alone anyone guilty of it. This was a black majority precinct, almost exclusively so, that had gone in the previous election to Kerry by over 99%, with about 6 votes for Bush (as I recall). So the theory is they were there to intimidate a near-100% Democratic precinct to vote for Obama? Really?

From the National Review On-line, here is the take of a conservative Republican member of the Civil Rights Commission, who sat through all the evidentiary hearings:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Abigail Thernstrom

July 6, 2010 4:00 A.M.
The New Black Panther Case:
A Conservative Dissent

Never mind this one-off stunt by fringe radicals; the DOJ is engaged in much more important voting-rights mischief.

Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high.

In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.

A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.

The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.

A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered.

Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting — like the Socialist Workers Party dreams of a national campaign to demonstrate its position as the vanguard of the proletariat. But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale. This case is a one-off.

There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general — his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters — but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics. Those who are concerned about Justice Department enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should turn their attention to quite another matter, where the attorney general has been up to much more important mischief: his interpretation of the act’s core provisions.</div></div>

NRO link (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243408/new-black-panther-case-br-conservative-dissent-abigail-thernstrom)

Qtec
03-03-2011, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

And I have to wonder if he had his boss's approval when he dropped those charges. How many racists does it take to run an administration?

Steve </div></div>


Unbelievable.

Q

JohnnyD
03-03-2011, 06:29 PM
<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">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

And I have to wonder if he had his boss's approval when he dropped those charges. How many racists does it take to run an administration?

Steve </div></div>


Unbelievable.

Q </div></div>Believe it as it is the truth.If you believe you can achieve.You may want to achive in finding the truth.If you believe you can find the truth you will achieve finding the truth.Accept the truth as it is the truth.The truth will set you free.Believe in Jesus.Jesus loves you.

JohnnyD
03-03-2011, 06:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

And I have to wonder if he had his boss's approval when he dropped those charges. How many racists does it take to run an administration?

Steve </div></div>

I wonder if anyone on the left wondered if he asked his mammy?

LWW </div></div>Ohh my!

pooltchr
03-03-2011, 06:38 PM
<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">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

And I have to wonder if he had his boss's approval when he dropped those charges. How many racists does it take to run an administration?

Steve </div></div>


Unbelievable.

Q </div></div>

That's exactly what I thought when I heard of Holder's latest stunt.

Steve

Qtec
03-03-2011, 08:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia. </div></div>

How many complaints were there about these racist thugs intimidating voters?

Q

JohnnyD
03-03-2011, 08:09 PM
<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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia. </div></div>

How many complaints were there about these racist thugs intimidating voters?

Q </div></div>One too many.

Qtec
03-03-2011, 08:32 PM
Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q

JohnnyD
03-03-2011, 08:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>The truth is they were bad people.

pooltchr
03-03-2011, 09:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Have you seen the video, Q??

Do you approve of what you saw?

Forget all your little strawman arguments. Do you see the same thing in the video that the rest of us see? And do you approve of it, or not???

Try giving a straight answer for a change.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-04-2011, 04:40 AM
I enjoy reading your fact based replies to those that challenge your statements:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry dude ... I truly expected better. </div></div>
and then
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...had Bush done the same thing as Pharaoh Obama </div></div>
I also had truly expected a better argument clincher then "Pharaoh", but .....
However....I'm pleased to note that...... "the Dude abides"
(abides:To put up with; tolerate)

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:31 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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder has pretty much lost any credibility he might have had when he admitted to his racist tendencies and dropped the case against the thugs that were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia. </div></div>

How many complaints were there about these racist thugs intimidating voters?

Q </div></div>

Numerous ... but, what difference does that make?

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Eric Holder's people say it's time to kil some crackers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2YXkZ8ZBcY&feature=related)

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Eric Holder's people hate every iota of a cracker. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZvPCy7OBRw&feature=related)

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Eric Holder's people say whites use black babies as alligator bait. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weo3864s5vU&feature=related)

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Holder's people think they need to kill some cracker poe-lease. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kKgYeqgo8Y&playnext=1&list=PLD5E02525BF3A3651)

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Eric Holder's people threaten voters. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related)

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Eric Holder's people with billy clubs at the polls. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU)

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Eric Holder's people being arrested for voter intimidation. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&feature=related)

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who complained? Got any links , facts so we can get to the truth of the matter?

Q </div></div>

Now ... who will you believe, dear leader's AG or your lying eyes.

Let the denials begin.

LWW

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Try giving a straight answer for a change.

Steve </div></div>

That's funny.

LWW

Qtec
03-04-2011, 07:24 AM
Finally you get to the topic, which is this particular non-incident.

Stop the video at the 1.21 mark and what do you see?


Q

LWW
03-04-2011, 07:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Let the denials begin.

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stop the video at the 1.21 mark and what do you see?


Q </div></div>

Can I call it or what?

Now ... which of the videos are you babbling incoherently about?

LWW

Qtec
03-04-2011, 07:41 AM
The one in the post of yours that I replied to, MORON.

Q

LWW
03-04-2011, 09:06 AM
I've been called a moron by someone who can't count past 1 ... how funny is that.

Please, try again.

LWW