PDA

View Full Version : DEAR LEADER'S SECRET 2013 PLAN!



LWW
09-20-2012, 07:36 AM
<span style='font-size: 23pt'> &gt;&gt;&gt;SAY IT AIN'T SO BARRY ... SAY IT AIN'T SO&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose/) </span>

Soflasnapper
09-20-2012, 08:06 AM
There's no particular reason to believe Mr. Corsi about anything related to Obama. Or politics opposite his own, in general, in my opinion.

If there is any semblance of truth to this, it would probably have been an action begun very early in the year, and not the result of current internal polling, and just now in the works.

The notion that say, a Karl Rove would put up electoral maps showing Obama winning, to help Obama politically by scaring Ritt Momney voters doesn't much track reality.

llotter
09-20-2012, 11:38 AM
Hopefully The Moron and his misses will end up behind bars for a very long time.

Soflasnapper
09-20-2012, 11:55 AM
This country doesn't much put former or current presidents in jail. Why we would start with this guy (AND HIS WIFE???) is hard to fathom.

When Bush and his crew are hauled up to face war crime charges in an international court in the Hague, it may be appropriate to then look at some other presidents for criminal prosecution.

Until then, it would be like criticizing the speck in another's eye, while ignoring the mote in your own.

But out of morbid curiousity, what crimes do you claim Obama AND his wife have committed that should lead to jail time?

Or do you advocate that as more a matter of principle, without needing any particular crime in mind?

llotter
09-20-2012, 12:08 PM
You couldn't have forgotten that I am a 'birther' and the crime is committing a colossal fraud. Fake BC, fake SSN, probably fake citizenship, fake Selective Service Registration and probably false testimony and the list goes on and on. I don't know for sure if the wife knew the truth but it is likely she did. I wouldn't advocate jail of anyone just because they were married to a criminal unless they knew the truth and kept it quiet.

Soflasnapper
09-20-2012, 01:43 PM
Being ineligible is not actually a crime, absent covert acts that amount to crimes.

I do not see any covert acts that are crimes, even given a birther perspective.

But that's just me, and my lack of grasp on birther logic perhaps.

What CRIMES would these be? Leaving 'a false impression'? (That's not a crime.)

eg8r
09-20-2012, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being ineligible is not actually a crime, absent covert acts that amount to crimes.</div></div>In the post you responded to being "ineligible" was not even mentioned. Are your eyes screwing up?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What CRIMES would these be? </div></div>To repeat...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the crime is committing a colossal fraud. Fake BC, fake SSN, probably fake citizenship, fake Selective Service Registration and probably false testimony and the list goes on and on. </div></div>

eg8r

DiabloViejo
09-20-2012, 03:29 PM
Bless your heart...You do realize that you're batshit freaking crazy, don't you? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
09-20-2012, 05:32 PM
In the post you responded to being "ineligible" was not even mentioned. Are your eyes screwing up?

The birther chief complaint is that Obama is ineligible. All the rest of their stuff is in support of that basic issue.

You aren't aware of that? Since that is so, and thus I mention being ineligible is not against the law, your point is noted and properly round filed.

eg8r
09-21-2012, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The birther chief complaint is that Obama is ineligible. All the rest of their stuff is in support of that basic issue.</div></div>You are literally playing dumb. A chief complaint is not a crime. llotter listed crimes and then you asked about the complaint. Stop the dumb act that is better left for honduh and diablow. The potential crimes have now been listed twice for you to see. Are you going to respond to those?

Here is an example of your logic in play. Person A says he wishes person B were dead. Person A decides to go kill person B. When someone asks sofla about the crime sofla responds by saying it is not a crime to wish someone dead. Sounds moronic when put into play so quit doing it.

eg8r

LWW
09-21-2012, 09:13 AM
I don't think any f them are <u>playing</u> dumb ... the O-cult has become convinced that the murder f a US citizen isn't a crime when ordered by dear leader.

Soflasnapper
09-21-2012, 09:52 AM
There is less evidence that Obama did any such crimes than that he's an alien. Zero on all scores, actually.

That his wife was involved is implausible, even more so. The actual times the supposed crimes in support of the supposed alien born getting his native born cred set up all would have pre-dated the relationship.

The incredibly faulty historical error of the claims that the Founding Fathers used the international law theories of that guy and incorporated all his definitions by implication into the language they used is a very sophisticated form of propaganda. That they have been driven to that last resort bespeaks the lack of evidence for the strongest version of the birther complaint, Obama's actual birth in Kenya (or wherever, outside the US borders). They wouldn't resort to this fantastic over-reading of the international law guy, if there was a shred of evidence for their main complaint. This argument about native born shows they have abandoned their argument in chief.

Some of those who were taken in earlier by the argument in chief are not up to speed, to realize that the dead-enders still pushing this notion have made a catastrophic retreat from their claims, to now resort to nothing but a technical argument about the residency and citizenship of the father, not now any longer discussing the birthplace part of the issue (at its core).

Soflasnapper
09-21-2012, 09:55 AM
Hardly. We instead realize that a lot of killing is not murder at all, although still homicide.

You do favor the death penalty as I recall, and I doubt you consider that killing of a US citizen (typically) to be murder ordered by the state, although it is a person being killed by order of the state.

eg8r
09-21-2012, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is less evidence that Obama did any such crimes than that he's an alien. Zero on all scores, actually.</div></div>That is a strawman and you are avoiding the list that was provided.

eg8r

eg8r
09-21-2012, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do favor the death penalty as I recall, and I doubt you consider that killing of a US citizen (typically) to be murder ordered by the state, although it is a person being killed by order of the state. </div></div>Go back to bed. You appear much smarter when you are awake. There is a big difference between an inmate would was tried in front of a jury and a civilian who never saw the court/jury or the missle/bomb.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-21-2012, 07:01 PM
And a far larger gap between a common murder and someone killed in an act of war while acting as a ex-patriated traitor in a war zone, or if a war declaration is missing, where we're killing a lot of people with acts of war with our military actions.

Bad choice for that guy. Not a murder as to the US government.

Wouldn't you agree?

Some have said nothing that the president orders is his doing, but the doing of the ones performing the act. Aren't you one of them? (As in the bin Laden killing, for example.) Perhaps you weren't. Others most certainly are.

eg8r
09-21-2012, 08:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And a far larger gap between a common murder and someone killed in an act of war while acting as a ex-patriated traitor in a war zone,</div></div>That didn't happen in any war zone the US was participating in. What act of war was he doing?

Barack Obama murdered a US citizen. This a great video... Tapper ripping Carney to shreds... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo) Nothing like transparency though "hope change" looking a lot like opacity through "reality".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Some have said nothing that the president orders is his doing, but the doing of the ones performing the act. Aren't you one of them? (As in the bin Laden killing, for example.) Perhaps you weren't. Others most certainly are. </div></div>Like a woman choosing abortion, I would call her a murderer eventhough she was not the one that carried out the action. You are correct, in the true defintion the person doing the act is the actual murderer but in our justice system the accomplice doesn't walk free, and certainly not the leader of pre-meditated murder. I don't necessarily disagree with the decision to kill al-awlaki (in the manner chosen) but then again I am not the one that mis-represented myself as a Constitutional professor (who should actually know the COTUS) and I certainly am not the POTUS either.

eg8r

LWW
09-21-2012, 10:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hardly. We instead realize that a lot of killing is not murder at all, although still homicide.

You do favor the death penalty as I recall, and I doubt you consider that killing of a US citizen (typically) to be murder ordered by the state, although it is a person being killed by order of the state. </div></div>

Are you completely daft?

Soflasnapper
09-22-2012, 09:35 AM
So you DO consider all killing to be murder???!?!!?

Surprising, but then again, maybe not so surprising, as to pretending you believe that on such a forum, when it suits you.

Soflasnapper
09-22-2012, 09:45 AM
That didn't happen in any war zone the US was participating in. What act of war was he doing?

That was covered in the part of the sentence you ignored and didn't copy. It is blindingly obvious that predator drone strikes are acts of war by us, and that where we are engaged in predator drone strikes is an area in which we are engaged in acts of war.

Not against state actors, but against radical Islamist groups, their leadership, and etc.

Now, contrast this killing of a US citizen in this manner with the way the CIA would be ordered to do it, under complete cover of lawful authority. All that's required for a CIA killing to be entirely legal is that the POTUS sign a 'finding,' that it is in the national interest that somebody be killed, and that the finding be briefed to the intel committees or their gang of five principles or whatever in a timely manner.

That's the suitable level of 'due process of law' that honors the COTUS requirement that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

A decision by a sole decision maker (the POTUS), then briefed to a part of the Congress.

The complaint about lack of due process for these military strike killings is that the POTUS alone (well, with his military advisors, surely) is making such a decision without a judiciary involvement or something. But no such judiciary branch involvement is present in the CIA-style 'findings' allowed killings.

What is the difference, exactly? Simply that the POTUS didn't brief the couple of intel committee members (who'd have no ability to stop whatever the decision was even if briefed)?

We're straining at gnats' worth of differences here. Probably most people complaining about this are not aware of how the CIA killings work, and that there is essentially no difference.

LWW
09-22-2012, 09:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you DO consider all killing to be murder???!?!!?

Surprising, but then again, maybe not so surprising, as to pretending you believe that on such a forum, when it suits you.

</div></div>

So you are daft?

LWW
09-22-2012, 09:56 AM
The moonbat crazy left's daft interprettion of the COTUS:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, contrast this killing of a US citizen in this manner with the way the CIA would be ordered to do it, under complete cover of lawful authority. All that's required for a CIA killing to be entirely legal is that the POTUS sign a 'finding,' that it is in the national interest that somebody be killed, and that the finding be briefed to the intel committees or their gang of five principles or whatever in a timely manner.

That's the suitable level of 'due process of law' that honors the COTUS requirement that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. </div></div>

What the COTUS actually says:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-22-2012, 11:48 AM
So now you proudly imply you have no knowledge of how extra-judicial killings are legally authorized, using intelligence findings signed by the POTUS?

No, the Founders didn't anticipate this. They also didn't anticipate wars without declarations of war, but we have had many of them. Still, as our system has evolved for more modern circumstances, this is legal, just as wars without declarations of war by Congress are legal.

By your theory, Clinton's signature to several such findings authorizing the killing of bin Laden were illegal, and we should have only considered it valid to have him killed after a trial in which he was provided counsel if he couldn't afford it? Really?

Even under a strict construction of the sort you recommend, wanted perps are killed during apprehension attempts about every day of the week in this country. No trial, no counsel-- shot dead when resisting. Do you oppose that in all cases as well?

hondo
09-22-2012, 06:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do favor the death penalty as I recall, and I doubt you consider that killing of a US citizen (typically) to be murder ordered by the state, although it is a person being killed by order of the state. </div></div>Go back to bed. You appear much smarter when you are awake. There is a big difference between an inmate would was tried in front of a jury and a civilian who never saw the court/jury or the missle/bomb.

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 137.

hondo
09-22-2012, 06:18 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">Hardly. We instead realize that a lot of killing is not murder at all, although still homicide.

You do favor the death penalty as I recall, and I doubt you consider that killing of a US citizen (typically) to be murder ordered by the state, although it is a person being killed by order of the state. </div></div>

Are you completely daft? </div></div>

Exhibit 131.

hondo
09-22-2012, 06:18 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">So you DO consider all killing to be murder???!?!!?

Surprising, but then again, maybe not so surprising, as to pretending you believe that on such a forum, when it suits you.

</div></div>

So you are daft? </div></div>

Exhibit 132.

LWW
09-23-2012, 04:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So now you proudly imply you have no knowledge of how extra-judicial killings are legally authorized, using intelligence findings signed by the POTUS?

No, the Founders didn't anticipate this. They also didn't anticipate wars without declarations of war, but we have had many of them. Still, as our system has evolved for more modern circumstances, this is legal, just as wars without declarations of war by Congress are legal.

By your theory, Clinton's signature to several such findings authorizing the killing of bin Laden were illegal, and we should have only considered it valid to have him killed after a trial in which he was provided counsel if he couldn't afford it? Really?

Even under a strict construction of the sort you recommend, wanted perps are killed during apprehension attempts about every day of the week in this country. No trial, no counsel-- shot dead when resisting. Do you oppose that in all cases as well? </div></div>

So you are now claiming Bin Laden was a US citizen?

And, to add insult to injury to your brain, you want me o believe that there is a morl equivalence between aw enforcement killing a perp during the commission of a crime and the POTUS ordering the murder of a citizen offering no resistance?

Let your brain recuperate a bit and then revie ths again, because you are de facto embracing a totalitarian regime.

Qtec
09-23-2012, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Double Amputee Shooting: Matthew Jacob Marin, Houston Officer, Kills Man In Wheelchair, Police Say

HOUSTON A Houston police officer <span style='font-size: 20pt'>shot and killed a one-armed, one-legged man in a wheelchair Saturday inside a group home after police say the double amputee threatened the officer and aggressively waved a metal object that turned out to be a pen.</span>

Police spokeswoman Jodi Silva said the man cornered the officer in his wheelchair and was making threats while trying to stab the officer with the pen. At the time, the officer did not know what the metal object was that the man was waving, Silva said.

She said the man came "within inches to a foot" of the officer and did not follow instructions to calm down and remain still.

"Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon," Silva told The Associated Press. </div></div>

Ain't it great to live in the Land of the Free where the people who are supposed to serve and protect, shoot you at will?

Want more?

pure murder! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpn_4Eb-ocQ)



Q

hondo
09-23-2012, 07:10 AM
<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">So now you proudly imply you have no knowledge of how extra-judicial killings are legally authorized, using intelligence findings signed by the POTUS?

No, the Founders didn't anticipate this. They also didn't anticipate wars without declarations of war, but we have had many of them. Still, as our system has evolved for more modern circumstances, this is legal, just as wars without declarations of war by Congress are legal.

By your theory, Clinton's signature to several such findings authorizing the killing of bin Laden were illegal, and we should have only considered it valid to have him killed after a trial in which he was provided counsel if he couldn't afford it? Really?

Even under a strict construction of the sort you recommend, wanted perps are killed during apprehension attempts about every day of the week in this country. No trial, no counsel-- shot dead when resisting. Do you oppose that in all cases as well? </div></div>



And, to add insult to injury to your brain,

Let your brain recuperate a bit
</div></div>

Exhit 135.

LWW
09-23-2012, 07:42 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">Double Amputee Shooting: Matthew Jacob Marin, Houston Officer, Kills Man In Wheelchair, Police Say

HOUSTON A Houston police officer <span style='font-size: 20pt'>shot and killed a one-armed, one-legged man in a wheelchair Saturday inside a group home after police say the double amputee threatened the officer and aggressively waved a metal object that turned out to be a pen.</span>

Police spokeswoman Jodi Silva said the man cornered the officer in his wheelchair and was making threats while trying to stab the officer with the pen. At the time, the officer did not know what the metal object was that the man was waving, Silva said.

She said the man came "within inches to a foot" of the officer and did not follow instructions to calm down and remain still.

"Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon," Silva told The Associated Press. </div></div>

Ain't it great to live in the Land of the Free where the people who are supposed to serve and protect, shoot you at will?

Want more?

pure murder! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpn_4Eb-ocQ)



Q

</div></div>

Thanks for, again, adding nothing to the conversation.

LWW
09-23-2012, 07:43 AM
Thanks for, again, subtracting from the conversation.

LWW
09-23-2012, 07:44 AM
Thanks for, again, shamelessly defending the regime.

hondo
09-23-2012, 08:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for, again, subtracting from the conversation. </div></div>

Just trying to illusrtate to the moderator the name-calling and hate that you and Ed spread on this forum. Does that bug you? Sorry if that bugs you.
Stop with the name-calling and personal insults and I'll gladly quit counting.
But you two can't do that, can you? Part of your fun, isn't it?

Soflasnapper
09-23-2012, 09:28 AM
So you are now claiming Bin Laden was a US citizen?

Are you back to claiming the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens, even in those clauses that refer to 'persons'?

The 5th amendment's provisions are for all persons: US citizens, resident aliens, undocumented workers, and really, people anywhere, as all men are equally granted unalienable [sic] rights from God, not governments.

you want me o believe that there is a morl equivalence between aw enforcement killing a perp during the commission of a crime and the POTUS ordering the murder of a citizen offering no resistance?

Didn't say either of those, of course. My hypothetical was for someone not in the commission of a crime, but in his/her apprehension. (I guess you could argue that's a crime of resisting arrest, but it may just be fleeing.) Also the incident in question wasn't a citizen offering no resistance, but a citizen who'd expatriated himself out of the reach of typical law enforcement's reach, and who was inciting others to kill Americans on a daily basis. Aid and comfort to the enemy, in other words, from where he could not be reached by judicial process.

I do not favor the death penalty, and I do not favor killing people. I do not favor war. I think you favor all of it, and now have the vapors over what is a pedestrian example of that same thing, perhaps slightly extended.

Again, the POTUS orders the deaths of persons by CIA findings. This may be of a foreign national, or it may be of a citizen. There is a modicum of due process, but it doesn't involve the court system, or any of the rights enshrined in the BOR. This is considered adequate due process, and neither a crime nor a disgrace.

That he'd order that same result (the guy is dead) using a lethal military strike by the military instead of a lethal covert operative strike by a CIA or NSA or ONI or DIA or USSS agent is not really objectionably different.

LWW
09-23-2012, 11:21 AM
That was precious ... you don't support killing, but you back a murderous regime.

eg8r
09-23-2012, 12:16 PM
LOL Obama the murderer has you in a trance.

eg8r

eg8r
09-23-2012, 12:19 PM
sofla doesn't care about what the COTUS says. He is more interested in the view of the COTUS by the guy currently defying the COTUS. It is sad his head is stuffed so far up their rear his ears are covered also. When Tapper questioned the lack of due process, lack of a trial Carney had nothing intelligent to say. Seems sofla has chosen that as his M.O. also.

eg8r

eg8r
09-23-2012, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By your theory, Clinton's signature to several such findings authorizing the killing of bin Laden were illegal, and we should have only considered it valid to have him killed after a trial in which he was provided counsel if he couldn't afford it? Really?</div></div>Talk about making a stupid statement. Why would you all of a sudden start playing completely dumb and act as if Bin Laden is covered by our COTUS? Hello McFly, wake the heck up before you start responding.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even under a strict construction of the sort you recommend, wanted perps are killed during apprehension attempts about every day of the week in this country.</div></div>The more you talk the dumber you sound. A drone firing a missle is hardly an apprehension attempt. You should have stopped a long time ago.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-23-2012, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL Obama the murderer has you in a trance.

eg8r </div></div>

For the last time, not all killing is murder. The complaints about inappropriate comparisons miss the point that those are killings that are not murder at all, are not prosecuted as murder or even manslaughter, and are commonplace events that show exactly the fact that not all killing is murder.

Nor is a presidential finding that targets individuals for death by CIA covert action a whole lot of due process, but it stands undisputed as a legally permissible act, even given COTUS protections.

Since Obama could have made such a finding that the man should be targeted for death for his role in causing the deaths of Americans and as therefore a threat to national security, the manner in which that death is accomplished, and the fig leaf of the presidential finding process there or not, what is the difference you find between the options of getting that man killed? Do you assert that no American can be targeted for death by a presidential finding, even if they are overseas and providing aid and comfort to deadly enemies of the US?

Or is your brain cramping again at the strain of entertaining a single thought?

eg8r
09-23-2012, 05:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the last time, not all killing is murder.</div></div>Nope, but when he decides to toss the COTUS aside to execute a US citizen without due process then it is murder. Sugarcoat it if that is what helps you sleep at night.

eg8r

hondo
09-23-2012, 05:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is sad his head is stuffed so far up their rear his ears are covered also.

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 155.

hondo
09-23-2012, 05:29 PM
"The more you talk the dumber you sound. You should have stopped a long time ago."

eg8r

Exhibit 156.

eg8r
09-23-2012, 05:37 PM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

eg8r
09-23-2012, 05:37 PM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r