Just a funny look back.

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


My favs

"Our ememy is cunning and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our people and neither do we."

Between that and his response when asked what Indian tribal sovereignty means to him, its a toss up.

At least Bush refused to negotiate our 2nd amendment away to the UN.



?w=500

So many gems I had forgotten about.

'They never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and people..and neither do we.'

Lets take a second and imagine Obama accidentally saying this, haha. I'm sure no one would notice.

Another chestnut ..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5by4fHkp8GM&feature=related

Strange,

I still legally and Constitutionally own my Glock 27 and my Marlin 3030.
Did something happen while I took a sh!t?



"Insert witty quotation here"

lol, how long was that sh!t. They are negotiating now. Bush refused to be involved, yet Obama has Hillary negotiating. If he is not serious, why is he negotiating? Quit being naive, here are the key points..

1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all unauthorized civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull one single bang manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Doh!

"Insert witty quotation here"

Liberal whack jobs will never stop going after guns.
They hate it when a law abiding citizen has a fighting chance.

The gun battle is like the abortion battle...
50 years from now, you are still going to have liberals crawling under the bush trying to strip law abiding citizens a right to defend themselves.

Not to mention the fact if they did attempt to take away weapons...how many people would turn them in?
LMAO...

The only way they would know if you had one is if you used it...and one of my favorite sayings in life is:

I WOULD RATHER BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6!


http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Doh? I get a doh smack down because of what a factcheck.com article said? You believe that garbage? Obama can most definitely by pass Congress on this, Bronco, you should know that, aren't you a lawyer? And this veto power, big deal, who would be doing the veto, Hillary? Sorry, bronco, your going to lose your .40 cal soon. game set match.

Bronco, you are really going to look foolish on this one. I'll have to keep this thread and pull it out when the brownshirts make their rounds.

the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

Yo Homey--was Obama bending over to take it up the azz or were me and you in the process (the American People)??!?!??!?!?

hmmmmmmmm....interesting question, I must say....





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Obama was saving the 'ol rosebud for Putin.

Since when does Obama give a damn about the constitution anyway? By his own admission he intends to do whatever it takes to act if congress chooses not to. He has nothing but disdain for the constitution. This is the man who makes recess appointments when congress isn't even in recess. This is the man who just invoked executive privilege on a matter he's previously claimed he knew nothing about. This is the man who uses immigration enforcement as a foreign policy negotiating chip. This is the man who brought us the biggest federal power grab in history via the Affordable (lol) healthcare act.

Constitution? He don't nee no steenkin' constitution.

I guess Obama was the only President to use executive privilege. Wait, EVERY President in the last 40 years has used it????

You guys arent being hypocritical again are you?

Is Obama also the only one who has ever Recess Appointments? Wait, he is up to 32 recess appointments. And Dubya had over 100? LOL

More hypocrisy.



"Insert witty quotation here"

Bad behavior does not excuse bad behavior. What happened to change?

Hypocritical? Get real bronco.

As a lawyer I expect you'll know that federal courts have enforced certain criteria dealing with executive privilege. In essence the president cannot invoke it unless he's trying to protect certain high level private discussions that he can prove have a compelling reason to be kept private. Since he's already said he doesn't know anything about fast and furious that should conjure up a healthy skepticism even among the most fawning lemming herds.

As far as recess appointments are concerned, perhaps you need to read my post more carefully. Yes, other presidents have made recess appointments, but they use them when congress is actually "in recess." That's the whole point! He's doing both these things to make an end run around the constitutionally guaranteed separation of powers. He's ignores the constitution every time it gets in his way. The only way the executive privilege is appropriate here is if he really is involved with fast and furious and is just trying to cover his own azz, or Holder's. And if he is involved, then he's a LIAR for claiming he's not!

I believe the provilege extends to the Executive Branch, not just the President, right? Didnt Bush use it when Cheney was getting grilled about his talks with Corporate Energy execs?

Or how about when Dubya used it to protet Karl Rove's refusal to testify in the politically-orchestrated firings of federal prosecutors?
Or the best reason - when Dubya used it for the cover-up of the "friendly fire" shooting of former football player Pat Tillman?
Keep being hypocritical guys. Nice.

The privlege can be used to matters dealing with National Security. Does this qualify? Hell if I know. I just know the lemmings on the right are dripping and smelling like hypocrits AGAIN. Its so easy with them.

Now the NRA is involved as well. Great. They are like the Al Sharpton of Gun Rights. SIGH.
Anytime the NRA is involved, I am usually on the other side (and I am a gun owner as you guys know).


And JB, how many recess appointments Obama up to? How many did his predecessors have? How are you not being hypocritical here?




"Insert witty quotation here"

No bronco there's absolutely zero hypocrisy here. The purpose of recess appointments is to appoint someone who is urgently needed while congress isn't available to examine or confirm him. Your president uses this to appoint people while congress is STILL in session. Think about that. He doesn't want his appointees held up to normal congressional scrutiny so he simply sneezes at the constitution and makes the appointment anyway. It's mystifying to me that you seem to be unable to understand this obvious distinction. By the way, your president is the only president in our history to ever make a recess appointment while congress was still in session. Another end run around the constitution by president Kardashian.

Really? Unconstitutional, huh?

Courts disagree with your stance as well.

"The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President's appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set that limit today. Although a President has not before appointed a judge to an Article III court during an intrasession recess as short as the one in this case, appointments to other offices -- offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation -- have been made during an intrasession recess of about this length or shorter. Furthermore, several times in the past, fairly short intrasession recesses have given rise to presidential appointments of judges to Article III court. Evans v. Stephens, Majority opinion of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (2004)

They are talking about Dubya, JB.

Also, are you claiming that no other president has made a recess appointment when Congress was out of session for less than 10 days? (Be careful with this answer).



"Insert witty quotation here"

Ok I'll try this one more time. What I'm claiming is that no president has EVER made a recess appointment while congress was still in session. Umm, recess appointments aren't even recess appointments unless congress is in recess. That's kinda why they'r called "recess appointments."

Obamanuts will make every excuse in the world to protect their superstar.

If you point out anything negative...the first words out of their mouth is "WELL BUSH"..
It is sad to see a large number of people that treat this clown like he is something special.
He is just another smooth talking used car salesman like the rest of them.

I do believe your gun rights will be attacked if he wins...he will find away.

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Yea, I saw that pompous @ss Sharpton, all he kept saying was Bush this and Bush that about the gun running. Bad behavior does not excuse bad behavior. You know if it wasn't for rampant white guilt, he would be nothing.

http://unfaircampaign.org/about-us/f-a-q/

JB,

Ae you talking about the pro-forma recess appointments?
Are you serious?

This crap was a joke when Harry Reid did it to Bush. And its a joke when the Repubs are doing it to Obama now.

"Insert witty quotation here"

If these idiot parties would quit behaving like children and allow the Presidents to make appointments, we wouldnt be talking about "RECESS APPOINTMENTS".

It goes both ways.

What the Republicans are doing might also be Constiutional, but its also a great example of being an obstructionist and an AZZHOLE.

"Insert witty quotation here"

If you actually want to read the WHOLE story on the "Fast and Furious" garbage.

Read this.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

Its actually pretty insightful for 2012 journalism.

"Insert witty quotation here"

Interesting. Thanks for the link, Bronco. After reading the report, I looked around for a rebuttal, and found this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304142/did-fast-and-furious-not-happen-robert-verbruggen

From the Forbes piece:

How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general's report is submitted.)

It seems dumb to capitulate if the Justice Department didn't do anything wrong. So they want to avoid an argument over gun control in an election year? Oh brother.

First they denied that gun walking had occurred. Then they retracted their denial because, you know, the Obama administration absolutely hates to tangle with the gun lobby. A great big chunk of their constituency would just go pffft, after all.

The sad part is 99% of the facts about Fast and Furious have been known for a year now. I read all about Voth and Dobson's squabble and the difficulties prosecuting gun runners last summer.

The fact and the actual problem that needs solving but no one wants to discuss is that thousands of US guns are sold to Mexican cartels each year and used to kill innocent men, women and children miles from the U.S. border. They are also used to kill and intimidate politicans and journalists in order to maintain power.

In turn, they make millions on illegal drug trading and send money and weapons over to the U.S. to encourage gang activity (they are the suppliers, US gangs are the retailers), which in turn leads to innocent U.S. citizens being killed, not to mention our not always innocent youth being swept up in gang activity, destroying families and costing taxpayers boat loads of money on the judicial system and prisons.

It is tragic that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent died. TRAGIC. It sucks. It's bullsh-t. That it was an American weapon is just a slap in the face, but it's tragic no matter where the weapon came from. It's also a tragedy when people's lives are run by mobs. Real women raping, cop buying, coldblooded killing gangs. I know we love the hyperbole around here and love calling unions and Democrats thugs and gangsters (especially anyone from Chicago), but in the 21st century there is no U.S. equivalent to Mexican drug cartels, at least not on this scale.

And ATF couldn't do anything about it. They busted a few smugglers but most were released almost instantly and the ones that weren't were quickly replaced by someone else. The cartels have lots of money to convince people. The NRA lobby is pretty effective in Arizona, and so the laws to stop something like this just weren't in place. So the ATF at some level decided on a strategy that would allow them to go after the higher ups. The guys that if they arrested, it would deal a serious blow to an entire operation not just put one low level guy in jail for a night. This was a plan hatched by officials at the ATF, not Holder or Obama. These were the guys on the ground working with their superiors.

It was a stupid idea in hindsight, yes, but it's a difficult problem to solve. There simply isn't an easy fix for stopping Mexican drug cartels (my plan was post 9/11 put the U.S. military on the Mexican border and finally secure our nation's borders, a fundamental element for national security , but 70% of America including much of this board was in a frenzy to go to Iraq and take out some Muslims instead). While you can disagree with the strategy, it hardly seems impeachment worthy or holding the US Attny Genl in contempt for the first time in US history. It feels like a political sham to me, but it doesn't matter because it fits what people want to believe about Obama being incompetent and evil, maybe possibly even secretly a Mexican, who knows? People motivated by politics are prone to delusion seems to me.

The irony here is that they were basically being too aggressive in trying to arrest the bad guys, so Obama is being blamed for being too hard on crime? Again, I think it was a bad strategy, but law enforcement has a difficult job, especially on the border. If you want a different strategy, you have to win elections. That's how it works, you have to get different people in charge. And to win elections, you have to disassociate yourself from reality in order to smear the other guy as much as possible to score political points. If you repeat enough bullsh-t long enough, someone will believe it, and it may be enough to sway an election.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

Im still trying to discern if Holder actually knew anything or if they are just going after him because its technically udner his "review".



"Insert witty quotation here"