It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wisconsin Senate passes resolution calling for Democrats to be taken into police custody

page: 25
41
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Even I, as a layman rather than a lawyer, can see what appear to be egregious flaws in that legal analysis, most notably perhaps in sections (b) and (c) of the "violations" list.


(b) specifies within "immediate view"...if the Democratic lawmakers starting acting crazy on thie floor to obstruct a vote...Not being absent.

(c) speaks about being called as a witness...as in a hearing, You can be held in contempt for not appearing as a witness to an inquiry.

Neither apply, even with a reaching interpretation.




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by maybereal11
 


While an analysis by an private law firm is interesting, and may carry some weight in the arguments, it is NOT a legally binding decision. Those are issued by judges, not independent law firms.



You will not see this clarified in court. The reason being is that the GOP have been advised by thier attorneys that arresting the representitives will, ironically, make those GOP that direct it subject to arrrest.

That is clear in the law, it is the very first item...what qualifies as a contempt charge?

(a) Arresting a member or officer of the house, or procuring such member or officer to be arrested in violation of the member’s privilege from arrest.




edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Traditionally, the Republicans were to the "rightward" or "conservative" end of the political spectrum, within a range of political thought that involved various permutations of "conservatism", some more than others. You appear to be fiscally conservative, perhaps not socially so. Still within that (old) range, but towards the beginning of it, or the middle of the spectrum over all.

Apparently, since the neocommie takeover of that party, it has shifted "leftward" itself, leaving the positions further "right" uncovered by any party, and creating the impression that the "far right" is somehow tied in to the New Republican Party (Neorepublicans?) by using the old name for the new philosophy.

I believe that what spicypickle was referring to is the appearance of smoothe continuation given by recent actions of BOTH major parties, wherein BOTH appear to be working towards the same goals - growth of an huge and overbearing government. I personally see NO differences in the actions of the neocons under Bush involving such outrages as the "Patriot Act" (which is decidedly UNpatriotic) and the compulsions inherent in the democrats under Obama in such fields as the Individual Mandate to purchase ANYTHING at all. Looks to me, from my perspective, like they are all playing for the same team, trying to foster an impression of "differentness" by merely wearing differently colored jerseys, but still consolidating an inordinate amount of control over individuals by ignoring constitutional mandates and growing an overbearing government structure.

Going from the perspective of a "true" conservative, the New Republican Party is not only not "extreme right", it's not even "rightward" any more. To clarify even further (and this is for those braying about "neocons on the extreme right", not you ) The neocons are on the LEFT, nothing less than "democrats light", and conservatives are no longer represented by EITHER party.

At one time I had high hopes that conservatives would re-infiltrate and take back their party, but now I think that's just not going to happen. We have NO representation, and eventually, unless we all just die out first, there will be a reckoning for that lack of representation. I'm not sure whether it will be the formation of a new party to represent us, OR unrest because a new party will not be allowed, but there WILL BE a reckoning of some sort.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Even I, as a layman rather than a lawyer, can see what appear to be egregious flaws in that legal analysis, most notably perhaps in sections (b) and (c) of the "violations" list.


(b) specifies within "immediate view"...if the Democratic lawmakers starting acting crazy on thie floor to obstruct a vote...Not being absent.


It appears that by "immediate view" you refer to actually physical sight, rather than "immediate view" as in imminent opinion. Has a judge determined that to be the case, rather than varying opinions? If it's perfectly OK to disrupt legislative proceedings from a distance, I can think of a number of ways to do that. I'd like a judge to tell me it's ok, rather than a law firm, before I get started, though.



(c) speaks about being called as a witness...as in a hearing, You can be held in contempt for not appearing as a witness to an inquiry.

Neither apply, even with a reaching interpretation.


I'll give you the second, but the first has yet to be determined. If it's determined that it IS OK, we can bring all US governments to their knees by this time tommorrow.

If it's legal to do so, I'm game. Are you?




edit on 2011/3/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

You will not see this clarified in court.


Well then, let's get this ball rolling! If the courts are going to sit this one out, then it's ALL fair game!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Annee
 


Traditionally, the Republicans were to the "rightward" or "conservative" end of the political spectrum, within a range of political thought that involved various permutations of "conservatism", some more than others. You appear to be fiscally conservative, perhaps not socially so. Still within that (old) range, but towards the beginning of it, or the middle of the spectrum over all.


I would be classified as a California Republican. That would be socially liberal - fiscal conservative. There are probably Dems in more conservative areas that are socially conservative.

So yeah - - it is a range.

I registered at the time of Goldwater. I was young and idealistic at the time - - as most are in their early 20s. I am not a pacifist - but not a war monger either. I would prefer the term and focus of "Peacekeepers over soldiers". I was Christian at the time - - but now would consider myself Agnostic/Atheist - - and support NO Religion in government.

My politics today is pretty mixed - - beyond social liberal/fiscal conservative. I think one really needs to try to see all views - - to understand what you want for yourself. I can even see the side of Fascist Corporate. These are "successful" people/conglomerates. These are leaders. Perhaps in reality they are better equipped to control the direction of this world.

Back to: Wisconsin - - - I support unions keeping their bargaining rights.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Even I, as a layman rather than a lawyer, can see what appear to be egregious flaws in that legal analysis, most notably perhaps in sections (b) and (c) of the "violations" list.


(b) specifies within "immediate view"...if the Democratic lawmakers starting acting crazy on thie floor to obstruct a vote...Not being absent.


It appears that by "immediate view" you refer to actually physical sight, rather than "immediate view" as in imminent opinion. Has a judge determined that to be the case, rather than varying opinions?

If it's perfectly OK to disrupt legislative proceedings from a distance, I can think of a number of ways to do that. I'd like a judge to tell me it's ok, rather than a law firm, before I get started, though.



Wow...Yes it is OK to "disrupt a legislative proceeding from a distance"...or in "imminent opinion" for the average Joe that means political speech or protesting...for politicians it can mean protesting or getting on CNN or Fox and throwing punches to the bill or process.

Can you imagine a legislative body where it was illegal to interfere with the legislative proceedings when you were not in present...A permanent gag order on all politicians??? Dictatorship anyone?

The phrasing "immediate view" is not mysterious in that passage. It is literal as the law often is and makes perfect sense.






(c) speaks about being called as a witness...as in a hearing, You can be held in contempt for not appearing as a witness to an inquiry.

Neither apply, even with a reaching interpretation.


I'll give you the second, but the first has yet to be determined. If it's determined that it IS OK, we can bring all US governments to their knees by this time tommorrow.

If it's legal to do so, I'm game. Are you?



Have you been in a remote village for the last two years? The minority GOP has used the Fillibuster more times in the previous session of congress than any otehr session in the history of the United States.
They actually owned the obstructionist tactic proudly and loudly.

Hell, they even Fillibustered giving 9-11 workers healthcare until overseas corporations could get tax breaks.

It hasn't been subtle.

The US Government IS ALREADY ON IT'S KNEES and folks like the Koch Brothers are standing above us.

Am I Game???...if it means arresting the GOP in DC along with the Dems in WI...then what the hell, yes, I am game, bring on the fight for a rulling dictator and lets stop pretending we are a shining light.

At least the suspense will be over.
edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by maybereal11

You will not see this clarified in court.


Well then, let's get this ball rolling! If the courts are going to sit this one out, then it's ALL fair game!


You are not going to see this clarified in court because the GOP will not issue actual arrest warrants.

Because the law would clearly hold them in contempt for doing so.

I have to believe you understood my original post.
edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

I believe that what spicypickle was referring to is the appearance of smooth continuation given by recent actions of BOTH major parties, wherein BOTH appear to be working towards the same goals - growth of an huge and overbearing government. I personally see NO differences in the actions of the neocons under


Well that is basically the "man behind the curtain" push to a One World Government - IMO. The Presidency is NOT one person. It is a whole team of seen and unseen world wide power/people. You can't look backward to what was - - you can only look forward to "where are we going". It is my opinion that a One World Government - in reality - is the only logical progression. (I do not consider the NWO the same as a legitimate One World Government. NWO is conspiracy based IMO).

Every single person has a focus of what is important to them. Bashing Obama because he hasn't satisfied your focus - - - without acknowledging that he has addressed or fulfilled someone else's focus is the problem I have. Obama has actually accomplished quite a bit.

But - - - that's a whole different discussion.

Back to topic: I haven't been able to listen to any talk shows this morning - - so I don't know what's going on in Wisconsin at this time. I think Unions have hurt themselves by being greedy - - but I still stand with the union in Wisconsin not giving up their bargaining rights. We can see what happened in Ohio.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Wow...Yes it is OK to "disrupt a legislative proceeding from a distance"...or in "imminent opinion" for the average Joe that means political speech or protesting...for politicians it can mean protesting or getting on CNN or Fox and throwing punches to the bill or process.

Can you imagine a legislative body where it was illegal to interfere with the legislative proceedings when you were not in present...A permanent gag order on all politicians??? Dictatorship anyone?

The phrasing "immediate view" is not mysterious in that passage. It is literal as the law often is and makes perfect sense.


"Protest" is not "disruption". It does nothing to grind the wheels to a halt, it only protests the grinding. I think we can go much better than minor "protests", even better than these "representatives" have done at stopping the business of the People. We can make the entire process irrelevant, rather than just stopping it cold.

If it's all legal, then I'm game. I'll get right on that as soon as a judge with the authority do do so tells me it's ok. I'm afraid that with something of this import, I can't just proceed on the analysis of some law firm.




Have you been in a remote village for the last two years? The minority GOP has used the Fillibuster more times in the previous session of congress than any otehr session in the history of the United States.
They actually owned the obstructionist tactic proudly and loudly.

Hell, they even Fillibustered giving 9-11 workers healthcare until overseas corporations could get tax breaks.

It hasn't been subtle.


How did they filibuster without being present for the session? If they were present, then it's not the same thing as running away - it's standing to fight for what they believed in. Also, if it were the same thing, these "representatives" could have just fillibustered and accomplished their goal.

No, somehow I believe you're talking apples and radiator hoses here.



The US Government IS ALREADY ON IT'S KNEES and folks like the Koch Brothers are standing above us.


Hardly. The Koch brothers are just the demons of the moment to keep you in line for the Dems - if you're in Wisconsin. Last week, Exxon was on top of that heap, and likely will be again after this gets resolved. The "other side" use Soros for the same thing.



Am I Game???...if it means arresting the GOP in DC along with the Dems in WI...then what the hell, yes, I am game, bring on the fight for a rulling dictator and lets stop pretending we are a shining light.


I'm all for arresting the DC GOP if they derelict their duties like this. Hell, I've not been very happy with them for some time now, and will shed no tears at all if they run away from their jobs and get thrown under the bus.

Hell of a stretch there to claim there's anything dictatorial about due process - except for those exercising dictatorial powers in grinding it to a halt for their own agendas. Even filibusters are a part of that process - the wheels keep grinding - but running away to freeze it to absolute zero isn't.

You seem to be stuck on Walker, who is in the Executive Branch, and give the legislature a pass in this matter even though this is their fight at the moment. You understand the concept of "Separation of Powers", right?



edit on 2011/3/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You seem to be proposing that the Filibuster is legitmate since it is allowed within the rules of congress?

Yet you deride what the Wisconsin Democrats are doing as less legitimate?

They have broken no laws, they are operating within the bounds of the state constitution.

You may say it is unfair and unproductive. That it stands in the way of government working properly...and I would say the same of the GOPs record breaking Filibuster run as the minority in our last session of congress.

Here is the passage of the Wisc. Constituion requiring a 3/5ths Quarum.

Vote on fiscal bills; quorum. SECTION 8. On the passage
in either house of the legislature of any law which imposes, continues
or renews a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues
or renews an appropriation of public or trust money, or
releases, discharges or commutes a claim or demand of the state,
the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shall be duly
entered on the journal; and three−fifths of all the members
elected to such house shall in all such cases be required to constitute
a quorum therein.

Now...You might argue that according to Robert's Rules “requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons.”

And thus the Qourum requirement was never designed for this purpose...

And I would argue, rightly so, that the Filibuster was never designed to be the Obstructionist tool that it was in the last congressional session, but rather an insurance that each bill would be debated in totality if any member felt it neccessary.

Again...we see the 3/5ths rule with Filibusters...Wiki

Filibuster in the United States Senate
In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

So both with the US Senate and the Senate of Wisc. the magic number to get a highly controversial bill passed seems to be 3/5ths, which the GOP does not have.

FYI - The thread that sews those two tactics together...the Wisc. Senate does not allow for the Fillibuster.

This is it....different implementations...same tactic...both as legitimate or illegitimate as you choose, but both legal.

3/5ths...that is what is neccessary to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate and in WI where there is no Filibuster, 3/5ths present is what it takes to pass a finance bill.

Maybe not how it should be, but how it is...and it is near impossible for any GOP to take a moral stand on the issue after the record breaking amount of filibusters they employed and defended as legitimate during the last congressional session.





edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 

The State Senators said today that they would talk to the Governor if he came to the border.

My first thought was that if I was Governor, I either:
1. Tell them that their resignations have been accepted. They can come back to run in the Special Elections.
2. I would go and meet with them. While we were meeting, the Wisconsin National Guard would conduct a search and rescue exercise and we would all return to Madison together.

edit on 7-3-2011 by CharlesMartel because: Typpo



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 

Well any other job would get you fired for not showing up to work.. Democratic Senators hiding out justify being fired, in my view. They can't force their agenda in Wisconsin so they decide not to play at all in order to protect the Unions.. People had better wake up. Government Employee's Boss is the people, not Union Bosses.. I have worked as a State of Oregon Employee and Shop Stewart with our Union.. I have to say that Employees will follow the Union Boss before their Employer because of the fear of not being represented against the same if they do not.. We don't need to give Union Bosses that kind of power over our Government Employees... Their bargaining should be limited to wages only.. Benefits should be on par with the private sector in comparable positions. Unions by Nature are Left leaning institutions and those in Unions are under great pressure to also lean left even when an issue needs a conservative answer in the mind of the union member.. Moves to open vote unionization is yet another tool sought by union leaders in order to put pressure on those who have been forced to vote openly against unionization of a work site. The ONLY reason for such a non secret vote is to allow co-workers the knowledge of who is against unionization and allow work site pressure to be put on them to unionize.

In short, Unionization of Public Service personnel has and is destroying Federal, State and Community budgets because of ever increasing monetary Demands along with increasing Benefits. At the same time Disciplinary actions left open to Government Employers have been hogtied leaving little to be done with employment abusing Public Employees. In short, Union Bosses have more control than Employers on the job site.. Being a Union member limits your Political views to that of the Union you belong to...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Annee
 



Apparently, since the neocommie takeover of that party, it has shifted "leftward" itself, leaving the positions further "right" uncovered by any party, and creating the impression that the "far right" is somehow tied in to the New Republican Party (Neorepublicans?) by using the old name for the new philosophy.

I believe that what spicypickle was referring to is the appearance of smoothe continuation given by recent actions of BOTH major parties, wherein BOTH appear to be working towards the same goals - growth of an huge and overbearing government. I personally see NO differences in the actions of the neocons under Bush involving such outrages as the "Patriot Act" (which is decidedly UNpatriotic) and the compulsions inherent in the democrats under Obama in such fields as the Individual Mandate to purchase ANYTHING at all. Looks to me, from my perspective, like they are all playing for the same team, trying to foster an impression of "differentness" by merely wearing differently colored jerseys, but still consolidating an inordinate amount of control over individuals by ignoring constitutional mandates and growing an overbearing government structure.


Yep. That's exactly what I was saying.

Plus, there are things like this. From time to time, it has been quietly acknowledged that Obama may be continuing Bush's policies on things like warrantless eavesdropping. It's hard to get much information on that because the media barely reports it and doesn't really follow up on it when they do. Even so, the stories are out there.

It is pretty clear that Obama is not the slightest bit afraid to use the full power of the government as a battering ram exactly the same way as Bush did.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu

Every single person has a focus of what is important to them. Bashing Obama because he hasn't satisfied your focus - - - without acknowledging that he has addressed or fulfilled someone else's focus is the problem I have. Obama has actually accomplished quite a bit.



This is nonsense. Nobody voted for the individual mandate because Obama said he was opposed to it during the campaigns and debates. He didn't put the individual mandate in his bill until AFTER he was elected on a platform that didn't include an individual mandate.

As I said before, he was the one who promised people a healthcare bill with no individual mandate. It was up to him to figure out how to do it. This was a key difference between Hillary and Obama. Hillary wanted a mandate. Obama said he was against it. Obama won. Then Obama put Hillary in his cabinet and put the mandate in his bill and rammed it down our throats. You can't change documented history. That's what happened. The American people voted against the individual mandate when they voted for Obama. It wasn't anyone's "focus" besides Obama's and that of his collaborators who knew the American people didn't want this mandate.

When people protested, they were told to shut up and get used to it. The Democrats smeared the people protesting Obamacare as racists while they rammed it through.

Finally, the election rolled around and the American people remembered who voted for Obamacare and who didn't. And that's why the Democrats got their butts kicked out of Congress and nearly lost the Senate as well. And that's why they're in a minority now and can't do anything about Wisconsin but run and hide like little children who don't want to face the consequences of what they've done.

The only thing Obama has accomplished is taking a majority and turning it into a minority in two years by doing things he said he wouldn't do and doing few of the things he said he would.

And by the way. A presidency may be more than one man but that one man has the veto pen. He doesn't have to sign a terrible law. No matter what anyone else says or does, he has the final word. The responsibility is squarely on his shoulders.

Those people who are supportive of Obamacare largely have no idea what they're supporting. They may understand the individual mandate but my bet would bet that at least 90% of them don't understand the precedent it sets and why this is a terrible thing. The rest of them who do understand it and just don't care would be dictators if they ever got half a chance.
edit on 8-3-2011 by spicypickle because: Corrections



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spicypickle

Plus, there are things like this. From time to time, it has been quietly acknowledged that Obama may be continuing Bush's policies on things like warrantless eavesdropping. It's hard to get much information on that because the media barely reports it and doesn't really follow up on it when they do. Even so, the stories are out there.

It is pretty clear that Obama is not the slightest bit afraid to use the full power of the government as a battering ram exactly the same way as Bush did.


I heard last night that he's going to fire up the Military Tribunals for Gitmo detainees again instead of closing Gitmo like he said he would. I think I'll just sit back now and see if there's any outrage from his supporters over that, or if we just hear crickets chirping...

Gives "Continuity of Government" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by MindSpin
 

The State Senators said today that they would talk to the Governor if he came to the border.

My first thought was that if I was Governor, I either:
1. Tell them that their resignations have been accepted. They can come back to run in the Special Elections.
2. I would go and meet with them. While we were meeting, the Wisconsin National Guard would conduct a search and rescue exercise and we would all return to Madison together.

edit on 7-3-2011 by CharlesMartel because: Typpo


as for (1)...they are ELECTED REPRESENTITIVES of the PEOPLE. This is not North Korea and the Govenor of Wisconsin does not have the same powers as Kim Jong-Il.

as for (2) See (1)

If you were Govenor of Wisc. you would be immediately arrested for "Abuse of Power" at the least,
edit on 8-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrainBurps
reply to post by MindSpin
 

Well any other job would get you fired for not showing up to work.. Democratic Senators hiding out justify being fired, in my view.




Gaveled in on Jan. 5, 2011, Boehner presided over the passage of four bills during his first month as speaker, with a total of just 25 votes. The most notable of those was a repeal the president's signature health care law -- a move that was viewed as a strictly symbolic gesture, as it is not expected to pass or even get a vote in the Senate.

By contrast, Pelosi, gaveled in on Jan. 4, 2007, led the Democratic Congress in passing 19 bills during her first month as speaker, including all six of the bills targeted in her "First 100 Hours" agenda.

Why the discrepancy? Well, part of it is that Democratic Congress of 2007 spent more of its first month in session: As of Feb. 1, 2007, Congress had been in session for 16 days, 134 hours, and 50 minutes, according to the Congressional Record.

By contrast, this year Republican leadership determined the House would be in session for only 11 days, 62 hours, and 5 minutes of its first month, according to the Congressional Record. Some of that time was spent reading the U.S. Constitution on the House floor; original parts of the Constitution that were later amended, including sections referencing slavery, were omitted.



www.huffingtonpost.com...&title=House_Democrats_2007



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrainBurps
reply to post by MindSpin
 

Well any other job would get you fired for not showing up to work..


What exactly constitutes "showing up to work" here? I am genuinely curious. From what I have seen, they are doing what their constituents want them to do and right or wrong, is that not the job of representatives? To represent their people? Where exactly are they supposed to be punching in?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spicypickle

Plus, there are things like this. From time to time, it has been quietly acknowledged that Obama may be continuing Bush's policies on things like warrantless eavesdropping. It's hard to get much information on that because the media barely reports it and doesn't really follow up on it when they do. Even so, the stories are out there.

It is pretty clear that Obama is not the slightest bit afraid to use the full power of the government as a battering ram exactly the same way as Bush did.


I heard last night that he's going to fire up the Military Tribunals for Gitmo detainees again instead of closing Gitmo like he said he would. I think I'll just sit back now and see if there's any outrage from his supporters over that, or if we just hear crickets chirping...

Gives "Continuity of Government" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?



He can't do it without the GOP.



Republicans have attacked President Barack Obama’s plans to close Gitmo and move terror suspects to a maximum security prison in Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from Clinton. The facility, which has remained mostly vacant since it was opened in 2001 due to Illinois budget issues, is expected to house fewer than 100 terror detainees along with more than 1,000 other extremely dangerous federal prisoners.

iowaindependent.com...

As far as him not getting it done? Yep, his bad and a promise broken, but to infer he hasn't tried desperately to do so is dishonest.

By the way...how did we get to the Gitmo topic? Desperate derailment much?
edit on 8-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join