Mortgage Grapevine

Political: Thanks wing nuts!

You had to have your laws. You cheered. You called guys like me a traitor. Weak on terror for not going along with your idiocy.

I hope you're happy.

Stay focused on that lazy 47 percent and welfare cheats. Stay focused on birth certificates. Keep watching Hannity and listening to Rush. Keep staying stupid.


Click Here

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Manhattan refused on Wednesday to require the Justice Department to disclose a memorandum providing the legal justification for the targeted killing of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret,” she wrote.
by That's funny! January 2, 2013 11:35 PM

Ancho, you forgot to read the whole case as if you had you would have stated the the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU. The ACLU is not Dem or Pub. Just a group of attorneys who seek the truth, and try and expose our govt when they are not doing things the way the ACLU believes they should be under what the constituiton says. I don't always beleive in some the things they fight for. Actually don't like this one, as a terrorist is a terrorist no matter where born, or what citizwnship. ACLU says that our presidents actions are wrong and they want to prove it.

Really funny part is you trying to say that this is some Republican Hannity witch hunt, which is about as far away from the ACLU as you can get.

Go count some more ballots, your not even making sense on here anymore.

by Vinnie The Leg Breaker January 3, 2013 12:33 AM

“Although Obama campaigned against the secrecy policies of the Bush Administration, once in office his Attorney General Eric Holder has cited the state secrets doctrine.

I hope you're happy.
Stay focused on that wealthy 2 percent and capital gains cheats. Stay focused on birth control. Keep watching Maddow and listening to Ed. Keep staying stupid.

Click Here
by Sooner Nation January 3, 2013 12:37 AM

Cornyn's amendment would require the Obama administration to provide the Office of Legal Counsel memo justifying the killing program to legislators on several congressional committees.
"""Democrats""" on the Judiciary Committee voted to shelve Cornyn's proposal, but that doesn't mean the effort is dead. Cornyn could propose his amendment again later this year, and there's also a section of a separate intelligence bill that would compel the administration to share all of the Justice Department's legal opinions on intelligence matters with the congressional intelligence committees unless the White House invokes executive privilege.

It is shameful that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are helping the Obama Administration to keep this vital document secret. Expertise in the philosophy of law is hardly needed to understand how pernicious and dangerous it is to vest the government with the power to hide legal arguments so consequential that they're used to justify extrajudicial killing. Senators who defend that course are unfit for an office charged with overseeing the executive branch.
Click Here

Those damned WINGNUTS!
by Sooner Nation January 3, 2013 1:03 AM

"Really funny part is you trying to say that this is some Republican Hannity witch hunt, which is about as far away from the ACLU as you can get."

That's not what I'm saying. You guys cheered and demanded that the executive branch be afforded this kind of nonsense. To fight those evil terrorists. Laws passed to spy on Americans and efforts to insulate the executive branch from oversight are what you wanted. Now you have them---hope you are happy.

Review recent history. Cheney and his attorney Addingtom were obsessed with executive power. I believe the term is "unitary Executive."

Bet you never thought a black man---a black socialist----would ever have this much power, did you?

Sort of the fly in your ointment.
by That's funny! January 3, 2013 1:04 AM

Chrisfex makes the most sense regarding his response to Count Countula.
by turdly January 3, 2013 10:05 AM

See---there's the problem.

You (and Sooner) see this thru a lens of partisan politics.

You guys worry about the most idiotic things.

I defend Obama against your bogus, insane accusations.
Socialist? Watched Benghazi live and did nothing? Birth Certificates? It goes on and on.

The FACT is that you guys lobbied hard for this kind of executive secrecy. And then you accuse Obama of not being transparent enough.

You don't see the glaring idiotic hypocrisy of that?
by That's funny! January 3, 2013 10:11 AM

TF... I'm not sure conservatives are bashing Obama for executive secrecy when dealing with terrorism. I believe they bash Obama for an alleged lack of transparency in domestic affairs (ex. back room dealings).

I personally don't buy that there is a lack of transparency with domestic policy: I think that is paranoia... But frankly I don't mind the classified nature of governmental action when dealing with terrorists.

If you think the US government will abuse it's power using the Patriot Act to rule with an iron fist, I can understand your concern. I don't share the same fear, naive as it may be... but now we're just discussing differences between two human beings.
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 10:49 AM

See---there's the problem.
You (and Sooner) see this thru a lens of partisan politics

Huh? This whole thread was started by you FRAMING it as
Political: Thanks wing nuts!
I'm just trying to see clearly through your lens of the world, as murky as it is

To help you, again, I AM merely refuting your (in)ability to resolve the English language.
Congress, in a bipartisan manner, has asked the Administration to produce a reasoning why the POTUS should be allowed to act as Judge, Jury, & Executioner thus repealing the 5th Amendment. If McVeigh was alive he'd just drone him and that's not OK with me and I promise you I've witnessed the most horrific tragedy imaginable a short 10 miles north. As was the story with Bush, he skirted the laws and we (America) enacted stricter policies or actually let FISA take back the "warrantless" investigations. Remembering that this was a border issue and the guy who was droned was on foreign soil and it could be argues rescinded his citizenship by his actions.

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation
Click Here

If you can show me where Awlaki was indicted for a crime I might be persuaded to say Obama was following protocol but at this point it wouldn't matter who the POTUS was if KILLING an American was undertaken!

The only partisan window is in your house
by Sooner Nation January 3, 2013 11:44 AM

Well ok... I guess conservatives are NOT ok with sercretive dealings with domestic terrorists. We can't fight the war on terror like it is the civil war. The good guys and the bad guys are wearing the same uniforms.
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 12:02 PM

I am OK with the secrecy, I'm not OK with killing people without due process. If you're in front of me aiming a weapon that's due process. If someone says you're a terrorist and Obama kills you based on heresay I'm not OK with that
If you're on foreign soil helping the enemy I'll help pull the trigger
Simple enough?
by Sooner Nation January 3, 2013 12:25 PM


Your explanation is way too simple and very unrealistic. The concern is here on our soil... would the president of the United States use hearsay as a basis to covertly eliminate a citizen of the United States?

Uh... that's pretty far out there... but let's just say he would... is the hearsay based on intellgence gathering from the FBI, CIA or armed forces?
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 1:29 PM


Oops... forgot to add something. IF the termination is a military action, you can almost guaranetee their is a briefing and report about it. In other words, before a termination is carried out, due process would already have been done.

What exactly is that due process in the military? Well there's a difference between civilian and military court... so the civilian rules just don't apply. Military Industrial Complex anyone?
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 1:35 PM

"So let me get this straight, if a conservative critisizes Obama for breaking promises, It is the conservative that is being hypocritical? "

No. But this isn't only about Obama. It's about having an executive branch that is essentially accountable to no one. It's about the foolishness of a subset of individuals that believe "secrecy" has any place in a representative democracy.

Let' say you think killing "terrorists" no matter who is justifiable in any way and for any reason.
Shouldn't the executive branch at least be required to shed a little light on the topic?

This concept didn't orginate with Bush. But it was and his frightened supporters that took this stuff to entirely different level.

by That's funny! January 3, 2013 1:40 PM

Damn... I guess moderates like me have no place in the right/left battleground. I'll act like the French and wave the white flag.

| \
| \
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 2:05 PM

That was a phail flag. :)
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 2:05 PM

Your explanation is way too simple and very unrealistic. The concern is here on our soil... would the president of the United States use hearsay as a basis to covertly eliminate a citizen of the United States?
Uh... that's pretty far out there...

The (concern to this thread) ruling the "WINGNUT HATER" posted about was an American citizen being terminated. The due process was ambiguous
I can't imagine anyone being OK with droning a citizen at home

by Sooner Nation January 3, 2013 2:42 PM

Ambiguous to you and I perhaps... but unless you know something I don't, probably not illegal.

Drone strikes in an of themselves are pretty uncomfortable... but probably necessary. I'm not going to sit here and say that I'm ok with it.. but personally I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 2:57 PM

My best friend builds them and I'm stoked we can do what we do with the technology
Haven't lost a wink of sleep over their usefulness
I question the Executive Branch whether it's Red-Blue-or ?
Like I mentioned earlier with Awlaki, Good Riddance
by Sooner Nation January 3, 2013 3:52 PM

I guess we can only pray that the government/military doesn't make a critical error and murder an innocent American citizen. That's pretty much all it will take to pull funding for a counter-terrorism measure that probably does and will do more good than harm.

Use of lethal drone strikes is definitely in the realm of "need to know" and "engaging in misinformation"... since the president is the commander in chief, it's not surprising that he takes some heat for the program... but not alarming.
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 4:21 PM

sorry... disinformation...

and he is going to take heat for DOMESTIC drone strikes... still not alarming in my opinion.
by Gaping Spider January 3, 2013 4:23 PM


(No password? Register here)
(Don't be a nuisance.  Please avoid offensive language.  Advertisements are not allowed.)