BlackHorse Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) Never heard of Stormfront? As if. You can't even say that with a straight face, as you've quoted mentions to to it or the past year. Tell us another lie. Your presence doesn't disturb me. I like to see my feelings and posts about conservative racial politics reinforced by your apologist posts. Much to your chagrin you only confirm what I say with your failed logic and over the top defense of intolerant thinking. I've never heard of Stormfront and I don't really care if you don't believe that. if I quoted something from their website it is surely because I did a google search and happened up it during the search. I don't know what the website is and I don't patron it. Straight face and all. Oh and by the way. I like to see my feelings and posts about conservative racial politics reinforced by your apologist posts Yet another broad accusation of racism against all things conservative. But that can't be because LH has assured us he doesn't do that. lol Like I said, you can't control your vile hatred; it just spews out. Edited April 3, 2014 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Blackhorse, this works awesome---->"This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Langston Hughes. View it anyway?" Makes a thread go much quicker when 3/4 is reduced to that one line. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I've never heard of Stormfront and I don't really care if you don't believe that. if I quoted something from their website it is surely because I did a google search and happened up it during the search. I don't know what the website is and I don't patron it. Straight face and all. Oh and by the way. Yet another broad accusation of racism against all things conservative. But that can't be because LH has assured us he doesn't do that. lol Like I said, you can't control your vile hatred; it just spews out. I never said you qouted them. I said you qouted references to Stormfront in my posts about you multiple times. So you have seen (heard) of it and replied in context about it. Nice try acting like you're unaware of it. And a general reference to something is not all inclusive. Sorry, if you keep getting that wrong. When I say conservative politics I'm not referring to all conservatives or all politics. It's just a simple way to get across a point. You in your hatred for me read way too much into things on purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 8, 2014 Author Share Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) I became almost apoplectic when I read this. What use is a law where a "vast amount of discretion" in enforcing laws exists? It should be the most limited discretion!!!!!!! That is as great a threat to the concept of "the rule of law" as any Islamic overthrow or communist social upheaval as anything I can imagine. We've gone to war to defend against comparable threats, including NAZI Germany and Imperialist Japan. And the President uses that same assumption in selectively applying or ignoring the laws he and prior administrations signed-off on. ARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Holder claims 'vast amount' of discretion in enforcing federal laws Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in how the Justice Department prosecutes the laws that are on the books.Holder’s remarks, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, came in response to GOP accusations that he is flouting the law with its positions on marijuana legalization and criminal sentencing. Leading the questioning was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who asked Holder whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and more specifically that an attorney general has,” Holder responded. “But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people."Republicans on the panel grilled Holder on the Obama administration’s decision not to interfere with marijuana legalization efforts in Colorado and elsewhere, as long as states establish adequate regulations.Goodlatte criticized the decision, saying it is tantamount to ignoring the law.“The Justice Department’s decision not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but a formal department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress,” Goodlatte said. Edited April 8, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 ^^^^^^^^ Looks like someone is mad that his big government isn't being enforced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 I never said you qouted them. I said you qouted references to Stormfront in my posts about you multiple times. So you have seen (heard) of it and replied in context about it. Nice try acting like you're unaware of it. Feel free to go back through my posts and quote where I made any reference to Stormfront. I'd love to see that. Otherwise it's just you being full of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 8, 2014 Author Share Posted April 8, 2014 ^^^^^^^^ Looks like someone is mad that his big government isn't being enforced. Why have laws you or I endorse if it enforced on a whim or only when politically adventitious? Why not just have rule by fiat? Oh, wait............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 ^^^^^^^^ Looks like someone is mad that his big government isn't being enforced. If you're not going to enforce a law, it should be repealed, not ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 9, 2014 Author Share Posted April 9, 2014 If you're not going to enforce a law, it should be repealed, not ignored. Why elect an "Executive" officer who refuses to execute the law of the land. And why have a law that is not enforced? A king rules by fiat.....as does Obama. We have a king, as it appears. And his loyal subjects are willing to lay down their lives in his defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 bbbbut, I thought you guys didn't want a king and fought a war and stuff so.......oh wait, you elected this king, sorry, I forgot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 bbbbut, I thought you guys didn't want a king and fought a war and stuff so.......oh wait, you elected this king, sorry, I forgot. We've been electing Kings for many many years. Unlike you guys who don't elect the Queens appointed ruler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 9, 2014 Author Share Posted April 9, 2014 bbbbut, I thought you guys didn't want a king and fought a war and stuff so.......oh wait, you elected this king, sorry, I forgot.Not me. I did not elect this king. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Not me. I did not elect this king. No, you voted for the other would be king and past ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Not me. I did not elect this king. Sorry, I meant "you" as in "you guys" which in reality was what, 51% or something? So to be fair, I feel sorry for 49% of you but the other 51 deserve what you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Sorry, I meant "you" as in "you guys" which in reality was what, 51% or something? So to be fair, I feel sorry for 49% of you but the other 51 deserve what you get. A helluva better president than the guy the 49% voted for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 A helluva better president than the guy the 49% voted for. How could you KNOW this? He was never elected. And the guy we have now was never the guy who ran for the office in the first place. Obama 2007 is far from the Obama 2014 we have. He certainly didn't campaign that he would do what he has done and promised to end things that were in place that he has kept in place. So who did you vote for? It sure wasn't what we have today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 How could you KNOW this? He was never elected. And the guy we have now was never the guy who ran for the office in the first place. Obama 2007 is far from the Obama 2014 we have. He certainly didn't campaign that he would do what he has done and promised to end things that were in place that he has kept in place. So who did you vote for? It sure wasn't what we have today. I can't argue that with you. Obama has moved to the right way too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 I can't argue that with you. Obama has moved to the right way too far. If that's to the right, you are standing on your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 If that's to the right, you are standing on your head. From where he campaigned, he has moved right on the PA and surveillance, austerity and transparency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 austerity The U.S. government has demonstrated austerity? Where? And before you answer, a cut to built-in increases in spending isn't austerity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 From where he campaigned, he has moved right on the PA and surveillance, austerity and transparency. And to follow up to Nicks question, what transparency? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) And to follow up to Nicks question, what transparency? He moved to the right and has been limiting that. Edited April 11, 2014 by Langston Hughes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 He moved to the right and has been limiting that. I don't really see how transparency is a right or left thing. It's just a thing. And Obama's administration has none of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted April 12, 2014 Author Share Posted April 12, 2014 He moved to the right and has been limiting that. Never moved. never transparent. Just what were his college scores and what happened to his original birth certificate.....not the modern version posted online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Never moved. never transparent. Just what were his college scores and what happened to his original birth certificate.....not the modern version posted online. Really? I could have swore that we were discussing campaign promises versus white house policy. So are you saying that he didn't suggest that his administration would be transparent while on the campaign trail and then moved not to be while in office? Of course he did and that move was to the right, like the other things i am displeased about. Look, more birther dogwhistle politics. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/ Edited April 12, 2014 by Langston Hughes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.