Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

...the government would target US citizens!

Something about this sounds awfully Bushy...    :D

Do you mean Republican attempts to imprison them for life without a trial?

Now that's something Bush/Cheney were chomping at the bit to do!

Republican you say?

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention)

Hmmm...I read all of that. Nothing about US citizens!

You are correct!  That article had nothing to do with US citizens!  My mistake, I mixed it with another one.  We know after all that there is no threat (http://popculturedoneright.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,1017.msg9816.html#msg9816) of that happening to US citizens!

Only if your republican comrades (my new word  ;D) don't get their way!

Better check that Senate vote again!

...the President would use signing statements to avoid laws passed by Congress.

And they were right!

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/201245-obama-says-he-wont-be-bound-by-guantanamo-gun-control-portions-of-omnibus (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/201245-obama-says-he-wont-be-bound-by-guantanamo-gun-control-portions-of-omnibus)

Obama says he’s not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisions

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus bill funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, broke the record for most signing statements by a president.

Good for him!

But on the other hand, he did decide after the fact that he, Cheney, Gonzales and others were exempt, so maybe it's not the shameless, flagrant, self-serving, arrogant, brazen and utter contempt for the rule of law that seems to characterize his and Mr. Cheney's approach to, say, the Constitution, and the literally countless congressional acts he's signed into law and then negated with "signing statements."

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

My how times change!


Remember those articles of impeachment you supported?

http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php/topic,19118.msg282916.html#msg282916 (http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php/topic,19118.msg282916.html#msg282916)

Ah those were the days!

How many times did Bush do that with his signing statements? Were you clamboring for impeachment then?

The difference is Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He knows the Constitution and what violates it. He's a better person and President than Bush, who was stupid and had no idea what the Constitution contained.

We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress," then-Senator Obama said as a presidential candidate in 2008.

...although he did not support all of it, changes made by Congress after negotiations with the White House had satisfied most of his concerns and had given him enough latitude to manage counterterrorism and foreign policy in keeping with administration principles. […]
 
The White House had said that the legislation could lead to an improper military role in overseeing detention and court proceedings and could infringe on the president’s authority in dealing with terrorism suspects. But it said that Mr. Obama could interpret the statute in a way that would preserve his authority.

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” He also said he would reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” that suspects be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

Looks like he isn't! (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-signs-military-spending-bill.html?hp)

Hmm...another lie repudiated!

How do you figure?


Which lie are you talking about, Obama's?

Of course not. Yours!

...The President would violate the constitution by making illegal appointments.

bullshit.. total and utter bullshit..

I'll give you  that he didn't follow the  clinton started, republican practiced, "3-day" rule on this.. but you calling it 'illegal' when you never once had an issue when Bush did it,or Regan did it or hell any one did it, is about as petty as you've ever been..

funny, you can't admit you're a hypocrite.. but absolutely are..

bullshit.. total and utter bullshit..

I'll give you  that he didn't follow the  clinton started, republican practiced, "3-day" rule on this.. but you calling it 'illegal' when you never once had an issue when Bush did it,or Regan did it or hell any one did it, is about as petty as you've ever been..

funny, you can't admit you're a hypocrite.. but absolutely are..

What I was talking about...it's pretty sad even the highly non-partial CSPAN calls them out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwlFR84XT0U&feature=player_embedded

I swear...it's like trying to play fair with the playground bullies. Except in this case the playground bullies are more intelligent,

I love, as John Stewart pointed out, it wasn't the indefinite detentions of American Citizens (that Obama, with a disclaimer said he wouldn't do) that got Congress (Republicans) riled (no, they liked that one...dirty fuckin terrorists!)...it was...the recess appointment, done during a non-recess, that was LITERALLY over in 30 seconds...30...fucking...seconds.

It's a game of asshole poker.  "I was watching that!"  "You turned the TV on, walked out of the room 30 seconds later, left to the store, met your girlfriend for some pizza and then came home with 5 minutes of the movie left."  "Yea!, but I was fucking watching that!" *sigh*

I love, as John Stewart pointed out, it wasn't the indefinite detentions of American Citizens (that Obama, with a disclaimer said he wouldn't do) that got Congress (Republicans) riled (no, they liked that one...dirty fuckin terrorists!)...it was...the recess appointment, done during a non-recess, that was LITERALLY over in 30 seconds...30...fucking...seconds.

It's a game of asshole poker.  "I was watching that!"  "You turned the TV on, walked out of the room 30 seconds later, left to the store, met your girlfriend for some pizza and then came home with 5 minutes of the movie left."  "Yea!, but I was fucking watching that!" *sigh*

You do realize that makes my point don't you?

Or...maybe you don't!

(never mind that the President requested it). 

Officials like FBI Director Robert Mueller had worried that Section 1022 of the NDAA “lacks clarity” about how law enforcement officials should handle a suspected terrorist at the time of arrest. That section required individuals who weren’t citizens or lawful U.S. residents who have had ties to al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” to be placed into the military system — facts that could be difficult to determine right off the bat (“They don’t wear al-Qaeda hats,” one law enforcement official official told TPM.)

A senior administration official said that Obama took as long as he did to actually sign the NDAA to give officials the most amount of time to implement procedures which are supposed to be in place 60 days after he signed the bill into law. His signing statement indicated that the White House could seek modifications to the bill from Congress if they find the guidelines unworkable.

But broadly, the administration will interpret the law in a way that gives them the ability to wave any military custody requirement and enact it in a way that allows counterterrorism flexibility.

Is your point:

a. Nancy Pelosi and many House Democrats actually show up to work during a session called by the single republican there? And actually demand that they work????

b. The single House republican has a penile affection for a gavel with a big head and only wanted to wrap his arms around it with no intention of actually working????

c. This is a socialist communist pinko fag conspiracy generated by CSPAN????

One signing statement later and countless disclaimers before and since, and you're still sitting in that Circle Jerk of Attribution™?

Gawd...that lilDick must be sore...

Here's some [http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/obama_to_basically_ignore_congress_terrorists-in-military-custody_mandate.php]lube:[/url]

My point was that Congress was not in recess.

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that I had to spell it out for you?  I thought the context made it obvious.  Oh well....

My point was that Congress was not in recess.

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that I had to spell it out for you?  I thought the context made it obvious.  Oh well....

ON Wednesday President Obama, using his power to make recess appointments, named Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A few hours later, he used the same power to appoint three new members to the National Labor Relations Board, acting to overcome unprecedented Senate encroachment on his duty to appoint executive officials. The president’s right to do so is clearly stated in the Constitution: the recess appointments clause empowers him to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

However, since the twilight years of the George W. Bush administration, the Senate has tried to nullify this power by holding “pro forma” sessions every three days, during what no one doubts would otherwise be an extended recess. In these sham sessions, manifestly serving only to circumvent the recess appointment safety valve, a lone senator gavels the Senate to order, usually for just a few minutes; senators even agree beforehand that no business will be conducted.

It is this transparently obstructionist tactic to which President Obama said “enough,” striking a badly needed blow for checks and balances with strong support both from the text and the original purpose of the recess appointment clause.

Its aims, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 67, included facilitating appointments “necessary for the public service to fill without delay.” Although the main concern in 1789 involved difficulties of travel that kept a recessed Senate from acting swiftly, the broad imperative retains modern relevance, even when the Senate engineers its own unavailability.

Past practice also points the way. Presidents have long claimed, attorneys general have long affirmed and the Senate has long acquiesced to the president’s authority to make recess appointments during extended breaks within a Senate session. In 1905, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that “recess” referred to periods when, “because of its absence,” the Senate could not “participate as a body in making appointments” — a definition that precludes treating pro forma sessions as true breaks in an extended recess.

Since 1867, 12 presidents have made more than 285 such appointments, without constitutional objection by the Senate. And attorneys general going back to Harry M. Daugherty in 1921 have held that the Constitution authorizes such appointments.
 
This does not free the president to make recess appointments whenever the Senate breaks for lunch or takes routine weekend vacations that conceal no objective scheme to frustrate presidential appointments. Without limits on both sides, he could bypass the Senate’s “advice and consent” role by routinely recess-appointing controversial nominees.

These limits mean the president can resort to recess appointments of this kind only in instances of transparent and intolerable burdens on his authority. Article II charges him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”; this duty, combined with appointment and recess-appointment powers, requires an irreducible minimum of presidential authority to appoint officials when the appointments are essential to execute duly enacted statutes.

In this case, the administration’s focus on the gimmicky nature of pro forma sessions is best understood as one among several factors that combine to present unconstitutional interference with the president’s irreducible power and duty.

Here's someone with a lot more brains than you commenting (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/games-and-gimmicks-in-the-senate.html?_r=1&hp) on this topic:
 

So I guess it's not the President who's not following the intent of the Constitution?

I don't doubt Tribe has more brains than I do, but as a constitutional scholar, he's very much of the school of the "living" constitution.  Or, the constitution only means what we want it to mean when we want it to mean that.

If we accept Tribe's interpretation, that means the President not longer needs Senate approval for appointments.  Be careful what you wish for...

As for me, I'll go by the document that Tribe is bored with:  "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

I don't doubt Tribe has more brains than I do

I don't doubt Tribe has more brains than I do, but as a constitutional scholar, he's very much of the school of the "living" constitution.  Or, the constitution only means what we want it to mean when we want it to mean that.

If we accept Tribe's interpretation, that means the President not longer needs Senate approval for appointments.  Be careful what you wish for...

As for me, I'll go by the document that Tribe is bored with:  "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

but you go on with your newly found libertarian pov..

I love this.. this 'lving document' thing you've decided is a new 'insult'.. HA!

guess you're one of those  people who don't think women should be able to vote and blacks are only three-fifths of a white man..huh

the fact that it's been 'interpreted' by thousands of TPTB since it's inception proves it's a 'living document', if it wasn't.. there'd be no need to 'interpret' anything..

but you go on with your newly found libertarian pov..

name calling.

Howey levels of discourse.

\It makes it so easy for me, but it's a little sad too.

blather.

“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”

The ban was entirely legal, just not constitutional. 

The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions – some with as few as one member present – have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

The Justice official who wrote the opinion, Seitz, heads the department's Office of Legal Counsel, which is empowered to provide binding legal opinions to the executive branch.

Her new memo cites a Justice Department legal opinion from President George W. Bush's Republican administration in justifying Obama's recent appointments. The Bush administration opinion from 2004 says that a recess during a session of the Senate can meet constitutional requirements for permitting the president to make recess appointments as long as the recess is of sufficient length. Seitz noted that the last five presidents have made recess appointments during recesses of 14 days or less.

Nah...another lie! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/obama-recess-appointment-constitutional_n_1201844.html)

more...

The ban was entirely legal, just not constitutional.

The ban was entirely legal, just not constitutional.  Really... still defending movie bans.  Kagan agreed that the law could ban books to.  Do you think that would have been "legit?"

he Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions – some with as few as one member present – have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

The Justice official who wrote the opinion, Seitz, heads the department's Office of Legal Counsel, which is empowered to provide binding legal opinions to the executive branch.

Her new memo cites a Justice Department legal opinion from President George W. Bush's Republican administration in justifying Obama's recent appointments. The Bush administration opinion from 2004 says that a recess during a session of the Senate can meet constitutional requirements for permitting the president to make recess appointments as long as the recess is of sufficient length. Seitz noted that the last five presidents have made recess appointments during recesses of 14 days or less.

You've become quite incoherent.

Nah...just replied to the wrongo topic. It's hard to keep up with all this proving you wrongo stuff lately. But I've fixt it.

You do know that simply calling me a liar over and over is not the same thing as proving me wrong.

I'd leave it up to the readers to decide, but you seem to have done a rather effective job of running them off.

Worked for you and Mickey, didn't it?

Who'd I run off? More or less than you at the muche?

It was BS when Reid pulled it and it's BS now.  16 times under Democrats and 197 times for the GOP.  If there's cause or reason for legitimate worry of an appointment, I can see this perhaps being used to muddy up the waters until it can be addressed by a committee or hearing.  Otherwise, it's a BS abuse of power that does nothing but debilitate our ability to proceed forward with the nations business.

197 times...really?  I mean, come the fuck on.

If that's your issue, you totally missed any point I was trying to make.  I don't care about legitimate and legal recess appointments.  I care about the President violating the constitution (again).  If you're just concerned about the number of recess appointments and which President did the most, than you can't see the forest for the recess appointments.  The only important issue (IMHO) is that the President made a recess appointment where there was no recess.

Worked for me and Mickey...  what is it exactly that "worked?"  What did Mickey and I team up to do?


I was thinking of Puffy.  Where is she?

And you did seem to run off your buddy Burke, after working so hard to get him here.

Great job expanding the place!

  If you're just concerned about the number of recess appointments and which President did the most, than you can't see the forest for the recess appointments. .

According to your buddy Eric Cantor congress was in recess when the appointment was made. See above.

yeah, that's not the number of recess appointments, that the number of 'secret' hold ups by this GOP..

it was done 16 times under Democrats and 197 times for the GOP..

that's his point, it was bullshit with both sides did it.. and this GOP is abusing it's power 197 times..

 and I love how Obama beating Cantor at his own game by counting  pro-forma sessions as a 'recess' is unconstitutional to you, but water boarding is just zippity-doo-dah fine..

do I mind the torture? no..if there is an emminet threat whether that be a nuke in a basement or a sicko who kidnapped a child..... if the only way to get the info is to torture then do it..

do I want it on the news every 15 mins? no..... I know the CIA does their "Bond/Bourne" things and I'm fine with knowing but not knowing...

and if we're going do water boarding then we should be ok with OUR guys getting water boarded.....so quit dicking around and answer the fucking question Claire.....

If it's ok for us to do it their guys, is it ok for them to do it to ours?

and where is the line?  If it's my kid being held by the pedo or my town with the bomb there is no line IMO.....start with WB and then go to finger removal,hand removal,nut removal.. whatever...

but if it's my kid being held by an enemy gov't/terrorists? The line is nothing over the GC.... But I can admit my hypocrisy...... can you?

but at the same time, I agree  that it is unreasonable for me to expect someone to follow the rules of the game when I don't....

It's a conundrum...but to say that WB doesn't really hurt someone is bullshit... it's torture, it my not kill you, but neither did the 'rape-rooms' Iraqis used to force women to give up info,blackmail, or force cooperation.....

you musta missed where I said I am for torturing if there is an imminent threat...

but I'm not for and never would be just labeling someone a terrorist and doing with them what the gov't pleases...

Don't know. Ask her on the muche.

Sure...although I'm not happy Shannon left (and banned me from viewing his FB and Twitter pages), I make no excuse and have no shame for potentially exposing him as a racist. He could have defended his words, ya know...

Hey, thanks! And thanks for all your help!

Secret hold ups?  Totally different issue than what was being discussed in this thread.

Before you get all high and mighty about waterboarding, don't forget that you were definitely in the pro torture camp.


So what do I conclude from that? 

So you are not going to tell me what "worked" for Mickey and I?

So Puffy just left here and never gave an explanation?

I really think we might need to reassess what we  expected to get here.. I kinda figured things would be said,fought,joked about, played,hurled angrily etc etc etc here the same way it has always been everywhere else we've all posted together.. with some slight exceptions sure, but for t he most part, the same.. Some days will be darth-like comments, some days will have crowd like obtuseness...some will even have -fu like comedy... except those playing those parts will be all of us since we're the ones here....

You totally blew an opportunity with Shannon.  By FB and twittering that he's a racist, he had to ban you; you were threatening his employability.

Now when are you going to fix the image in my post?

I know nothing about that.. when the hell did all that happen?   

are you medicated?  The line of discussion was started by you..you were whing about the recess appointment.. we were talking about the the 'pro-forma' session.. Chuck said it was BS when Reid did it and it's BS now.. but the gOP has really abused it's power by doing it 197 times compared to Reid 16 times..

there would be no need for recess appointment or pro-forma sessions if the GOP didn't abuse their power with all the secret holds on the nominations..

are you ill?

seriously, you're too busy thinking you're being 'obtuse' in one thread and you're missing the 1+1=2 here.. It's hard to believe you've lost the ability to follow more than one line of discussion.. didn't I teach you anything?

umm, that I'm for torturing someone if they have my kid.. or if there is a bomb in the basement and we need to know how to turn it off?

nice try in getting around your hypocrisy... but it's still there.. you are fine with GWB's lawyer telling him he can torture, but let Obama's DOJ tell him he can make a recess appointment and you go all 'that's unconstitutional'...because the weight of Obama's is soooo much more destructive... HA! you're partsian is showing Dear. HA!

btw, you really need a little less drinky-poo when you're reading/replying... you've got a serious PUI issue going on here.. because what I said in those clips you copied, is pretty easy to understand

Those secret holds have nothing to do with the issue of a unconstitutional appointments.  Are you honestly arguing that Republican secret holds justify violating the constitution?

That reminds me of Forrest Gump, when Jenny's boyfriend hit her because of that  "lying son of a bitch, Johnson!"

So the Republican's forced Obama to violate the constitution.  Interesting defense.

By the way, if that was Chuck's intent from his post I totally misread it.

So the Republican's forced Obama to violate the constitution.  Interesting defense.

pretty much.. their abuse of power forced him to do what he did. A president is allowed to staff his administration..the GOP are being abusive pricks by holding up Obama's nomination for nothing other than their stated goal of wanting to see him fail..especially when some of his nominees, when finally given a real up or down vote, get 90+% approval..  the gOP's actions forced his. And sorry, but his DOJ said it's not unconstitutional, and you know you like to rely on a presidents lawyer, so you're whining up the wrong tree..

Wow, you actually agreed with me!

Not whining, but I have to admit I'm smirking a little.

Wow, you actually agreed with me!

Not whining, but I have to admit I'm smirking a little.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.

What this change means practically: Senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won't be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA. I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President's campaign.

But here's what this doesn't change: the fact that ordinary people stepping up to take control of the political process is essential to our strategy.

Ha!  Ya beat me to it!

They told me if I voted for John McCain he wouldn't actually be honest: (http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/we-will-not-play-by-two-sets-of-rules)

There is a thought that Obama could use his 'non-use' of super-pacs as a fundraising tool, but the question is, can every day ppl donating $10 here, $20 there... compete with the Koch Brothers and the likes of a  Foster Friess? and I don't know the answer to that..

pretty much.. their abuse of power forced him to do what he did.

No, they can't. Which is why he was honest and explained why. It all boils down (again) to this:

You guys do remember Obama opted out of the public financing program for the general election in 2008 don't you? 

yes... and?

I guess he thinks CU was around back then. His timelines have had a lot of issues lately, ya know...

I guess he thinks CU was around back then. His timelines have had a lot of issues lately, ya know...

No I don't think CU was around then.  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

My point is obvious. Obama wouldn't have had to embrace the PAC if CU didn't exist. Although it seems your comrades are beginning to realize what a horrible mistake CU was.

He abandoned public financing without CU. 

Really, my "comrades" are abandoning the First Amendment?  Boy that amendment has really been taking a beating!

   Republicans celebrated two years ago when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that allowed groups, corporations, unions and individuals to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns, as long as those efforts were not coordinated with the campaigns.

    They now realize that the new unregulated money is one of the main reasons, whether for good or bad, that the race continues and remains so unpredictable.

    Before that ruling, when a campaign ran out of money, the candidate usually dropped out. Fundraising networks were also the tool by which the establishment bestowed its benediction upon a favorite contender and crowded everyone else out.

    The most spectacularly successful example of that strategy in recent years was the one employed in 2000 by George W. Bush and the “Pioneers,” who each committed to raise $100,000 toward his election. They did it the old-fashioned way, by bringing in 100 checks for $1,000 each.

    But that kind of money looks like chump change compared with, say, the $11 millionthat Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family have donated to a super PAC that supports Newt Gingrich. Without those contributions, it is hard to see how Gingrich’s candidacy would be alive today.

I guess so! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-2012-republicans-united-on-goal--beat-obama--divided-on-how-to-get-there/2012/02/08/gIQAfCN66Q_story.html)

Which Republican candidate has denounced CU again?

John McCain?

Breaking news, but John McCain isn't a Republican candidate, for President or anything else this year.

But thanks for playing!

I don't believe you said 2012 candidate, did you?

Look around here...there's a thread with Romney complaining about Gingrich using PAC money against him in SC; there's Gingrich complaining about Romney using PAC money against him in Florida.

The way the Republican fight for the non-nomination is going, they're all going to fight each other out and run out of money before the brokered convention. Then Obama's PAC will wipe the streets of Tampa with their asses all the way to a sweeping reelection.

Even if the pubs don't lose the House (which it's beginning to look like they will), look for bill after bill repealing CU after the election...

Now that's just dumb, even by your standards.  There was no CU when he was a candidate.

Romney and Gingrich complaining about being attacked is different than either of them complaining about the Citizens United decision.  And in any case, in that other thread, I said even if they did complain about Citizens United... I don't care.  The first amendment is bigger than any set of candidates.  I care about the constitution more than I care about any set of candidates.

Too bad you can't say the same!

Still towing that line, huh? I don't remember either Newt or Mittens bitching about their 1st Amendment rights, but they sure were screaming about those anonymous super PACS!

Why are you so concerned for Mitt and Newt's feelings when I'm not?

Liberty is more important than their egos.

Thank you, lilPaul. Now scuttle off and write a racist newsletter, mkay?

I'm still waiting for that list of Republican candidates who oppose CU.

You tripped all over yourself offering up John McCain, I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself and prove me wrong.

What? I already did!

tell him you're waiting on him to proffer a wager before you answer