OT: And Here Comes The Chopper To Chop Off Your HEAD
The Nice Mean Man
From the desk of President Obama
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the
International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in
order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities
to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is
hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as
amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the
words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4,
Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that
immediately precedes them."
AllaBest
What ARE you saying THAT says?
who?
?
83LowRider
"who?" wrote
> What ARE you saying THAT says?
83LowRider
"83LowRider" <nohop...@nge.com> wrote in message
news:hh9hsl$cfo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "who?" wrote
>
>> What ARE you saying THAT says?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Executive+Order+12425+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8
or just http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
The Nice Mean Man
What does this mean? It means that we have an international police
force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer
subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure. The "property and assets
of [INTERPOL], wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be
immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from
confiscation."
INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised
to reside above the United States Constitution - in a place of
sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal
investigatory domestic organizations. President Obama has just placed
our Constitutional rights under international law.
Open your blind little eyes, you fucking SHEEP. It don't come any
plainer than this. And you bastards DARED to complain when President
Bush bent the rules concerning the Bill of Rights? Hypocrites all.
You'll give up your rights in a heartbeat, just so long as it's a
NIGGER MAN who commands you to. Worthless piece of shit.
who?
Wouldn't you feel better posting somewhere where people
mostly agreed with you? If you did that, you wouldn't
feel like an outsider, and say "You people" and
"Hypocrites all".
dahldude
There's really no sense in trying to illuminate those who want others
to do the thinking, regulating, and managing for them.
How many people I've talked to about "cap & trade" for months now and
they didn't even know a thing about it. Like having their dwellings
and apppliances up to a code / standard before it can be sold.
Federally inspected.
They don't want to know.
With an endless supply of money some wish to regulate an idealistic
equality for all.
The trouble is, there is no endless supply of money, and then in
attempts of creating some high priced kind of egalitarianism, pork
deals are made, negating the whole pretense of trying to level the
playing field. (Nebraska, Florida, NY, Louisiana, Nevada)
It's as outrageous as the away-lookers...
Fattuchus
> There's really no sense in trying to illuminate those who want others
> to do the thinking, regulating, and managing for them.
Amen, brother.
>
> How many people I've talked to about "cap & trade" for months now and
> they didn't even know a thing about it.
Pardon my question: could you please explain "cap and trade" to me?
Like having their dwellings
> and apppliances up to a code / standard before it can be sold.
> Federally inspected.
>
> They don't want to know.
Amen, brother.
>
> With an endless supply of money some wish to regulate an idealistic
> equality for all.
>
> The trouble is, there is no endless supply of money,
Applause, applause! I've been saying this here at rmb for a while.
and then in
> attempts of creating some high priced kind of egalitarianism, pork
> deals are made, negating the whole pretense of trying to level the
> playing field. (Nebraska, Florida, NY, Louisiana, Nevada)
>
> It's as outrageous as the away-lookers...
Post. Of. The. Month.
I'm saving this.
Fattuchus
Question: how did NY benefit from this? It's my understanding that
the Governor of NYS and the mayor of NYC are screaming over health
care reform. What deal did NY get?
dahldude
> Question: how did NY benefit from this? It's my understanding that
> the Governor of NYS and the mayor of NYC are screaming over health
> care reform. What deal did NY get?
They are tied in with Florida and also Pennsylvania's pork-
Medicare Advantage benefits for seniors are protected. Elsewhere, cuts
to this are slated.
Thanks for the P.O.T.M. vote. Didn't mean to steal lappcatt / iBen /
TNMM's thread.
Still waiting on the transparency, CSPAN coverage, posting the bills
online, the nonexclusive-meeting-in-secret bipartisanism, Presidential
line vetoing of the pork... all the hype that we could believe in.
"But it was
just my imagination
running away with me..."
P.S.
Is someone going to tell the new administration that the new term for
"terrorism" - "man-caused disaster" is a non-PC sexist slur? I mean
why "man" only?
(Just trying to make some sense out of so much nonsense - and I waited
nine months to bring that one up. I'm trying to be a Greenie / non-
polluter on this forum. Ha!)
Fattuchus
> On Dec 29, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Question: how did NY benefit from this? It's my understanding that
> > the Governor of NYS and the mayor of NYC are screaming over health
> > care reform. What deal did NY get?
>
> They are tied in with Florida and also Pennsylvania's pork-
>
> Medicare Advantage benefits for seniors are protected. Elsewhere, cuts
> to this are slated.
>
> Thanks for the P.O.T.M. vote. Didn't mean to steal lappcatt / iBen /
> TNMM's thread.
>
> Still waiting on the transparency, CSPAN coverage, posting the bills
> online, the nonexclusive-meeting-in-secret bipartisanism, Presidential
> line vetoing of the pork... all the hype that we could believe in.
>
> "But it was
>
> just my imagination
>
> running away with me..."
>
> P.S.
>
> Is someone going to tell the new administration that the new term for
> "terrorism" - "man-caused disaster" is a non-PC sexist slur? I mean
> why "man" only?
It is sexist, but to me it is also a joke. "Man caused disaster?"
Phoey. An accidental forest fire is a man caused disaster. A
negligent car accident is a man caused disaster. Terrorism is a
different thing entirely.
RichL
> On Dec 29, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Question: how did NY benefit from this? It's my understanding that
>> the Governor of NYS and the mayor of NYC are screaming over health
>> care reform. What deal did NY get?
>
> They are tied in with Florida and also Pennsylvania's pork-
>
> Medicare Advantage benefits for seniors are protected. Elsewhere, cuts
> to this are slated.
>
> Thanks for the P.O.T.M. vote. Didn't mean to steal lappcatt / iBen /
> TNMM's thread.
>
> Still waiting on the transparency, CSPAN coverage, posting the bills
> online, the nonexclusive-meeting-in-secret bipartisanism, Presidential
> line vetoing of the pork... all the hype that we could believe in.
>
> "But it was
>
> just my imagination
>
> running away with me..."
>
>
> P.S.
>
> Is someone going to tell the new administration that the new term for
> "terrorism" - "man-caused disaster" is a non-PC sexist slur? I mean
> why "man" only?
Do you have a link to the term being used in a serious vein in place of
"terrorism" by multiple members of the administration (better yet,
Obama)?
dahldude
Janet - whom I assume you know - is B.O.'s mouthpiece on Homeland
Security when B.O. doesn't want to take the heat. Early in the year
when B.O. was kissing the world's booty to make nice-nice, part of the
plan was to soften the rhetoric, n'est-ce pas?
This link should suffice
Let's not debate iota jots. You and I both have better things to do.
If you've not noticed the "dialing down" of the T word, please, again,
refer to the link.
Let's note that there was no challenge to Janet's "man" reference
being some kind of slight to the male gender.
Back to "green" mode, you get the last woid...
RichL
I'll get you started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTAfdWxOmxc
Obama used the word 'terrorism' three times in that speech alone. He
also used 'extremist' and 'extremism' multiple times, if that matters.
Certainly the "loyal opposition" has better things to do than nitpick
over the usage of certain words, especially in vain attempts to make
them seem tougher in some way than the other guys.
You're smarter than this (I think).