PDA

View Full Version : Limbaugh: "I want Obama to fail...if he's a Socialist"



Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 10:58 AM
If he's a socialist....me too. ;)

Video clip: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125108.guest.html

Ringo
01-22-2009, 11:28 AM
If he's a socialist....me too. ;)

Video clip: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125108.guest.html

We already know where repubicans stand. They have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail.

Very predictable.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-22-2009, 11:59 AM
We already know where repubicans stand. They have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail.

Very predictable.

Another Straw man. We want the President to fail at destroying this nation. It is a stance FOR our Constitution and FOR our nation.

BadCat
01-22-2009, 12:10 PM
We already know where repubicans stand. They have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail.

Very predictable.

You're right, that is probably where most Rebublican politicians stand.
Conservatives, however do not stand with them, nor do we stand with the Bamster.

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 12:11 PM
We already know where repubicans stand. They have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail.

Very predictable.

Uh huh. Your very astute in the libtard platitudes. I'm no Republican apologist so don't bother accusing me of towing the RINO line.

Remind yourself in about 6 months how much of you hated Bushy when your elitist Messiah starts implementing similar policies that reek of statism and foreign intervention.

But I'm betting you'll be eerily silent when he looks like the continuation of the Bush administration. ;)

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 12:13 PM
We already know where repubicans stand. They have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail.

Very predictable.
Against the constitution? Which article? which Amendment? Which passage? Be specific please or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 12:16 PM
Ringo...
Check out this video....

Can you tell me why all these people all of a sudden decided it was cool to become civic minded?


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=50632298#pledge-to-be-servant-to-obama

I mean....whats been holding them back for 8 years. I'll bet I know the answer.

Hypocrisy.

ReaganForRus
01-22-2009, 12:27 PM
well, lets have a score card........first day, eliminate Gitmo, check. Second day, start federalizing abortion and silence any opposition with the Freedom of Choice Act...........sounds like Obama's change is about controlling people's lives down to the nth degree.

BHO (blessings be upon his name) will have a day of reckoning, probably a lot sooner than he thinks with his current agenda.

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 12:29 PM
Gitmo isn't closed until you see the doors shut and locked.

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Gitmo isn't closed until you see the doors shut and locked.

Let him believe that Gitmo closing represents some sort of change in policy. It's his pipe dream and he's in denial.
Moving prisoners to some other facility inside the CONUS doesn't represent anything except a change of scenery.

lacarnut
01-22-2009, 12:48 PM
We already know where DEMOCRATS stand. For 8 years they have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail with new taxes, socialized Meds, handing over our sovereignty to the UN, letting terrorists go free, promoting gay marriage and abortions, etc. etc.


Very predictable.

FIXED......

Zathras
01-22-2009, 01:04 PM
Against the constitution? Which article? which Amendment? Which passage? Be specific please or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Oh, now you've done it. Asking the DUmbass known as Ringo to defend his rantings with impartial facts is like going to war with the French...useless.

Ringo
01-22-2009, 01:09 PM
Against the constitution? Which article? which Amendment? Which passage? Be specific please or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Habeas Corpus. Here is video of the AG telling Congress that we don't have Habeas Corpus rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM

The Constitution says Habaes Corpus can only be suspended in time of revolution, or invasion.

Be specific ? ... Article One, Section 9

So ...who rebelled ? ...who invaded ?

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 01:14 PM
Habeas Corpus. Here is video of the AG telling Congress that we don't have Habeas Corpus rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM

The Constitution says Habaes Corpus can only be suspended in time of revolution, or invasion.

Be specific ? ... Article One, Section 9

So ...who rebelled ? ...who invaded ?And since when do Habeas corpus rights apply to non-citizens held outside of America? And is there any historical example of Habeas corpus ever being granted to prisoners of war?

Ringo
01-22-2009, 01:25 PM
And since when do Habeas corpus rights apply to non-citizens held outside of America? And is there any historical example of Habeas corpus ever being granted to prisoners of war?

You didn't watch the video buddy, the part you need to see is around 2:10 and on ...

Gonzo is talking about American citizens ...and says so clearly.

Look here as well....

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

You couldn't be more wrong .....again.

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 01:32 PM
You didn't watch the video buddy, the part you need to see is around 2:10 and on ...

Gonzo is talking about American citizens ...and says so clearly.

Look here as well....

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

You couldn't be more wrong .....again.answer the questions you TOOL.

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 02:28 PM
And since when do Habeas corpus rights apply to non-citizens held outside of America?

I once thought that way.....

But if our rights are "natural and inalienable"....then how do they "not" apply?

Ringo
01-22-2009, 02:34 PM
I once thought that way.....

But if our rights are "natural and inalienable"....then how do they "not" apply?

The Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens have the rights as well.

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 02:49 PM
I once thought that way.....

But if our rights are "natural and inalienable"....then how do they "not" apply?During times of War when you're talking about illegal combatants. BESIDED - prisoners of war have always been held until the end of the war or until an exchange can take place between combatant governments.

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 03:08 PM
During times of War when you're talking about illegal combatants. BESIDED - prisoners of war have always been held until the end of the war or until an exchange can take place between combatant governments.

I guess that's one of the problems of a war with ill defined goals as to when and how the end of the GWOT is reached. It's ubiquitous at best....like war on drugs etc.
The best figure I can come up with is the one McCain set. What was it....a 100 years? Kinda leaves it wide open to me.

Which government will they be released to?

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 03:15 PM
I guess that's one of the problems of a war with ill defined goals as to when and how the end of the GWOT is reached. It's ubiquitous at best....like war on drugs etc.
The best figure I can come up with is the one McCain set. What was it....a 100 years? Kinda leaves it wide open to me.

Which government will they be released to?well now that's the crux. They have no government - they are illegal combatants so - they have to wait until we're good and ready to deal with them. I don't like this war any more than you do - but we didn't start it. We damn well better finish it - and with finality.

Doc Savage
01-22-2009, 03:57 PM
Rights? what a clown. The only right I think those "Enemy combatants" should get is "do you want a blind fold?

asdf2231
01-22-2009, 04:59 PM
Hey if we have lost all these rights and turned into a police state would someone haul this asshole "Ringo/Supercrash" out some place and cap him behind the ear?

Troll
01-22-2009, 05:38 PM
The very fact that Hannity even asked "Do you want [Obama] to succeed?" shows that he loves the Republican party more than he loves America. Not that that's exactly news to anybody, but it's nice every now and again to see the water-carriers show their true colors.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 05:40 PM
The very fact that Hannity even asked "Do you want [Obama] to succeed?" shows that he loves the Republican party more than he loves America. Not that that's exactly news to anybody, but it's nice every now and again to see the water-carriers show their true colors.


As Rush pointed out the question has two very important meanings.

I dont want him to succeed if it means implementing his agenda.

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 06:16 PM
The very fact that Hannity even asked "Do you want [Obama] to succeed?" shows that he loves the Republican party more than he loves America. Not that that's exactly news to anybody, but it's nice every now and again to see the water-carriers show their true colors.
I don't buy that. I think it's a question that was not only interesting - one that cuts to the heart of the issue. BESIDES - Barry failing does not equate to America failing. We've survived bad presidents in the past. Carter comes to mind.

Ree
01-22-2009, 06:19 PM
Hey if we have lost all these rights and turned into a police state would someone haul this asshole "Ringo/Supercrash" out some place and cap him behind the ear?
Do I have to make it quick?;)

jinxmchue
01-23-2009, 11:35 AM
We already know where repubicans stand. They have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail.

Very predictable.

You really are a dumb-as-shut fuckwad, aren't you?

Had President Bush tried to create a dictatorship, would you have wanted him to succeed or fail?

hmac
01-23-2009, 11:41 AM
You only see/hear what you want, eh? Expand your brain for a minute. He said, he wants socialism to fail, and the nation to succeed. He has faith in the people, unlike the democrats. You need the government to do everything FOR you, just like your mommy.


We already know where repubicans stand. They have taken a position against our constitution, and against our nation. They want the nation to fail.

Very predictable.

PoliCon
01-23-2009, 01:03 PM
You really are a dumb-as-shit fuckwad, aren't you?

Had President Bush tried to create a dictatorship, would you have wanted him to succeed or fail?:p fixed it for you.

JenT
01-24-2009, 02:05 AM
All my friends told me we need to not criticize and try to get along. "Take the high road" they said.

I tried it. I watched to see what Obama actually DOES.

I've seen it.

I pray Obama FAILS at destroying our nation.

I have never appreciated President Bush as much as I do now.

God help us.

Travis Noodle
01-24-2009, 06:34 AM
Rush meant that he wants the best for this country. He wants Obama's socialist/marxist policies to fail.

;)

Molon Labe
01-24-2009, 09:52 AM
well now that's the crux. They have no government - they are illegal combatants so - they have to wait until we're good and ready to deal with them. I don't like this war any more than you do - but we didn't start it. We damn well better finish it - and with finality.

Can you explain what an illegal combatant means to you? I mean....I've done alot of reading about the term and it's origins...and it seems a pretty open ended. Not to mention that most of the cases involve little or no evidence. Have you read about the legality of this? I ask this in all seriousness.

Celtic Rose
01-24-2009, 10:03 AM
Rush meant that he wants the best for this country. He wants Obama's socialist/marxist policies to fail.

;)

Yes, which anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out.

Socialism is not a good thing, no matter who supports it.

PoliCon
01-24-2009, 12:22 PM
Can you explain what an illegal combatant means to you? I mean....I've done alot of reading about the term and it's origins...and it seems a pretty open ended. Not to mention that most of the cases involve little or no evidence. Have you read about the legality of this? I ask this in all seriousness.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705

Who is a combatant?

International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.

If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.


Who is entitled to "prisoner of war" status? What is the consequence of failure to qualify for prisoner of war status?

a. In international armed conflict

As previously mentioned, in international armed conflict, members of the armed forces of the States involved (and associated militias) are lawful combatants. It should be borne in mind that in this type of conflict, there are lawful combatants on two (or more) sides: the armed forces of one State fighting the armed forces of another State.

The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a "competent tribunal" in case of doubt are mandatory.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status.