Furiously Contempt

[stebo0728]

Well, Congress voted to hold Holder in contempt today......at least SOME good news came out today. So what is he hiding? And did Obama really know more than he lets on? I mean why else use Executive Privilege? I think we've stumbled into Obama's Iran Contra here, and perhaps even his Watergate. My personal theory, is that this project was aimed at providing anecdotal evidence to support stricter gun control.

Yes gunwalking predates the Obama administration. But the method of gunwalking pre-Obama, and anno-Obama are much different.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... Sb2DJ3lDnw

Holder was quoted as labeling the contempt finding as "just politics". Yet he's the FIRST EVER sitting cabinet member to be found in contempt. Id say something thats a FIRST TIME EVER is more than just politics. Hes got a real mess on his hands here. He's been a colossal joke of an AG. If this doesnt sully the waters for Obama, I hope it at least nets us a better AG for the future.

[bigbadberry3]

Not the first or last time executive privilege will be invoked.

Quick wiki

Bill - 14
Bush- 6
Bama- 1?

[AZhitman]

Doesn't matter. Our notoriously hypocritical and blatantly partisan "in-Justice Department" won't prosecute.

Where is the hue and cry from the liberals about "privileged fat-cats" getting off because they're wealthy / influential?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Rot in your hypocrisy, losers. Those of us with some class / ethics / morals / credibility / integrity will be over here, shaking our heads.

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-republicans-pre ... 19798.html

Just shut up already.

[AZhitman]

Just shut up already.

Who?

I'm pretty sure there are no sensitive national security matters in those documents. How about sticking to that whole "most transparent administration in history" claim?

The point is, BO and his merry band of criminals need to be honest with the voters. If they've done nothing wrong, then the GOP will look stupid, lessons will be learned, and life will go on.

Something smells, and all the obfuscation is just making it worse.

[bigbadberry3]

Just shut up already.

Who?

I'm pretty sure there are no sensitive national security matters in those documents.

Stopped reading after that.

[AZhitman]

Stopped reading after that.

BHO (and his ventriloquist dummy Nancy Pelosi) looooove people like you.

"Trust us - it's good for you."

[ImStricken06]

Stopped reading after that.

OUR MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT SAID THE SAME THING: "Stopped reading after......"

• who actually read the whole obamacare bill?
  who actually read the whole stimulus bill?

[bigbadberry3]

OUR MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT SAID THE SAME THING:

• who actually read the whole obamacare bill?
  who actually read the whole stimulus bill?

Is that not open to read publically

[ImStricken06]

OUR MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT SAID THE SAME THING:

• who actually read the whole obamacare bill?
  who actually read the whole stimulus bill?

Is that not open to read publically

not sure, but it was/is widely known that members of congress didnt read the whole thing, and still voted YES on the bills.

[bigbadberry3]

not sure, but it was/is widely known that members of congress didnt read the whole thing, and still voted YES on the bills.

Googled, both are available but lengthy.

To those who didn't read it they are morons. You need to read everything in full nowadays.

[stebo0728]

Did we forget the Pelosi quote, "we have to pass it to see whats in it" ? That there is proof enough that at least some portion of Congress did NOT read before voting. Interesting you bring that up though, because actually, it seems quite common now that Congressmen don't read legislation, nor write it for that matter. We've had this discussion before. Congressional aides are the new congressmen. They read the bills, and brief the congressmen on them. Congressional aides also come up with a good bit of the verbage for legislation. Only who do we vote for, do we vote for the aides? No, we vote for congressmen, who we now have to HOPE will place good aides into their employ. We also need to end the practice of passing shells of bills, only to have them filled with more gooey goodness in "committee".

Also, we really need line item veto, at least, if we are going to continue combining every issue for the season into one bill, call it something "catchy", and have it pass to see what we put in it. We either implement line item veto, or we start handling things with legislation on a 1:1 basis.

[AZhitman]

^ This.

There's so much "crap" tacked onto most bills (either to persuade legislators to go along with it, or to hide pork / shenanigans in the bill), that it makes it difficult for even an informed individual to have a strong opinion one way or another.

I don't have a real-life example, but let's pretend: A legislator sponsors a bill that mandates seat belt use in all school buses by 2016. However, that's expensive - So, to assuage the fury of the DOE, and save them a few bucks, it includes a loosening of the restrictions on background checks on gym teachers.

Go ahead - Vote.

See? Hard to do.

Split the two, and it's a simple process.