uncle_chappy Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...mQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=
The Big Cat Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...mQ0NmJiZDNmMDY= What's your point?
uncle_chappy Posted December 26, 2009 Author Posted December 26, 2009 What's your point? this doesnt worry you?
DC Tom Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 this doesnt worry you? You're an idiot. The order doesn't concede ANY soverignty to anyone. You didn't actually read the executive order or applicable US law, did you?
uncle_chappy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 You didn't actually read the executive order or applicable US law, did you? yes i have. dont blame me for your inability to understand such "difficult" concepts.
uncle_chappy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 You're an idiot. The order doesn't concede ANY soverignty to anyone. thats true, seeing there is no such thing as "soverignty".
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 yes i have. dont blame me for your inability to understand such "difficult" concepts. Oh, so then you know that Obama's executive order merely grants the protections of the IOIA from search and seizure of assets and federal taxes? And that neither the IOIA nor the executive order in question removes or even limits the Constitutional restrictions on Interpol and changes precisely nothing about how they can operate on US soil? And you're posting misleading and stupidly alarmist bull **** about soveregnty anyway?
uncle_chappy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 And you're posting misleading and stupidly alarmist bull **** about soveregnty anyway? is "sovereignty" really such a difficult word?
Alaska Darin Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 is "sovereignty" really such a difficult word? Way to look like a douche bag because when confronted with actual facts you're choosing to concentrate on a misspelled word.
uncle_chappy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 Way to look like a douche bag because when confronted with actual facts you're choosing to concentrate on a misspelled word. "actual facts" dc tom didnt offer any "actual facts", just the liberal rationalization of obama's latest achievement.
IDBillzFan Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 "actual facts" dc tom didnt offer any "actual facts", just the liberal rationalization of obama's latest achievement. Because you don't get any more liberal than DC Tom.
Booster4324 Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 Because you don't get any more liberal than DC Tom. !@#$ing hippie
uncle_chappy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 Because you don't get any more liberal than DC Tom. i cant speak to that, i can only speak to his lame explanation of bho's executive order which was nothing more than typical liberal sleight of hand and weasel words.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 "actual facts" "Obama's executive order merely grants the protections of the IOIA from search and seizure of assets and federal taxes? And that neither the IOIA nor the executive order in question removes or even limits the Constitutional restrictions on Interpol and changes precisely nothing about how they can operate on US soil". dc tom didnt offer any "actual facts", just the liberal rationalization of obama's latest achievement. Dumbass. It's a Zionist rationalization. They're the ones who want us to subordinate our soveriegnity to the New World Order.
uncle_chappy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 "Obama's executive order merely grants the protections of the IOIA from search and seizure of assets and federal taxes? And that neither the IOIA nor the executive order in question removes or even limits the Constitutional restrictions on Interpol and changes precisely nothing about how they can operate on US soil". "merely grants the protections of the IOIA from search and seizure of assets and federal taxes" not really. it means that interpol is no longer subject to the freedom of information act. it means that interpol's headquarters at the justice department and its staff can no longer be searched. it means that all interpol documents are now free from legal subpoena. it means that interpol could keep files on all u.s. citizens and we have no right to redress. sure sounds like a threat to our "soverignty" to me.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 i cant speak to that, i can only speak to his lame explanation of bho's executive order which was nothing more than typical liberal sleight of hand and weasel words. Then refute it. Text of Obama's order. Text of applicable law. Show where this order concedes any sovreigenty to Interpol.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 "merely grants the protections of the IOIA from search and seizure of assets and federal taxes" not really. it means that interpol is no longer subject to the freedom of information act. it means that interpol's headquarters at the justice department and its staff can no longer be searched. it means that all interpol documents are now free from legal subpoena. it means that interpol could keep files on all u.s. citizens and we have no right to redress. sure sounds like a threat to our "soverignty" to me. The Freedom of Information Act only applies to federal government agencies. It never applied to Interpol to begin with. http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm
Booster4324 Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 Then refute it. Text of Obama's order. Text of applicable law. Show where this order concedes any sovreigenty to Interpol. Nice.
uncle_chappy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 Then refute it. Text of Obama's order. Text of applicable law. Show where this order concedes any sovreigenty to Interpol. are you really asking me to read the order to you? maybe i will in a couple of hours after your mommy tucks you in and you're ready for a bedtime story. my god you're a lost cause aren't you!
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 are you really asking me to read the order to you? maybe i will in a couple of hours after your mommy tucks you in and you're ready for a bedtime story. my god you're a lost cause aren't you! No, I already read it and pointed out to you that it doesn't say what you think it says. I'm asking you to read it to yourself, and point out where it says we're foregoing any of our sovreignty.
Recommended Posts