Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2014, 07:34:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The worst attorney general in American History  (Read 7622 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: June 27, 2012, 07:36:19 AM »

Holder is a ghetto thug racist neo-terrorist piece of trash as are all of the 95ers still supporting him. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbxVIDlKRiY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbxVIDlKRiY</a>


Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: June 27, 2012, 07:38:12 AM »

Owned

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: June 27, 2012, 10:50:52 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/27/house-democrat-breaks-ranks-to-back-holder-contempt-as-vote-looms


So far 20 Demos voting for Contempt 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: June 27, 2012, 11:11:06 AM »

http://www.punditpress.com/2012/06/list-of-democrats-voting-holder-in.html


Holder is going to get slapped down tommorow. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: June 27, 2012, 03:58:34 PM »

Black Lawmakers Plot 'Walkout Strategy' During Holder Contempt Vote
 National Journal ^ | 7/27/2012


Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:43:48 PM by Altura Ct.

The Congressional Black Caucus has called a members-only "emergency" meeting on Thursday to plot a "walkout strategy" ahead of the scheduled contempt vote of Attorney General Eric Holder later in the day.

The plans, detailed in an email from the executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus obtained by the Alley, include circulating a letter disapproving of the vote and having lawmakers walk out of the Capitol to hold a press conference during the roll call.

The letter, a draft of which is being circulated for signatures, accuses the GOP leadership of "rushing recklessly to a contempt vote." The letter is being circulated among the Black, Hispanic, Asian and Progressive caucuses, among other.

"We cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt," says the letter, in which the signers urge that "all members of Congress to stand with us during a press conference on the Capitol Building steps during this appalling series of votes to discuss our nation's most significant priority--creating jobs."

The House is expected to vote on Thursday hold Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to release certain documents related to the failed "Fast and Furious" gun-running program.

At moments, the fight has taken on racial undertones, most notably when Holder, who is African American, told the New York Times in December 2011 that he served as a stand-in for GOP attacks on President Obama. "This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him," Holder said, "both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American."

A copy of the full draft letter is below:

Dear Colleague:

We write to urge you to stand with us in the pursuit of justice for the Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric H. Holder. In its history, the United States House of Representatives has never held a United States Attorney General, or any other Cabinet official, in contempt.

Instead of focusing on job creation and other critical issues before this Congress, we have been asked to engage in a political stunt on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Our constituents elected us to do real work, not to engage in meaningless partisan activity.

Over the past 15 months, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have cooperated with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's requests for information on "Fast and Furious", an unfortunate operation that began under the Bush Administration and, in fact, was terminated by Attorney General Holder. The Department has made extraordinary efforts to accommodate Congress by turning over almost 8,000 documents--including all the documents that relate to the tactics in this investigation and the other flawed investigations that occurred in Arizona during the Bush Administration. The Attorney General also participated in a bicameral meeting in a good faith effort to satisfy the Committee's information requests. While the Attorney General has advised House Republicans that he is willing to work with them in attempting to reach an agreement, the Republican Leadership is instead rushing recklessly to a contempt vote.

Contempt power should be used sparingly, carefully and only in the most egregious situations. The Republican Leadership has articulated no legislative purpose for pursuing this course of action. For these reasons we cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt. We adamantly oppose this partisan attack and refuse to participate in any vote that would tarnish the image of Congress or of an Attorney General who has done nothing but work tirelessly to protect the rights of the American people. We must reflect upon why we are elected to this body and choose now to stand up for justice.

We call upon all members of Congress to stand with us during a press conference on the Capitol Building steps during this appalling series of votes to discuss our nation's most significant priority--creating jobs. At this critically important time in our nation, we must work as colleagues rather than political enemies.



________________________ ________________________ ________


Disgusting. 


Race over all else for these jerks 
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6291



View Profile
« Reply #130 on: June 27, 2012, 04:06:08 PM »




Race over all else for these jerks 



Holder's been crying over race issues for a while.  Wouldn't surprise me if one his cronies started feeding the race story.  If he denounces it...that would be shock, lol.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: June 28, 2012, 06:04:26 AM »

House should hold Holder in contempt

 The Seattle Times editorial board argues that the Justice Department should hand over documents regarding the "Fast and Furious" gun-sale program, or else the House of Representatives should declare Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

Seattle Times Editorial



EXECUTIVE privilege is a principle dangerous to democracy, whether invoked by a Republican or Democratic president. The Obama administration has invoked it and now is threatened with retaliation: House Republicans say unless the administration hands over subpoenaed documents, they will vote Thursday to declare Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. If that is what it takes, they should do it.

It is an election year, so the administration's defenders are saying that a call for disclosure is "all politics." Of course there is political hay in it, but the request is still valid. Congress needs to know about botched government programs.

This was one. Called "Fast and Furious," it was a sting operation run out of the Phoenix, Ariz., office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from 2009 to 2011. Its aim was to allow Mexican drug organizations to buy illegal guns so that U.S. agents could follow the guns, arrest the people who had them and destroy the cartels.

The U.S. agents lost track of hundreds of guns. In 2010, two of the guns were found at the killing scene of U.S. border agent Brian Terry. The Mexican government also said Fast and Furious guns were found at 170 crime scenes in Mexico.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, followed with an investigation, which led to the testimony of Holder and the release of 7,000 pages of Department of Justice documents.

Another 1,300 pages under House of Representatives subpoena were the subject of a presidential order of executive privilege, the first such order of Obama's presidency. That is what the argument is about.

Obama has said he did not know about Fast and Furious, and Issa does not claim the president knew. That is not the issue.

The issue is whether Congress has the right to learn about it, and it does.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: June 28, 2012, 06:05:31 AM »


How to end the Holder stand-off: Fire him
www.washingtonpost.com
By Jennifer Rubin



The speaker of the House’s press secretary, Michael Steel, sent out an e-mail this morning that reads in part:
 

As we approach Thursday’s contempt vote, there is some misunderstanding and misinformation out there on executive privilege. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and others seem to be hanging their hats on Chairman Issa’s statement that there is currently no evidence that the White House was involved in the cover-up. That is exactly our point. We never, ever suggested the White House was involved. That’s why it was so bizarre that the president asserted executive privilege. Executive privilege protects internal White House decision-making. True, presidents have asserted it over other executive branch documents and communications. But the courts have ruled those claims to be invalid and ordered them overturned. (See “Nixon, Richard Milhous”)

As the D.C. Circuit Court wrote in 2004 in its Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Justice decision, “communications of staff outside of the White House in executive branch agencies that were not solicited and received by such White House advisors could not [be covered by executive privilege].” Also, as noted in this CRS [Congressional Research Service] report, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in 1997, “the presidential communications privilege should never serve as a means of shielding information regarding governmental operations that do not call ultimately for direct decision-making by the President.”
 
He’s right. If “executive privilege” means the president can shield deliberation within a department on a policy matter then we would have no oversight by the legislative branch at all. To borrow a dilemma for the left from the Obamacare cases, if internal Department of Justice documents on Fast and Furious are privileged, where would the Obama spinners draw the line? When would Congress ever be entitled to investigate executive branch departments. ( I know, I know.. when it’s a Republican president.)

Now you might ask what about “attorney client privilege”? Two problems exist with that, which is why the Obama team didn’t raise it.
 
First, there is no attorney-client privilege that can be invoked by the president against Congress because they work for the same client, namely the American people. As an aside, I love when that point comes up because it wonderfully illustrates how invoking phony privileges isn’t in the interest of Americans, but of the government officials who too often confuse their own interest in avoiding embarrassment with the nation’s interests.
 
Second, no one is suggesting the documents refer to a legal analysis of the Fast and Furious program. This was about policy and public statements about the program. That’s not information that would be subject to the attorney-client privilege even outside government.
 
In fact we don’t even know which “executive privilege” the White House is talking about. Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation tells me, “It’s reasonable to demand that the White House and DOJ specify what types of executive privilege they claim are being invoked as to what documents. Congress and the courts might yield to some claims of privilege but not to others.”
 
For example, Gaziano explains, there is a species of executive privilege relating to national security. Is this about keeping secrets with (or from) Mexico? As for the “the deliberative process privilege,” this too is a type of executive privilege. But the jurisprudence on that suggests that while it can go beyond the White House, it doesn’t cover every person in government and it must often bend to legitimate oversight by Congress.
 
If he were a first-year law student asked to explain how the president could refuse to allow House oversight on a botched operation in which Americans and Mexicans died and the administration has twice had to cop to providing erroneous information to Congress, Eric Holder’s letter would get an “F.” He doesn’t set out the nature of the document being withheld, the type of privilege being asserted, or the argument as to why it supersedes the right of Congress to oversee executive branch misconduct.
 
Congress is certainly within it rights to hold him in contempt. But really the president should can Holder. He’s a lousy lawyer.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: June 28, 2012, 01:56:53 PM »

 Wink


* 480021_390648464325613_1775384736_n.jpg (36.12 KB, 480x365 - viewed 77 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: June 28, 2012, 02:25:18 PM »

Uh oh.  Seventeen Democrats voted in favor. 


House votes to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress
Published June 28, 2012
FoxNews.com

The GOP-led House voted Thursday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to provide key information pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, making Holder the first sitting Cabinet member to be held in contempt.

The vote was 255-67 with one lawmaker voting not present. Seventeen Democrats broke ranks to vote in favor of contempt, while two Republicans voted against the measure.

The vote was preceded by a heated floor debate.

“It’s important to remember how we got here,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said during a speech ahead of the vote. “The Justice Department has not provided the facts and information we requested. … It’s our constitutional duty to find out.”

The GOP-led House took the step over the alleged failure to provide additional information about the failed gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious which was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- a division of the Justice Department led by Holder.

Democrats walked out of the chamber ahead of the vote.

“What is happening here is shameful," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who argued House Republicans are more politically motivated in attacking Holder than getting to the bottom of the failed operation, in which at least two of the guns were connected to the fatal shooting of U.S. border agent Brian Terry.

Lawmakers voted against a proposal by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., to return the matter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/house-holds-holder-contempt/
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: June 29, 2012, 12:59:55 PM »

Not surprised.

Justice Department shields Holder from prosecution after contempt vote
Published June 29, 2012
FoxNews.com

The Justice Department moved Friday to shield Attorney General Eric Holder from prosecution after the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

The contempt vote technically opened the door for the House to call on the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the case before a grand jury. But because U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen works for Holder and because President Obama has already asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, some expected Holder's Justice Department to balk.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner that the department in fact would not pursue prosecution. The attorney general's withholding of documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, he wrote, "does not constitute a crime."

"Therefore the department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the attorney general," Cole wrote, in the letter obtained by Fox News.

A department official told Fox News the letter was "pro forma" -- or a formality -- considering that ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008 also refused to refer two Bush White House aides to a grand jury after they were held in contempt.

Republicans nevertheless blasted the Justice Department for the move. Frederick Hill, spokesman for House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, said "it is regrettable that the political leadership of the Justice Department is trying to intervene in an effort to prevent the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia from making an independent decision about whether to prosecute this case."

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, also wrote in a letter to Machen that the Cole letter "has put the cart before the horse." He suggested the U.S. attorney has not yet had a chance to make an informed decision on whether to move forward with the case.

The move by the Holder Justice Department, though, means Republicans are likely to take their case to civil court as they seek documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious -- which was already the unofficial plan. Along with the criminal contempt resolution, Republicans also passed a civil contempt measure Thursday allowing them to go to civil court to try and get an order that would compel the Obama administration to release the documents.

Issa, R-Calif., had acknowledged Thursday night that it was "very possible" the president would instruct the U.S. attorney not to prosecute Holder. He indicated Republicans would use the civil courts to get what they want.

"The House has authorized me to hire staff and legal staff who can pursue civilly through the courts to try to get a federal judge to order, separately, this discovery," he said.

Hill also told FoxNews.com that the next stop probably would be civil court, but he suggested the threat of criminal prosecution still looms. For now, the Obama administration can argue that its executive privilege claim over the documents protects Holder from the possibility of prosecution.

But if a civil court rules that claim invalid, Hill said, "then basically Justice has lost that shield."

If the administration still refused to turn over the documents the Republicans want, then they could start looking at prosecution more seriously.

Republicans technically have a handful of other options if the Justice Department still refused to take the case to a grand jury.

Republicans could move to appoint a special prosecutor or even move to impeach. The last time that happened with a Cabinet member, though, was in 1876 -- with the impeachment trial of war secretary William Belknap.

Hill said lawmakers are not looking at that option for Holder. They remain focused on the civil court route.

Machen and Holder also have spoken fondly of one another in public, further casting doubt on the possibility that the U.S. attorney would ever bring the case before a grand jury.

Machen is one of the two U.S. attorneys Holder tapped to lead an investigation into the recent rash of security leaks. In early June, Holder praised Machen and the other attorney as "great U.S. attorneys who have shown a willingness to take on difficult cases."

Meanwhile, Issa continued to add fuel to the debate over Fast and Furious when he entered into the Congressional Record a letter detailing a secret wiretap application pertaining to the operation.

In the letter, Issa claimed the affidavit contained "clear information that agents were willfully allowing known straw buyers to acquire firearms for drug cartels and failing to interdict them -- in some cases even allowing them to walk to Mexico."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/after-holder-contempt-vote-republicans-eye-civil-court-case-to-extract-furious/
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: June 29, 2012, 07:22:18 PM »

Holder is a ghetto thug racist neo-terrorist piece of trash as are all of the 95ers still supporting him. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbxVIDlKRiY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbxVIDlKRiY</a>



Is that all?

I mean, is he a slut and a communist as well?

Report to moderator   Logged

G
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: June 29, 2012, 09:29:34 PM »

Is that all?

I mean, is he a slut and a communist as well?



marc Rich, FLAN terrorists, Elian Gonzales, KSM Trial, Black panthers, etc. 


Holder, and the idiots who support him, are thugs.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: June 29, 2012, 09:52:02 PM »

Not surprised.

You're not? Hmm... Could it be, perhaps, because you know that it has been DoJ policy for a long long time (I believe going all the way to the Reagan Administration, and Theorore Olsen) to not prosecute Executive Branch employees for contempt of Congress charges when the charges are the result of the employees failure to produce documents over which the President has asserted Executive Privilege?


Justice Department shields Holder from prosecution after contempt vote

The article only tells half the story. I don't particularly like the policy and would like to see it changed. But, as I said before, the fact is that it has been in place for a really long time and to assert that this is some sort of unprecedented political shielding that the Administration is engaging in, as Fox News does in this article, is flat-out dishonest. I wish news outlets would give us the facts, instead of half-assed partisan press releases.
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: June 29, 2012, 10:19:52 PM »

I would just like to say that I really appreciate this thread because of all the research that went into it.

I mean, someone wouldn't just come on getbig and post something like "The Worst Attorney General in American History" without pouring over records from all of American history, would they?

I'm sure they researched everything, including the early 19th century, and then made an informed decision.

Report to moderator   Logged

G
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: June 29, 2012, 10:58:58 PM »

You're not? Hmm... Could it be, perhaps, because you know that it has been DoJ policy for a long long time (I believe going all the way to the Reagan Administration, and Theorore Olsen) to not prosecute Executive Branch employees for contempt of Congress charges when the charges are the result of the employees failure to produce documents over which the President has asserted Executive Privilege?


The article only tells half the story. I don't particularly like the policy and would like to see it changed. But, as I said before, the fact is that it has been in place for a really long time and to assert that this is some sort of unprecedented political shielding that the Administration is engaging in, as Fox News does in this article, is flat-out dishonest. I wish news outlets would give us the facts, instead of half-assed partisan press releases.

No, I didn't know about any DOJ policy and don't care about some internal policy.  Nor do I care about the handful of people it may have applied to going "all the way back" to the 1980s.  What I do know is there is no precedent, because this is the first time the AG has been held in criminal contempt by Congress. 

I am not surprised that Holder's employees decided not to pursue their boss. 

I have no problem with the article.  It's factual.  The title isn't really important, but it's accurate. 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: June 30, 2012, 12:10:24 AM »

No, I didn't know about any DOJ policy and don't care about some internal policy.  Nor do I care about the handful of people it may have applied to going "all the way back" to the 1980s.  What I do know is there is no precedent, because this is the first time the AG has been held in criminal contempt by Congress. 

I am not surprised that Holder's employees decided not to pursue their boss. 

I have no problem with the article.  It's factual.  The title isn't really important, but it's accurate. 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the type of person who gets to cast a ballot. Mr. "I don't know and I don't care"...

The DoJ hasn't done anything inappropriate in this instant. Holder should be investigated, I agree, but that is another issue.

Trying to spin the DoJ decision in this case as some unprecedented bit of political maneuvering is dishonest. Especially now that you know what the facts are.

But, I take it, you still don't care, do you?  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39985


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: June 30, 2012, 12:35:01 AM »

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the type of person who gets to cast a ballot. Mr. "I don't know and I don't care"...

The DoJ hasn't done anything inappropriate in this instant. Holder should be investigated, I agree, but that is another issue.

Trying to spin the DoJ decision in this case as some unprecedented bit of political maneuvering is dishonest. Especially now that you know what the facts are.

But, I take it, you still don't care, do you?  Roll Eyes

Ah yes.  Yet another one who thinks way too highly of himself.  Who the heck are you to criticize the kinds of people who vote in this country?   Roll Eyes  You have a lot of growing up to do. 

I didn't say the DOJ did anything inappropriate.  They may have.  What I said is I'm not surprised they failed to pursue their boss. 

Who said their failure to pursue their boss was unprecedented?  The title of the article says they shielded their boss.  That's true.  Did you even read the article? 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: June 30, 2012, 01:39:07 AM »

Ah yes.  Yet another one who thinks way too highly of himself.  Who the heck are you to criticize the kinds of people who vote in this country?   Roll Eyes  You have a lot of growing up to do.

You're the one who said "I don't know and I don't care" and that is something you should be called out for. As for who I am - that's not important. What's important is that I am a citizen. I can - and will - criticize whomever I want. I will especially criticize those whose response, when challenged, boils down to "I don't know and I don't care to know"

If that's thinking highly of myself, then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it.
 

I didn't say the DOJ did anything inappropriate.  They may have.  What I said is I'm not surprised they failed to pursue their boss.

They didn't fail to pursue anyone - boss or no boss. The DoJ isn't required to prosecute a Contempt of Congress charge. The U.S.A. followed DoJ policy that would have applied whether Holder was the Attorney General or a janitor in sector 7-G.


The title of the article says they shielded their boss.  That's true.  Did you even read the article?  

I don't call the exercise of a prosecutor's discretionary power to not charge "shielding" anymore than I call the exercise of his discretionary power to charge "swording" especially when the action was in accordance with Department policies and there's no evidence of such "shielding" unless you assert that every time a U.S.A. decides to not prosecute something he's "shielding" someone.
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: June 30, 2012, 03:47:15 AM »

Can't you two see that you love each other?

Quit tearing Getbig apart get on with kissing!

Report to moderator   Logged

G
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 79912


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #145 on: June 30, 2012, 05:30:57 AM »

He should resign already.  Nothing but a major distraction at this point.

maybe that's a good thing.

Nobody is talking about the dismal economy - it's all immigration this, and eric holder that.

Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5199


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: June 30, 2012, 05:42:43 AM »

Eric holder like Obama have a racial get out jail free card for anything they do.   
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: June 30, 2012, 07:18:10 AM »

Eric holder like Obama have a racial get out jail free card for anything they do.   
No, you have a put someone in jail who didn't do anything racial card.

Report to moderator   Logged

G
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11013


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: June 30, 2012, 09:51:50 AM »

maybe that's a good thing.

Nobody is talking about the dismal economy - it's all immigration this, and eric holder that.



yeah , maybe thats why Obama hasn't asked him to resign yet.....because he's sucking up all the news hours....more time devoted to him, less time devoted to the bad economy Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11013


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: June 30, 2012, 09:53:19 AM »

Eric holder like Obama have a racial get out jail free card for anything they do.   

you know...every time it looks like you may be taking your medication and wising up, you come out with something like this that drives you back over the edge
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!