HOLDER DECLARES WAR ON TEXAS

I thought...............! Originally Posted by WTF

Must be absolutely worn out ....

Stupid statements like the above seem to be fairly common among the Far Right Wing Nuts!..... Originally Posted by bigtex

But far more common among the Far Left Wing Nuts on this board.

Lately it seems like the current administration has been spending much MORE time on damage control than on moving things in this country in a positive direction. Which is typical of politicians who are so self-centered they prefer to attempt to polish their departing image more than they do straighten out the messes they have made and make things better for the folks who will have to live with their screw ups ....

Obamacare comes to mind. I had to cut the news off ... so I didn't have to lesson to some "stupid statements" about the problem being the Republicans as to why there were so many problems with Obaminable's legislative "center piece"! Sometime about the Republicans wouldn't help the Democrats "fix it"!

Speaking of train wrecks:

Has anyone checked out any of the "new enrollment" packages for "Obamacare qualified health care coverage"????

Apparently, the Federal union got theirs! They want an "exemption" now!

Where's Hillary ... "the heir apparent" to the WH in 2016? She's the expert on national health care ... remember?

Talk about seeing reason. TX do you realize that there is a very narrow definition of what treason is? No, I didn't think you did. Treason is more about providing aid and comfort to the enemy rather than harming the country. You can harm the country all you want if you do it for a "good" reason like so many journalists and liberals are doing. Now some people want to charge Snowden with treason but that will be difficult. They have to make a case that an enemy was aided knowingly. Most of the evidence is probably itself a secret if we have anyone inside a terrorist organization. Now you want to charge Bush and company with treason, can you tell us what enemy they aided? Noooo, I didn't think you could. My suggestion is that you go and let the adults finish talking. Not that everyone here is an adult of course but they try, bless their midguided little hearts they try.

One could make a case that killing Bin Laden rather than capturing Bin Laden on purpose did provide aid and comfort or that allowing our consulate to be overrun....

Cheney, Rumsfeld and W need to be in jail before Holder. They committed treason by lying us into wars regarding WMD. Cheney made millions with his closed no bid contracts for Halibutyon. They disclosed covert CIA agents. Originally Posted by txrancher1

Do the folks up in the hill country know you think like this? Having spent a lot of quality time up there, I'd keep those thoughts UTR!

But far more common among the Far Left Wing Nuts on this board.

Lately it seems like the current administration has been spending much MORE time on damage control than on moving things in this country in a positive direction. Which is typical of politicians who are so self-centered they prefer to attempt to polish their departing image more than they do straighten out the messes they have made and make things better for the folks who will have to live with their screw ups ....

Obamacare comes to mind. I had to cut the news off ... so I didn't have to lesson to some "stupid statements" about the problem being the Republicans as to why there were so many problems with Obaminable's legislative "center piece"! Sometime about the Republicans wouldn't help the Democrats "fix it"!

Speaking of train wrecks:

Has anyone checked out any of the "new enrollment" packages for "Obamacare qualified health care coverage"????

Apparently, the Federal union got theirs! They want an "exemption" now!

Where's Hillary ... "the heir apparent" to the WH in 2016? She's the expert on national health care ... remember? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Good point. You know Obama could have "legislated" the whole implementation of his signature bill back in 2009 when he the Dems had the House and the Senate...

but he didn't. I wonder why?

This is off topic, and I'm sorry. I just have to clear up a point. A weapon of mass destruction is not just a nuclear device. It can be nuclear but it can also be chemical or biological. The means to deliver said nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are also considered to be weapons of mass destruction. With that being said, Iraq did have the delivery system for the chemical and biological weapons. The warheads on their missiles could have been retrofitted with a nuclear war head, but seeing how their short and medium range missiles flew it would not have been recommended. So, did they have weapons of mass destruction? Yes they did. Was it the nuclear ones that everyone wanted? Not that could be found, but enough radioactive contamination was found to know some parts of them had been.

I wonder which idiot TX rancher is supposed to be. I forgot something from earlier. That crap that he was saying about "outing" a CIA agent (can he name her?) was so much BS. Bob Novak had heard about Valeria Plame on the cocktail circuit. She and her husband were always telling people that she was CIA but to keep it under their hats. So, she was not covert and she helped to out herself. As for the investigation; Richard Armitage was the source of the leak and the prosecutor knew that going in. Except he was a friend of Colin Powell and Powell was considered a good one so they didn't want to hurt him. So they had their investigation and the only person that got nailed was Scooter Libbey. For what? For not remembering the details of a conversation from five years earlier. The FBI decided to conclude that he lied and obstructed an investigation. That is what he was convicted of and not "outing" a CIA agent. So the leaker (Richard Armitage) got away with it and the people revising history have fooled people like TX into believing shit.

If that last post was a jab at me, that wasn't from the news. That was from a part of my life. The only part of what we did that made the news was when a friend died and he was added to the number of US killed.

..but he didn't. I wonder why? Originally Posted by gnadfly

Deniability ... remember .. he's a Chicago politician. That's what he's doing now.

Also, that can be the only reason the "deadlines" were pushed off until 2013.

Nobody seems to want to openly discuss the "reality" of the administrative changes made and the result on the actual product offered to employees that meet those standards.

"Somewhat" lower monthly premiums, but across the board higher deductibles and copays with ...

.. restrictions on services and prescriptions. That's the "Pinto" the unions don't want.

Insurance companies are in the business of making money, and the government is not. "Commercial" insurance products will have to be inferior in services to maintain a profit, and the government "issue" can provide more at a lower cost to the insured, because the TAXPAYERS will be required to make up the shortfall. The final point will be that the "UNINSURED" 11 to 15 million who were the "target" market for the legislation (at least that was the sales pitch) still will not be insured and they will still be the same burden on the taxpayers, except the taxpayers will have less coverage.

If that last post was a jab at me, that wasn't from the news. That was from a part of my life. The only part of what we did that made the news was when a friend died and he was added to the number of US killed. Originally Posted by phoenixtx

No. He wasn't addressing you. See @: http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1053505561&postcount=9

Thank you for your service.

And here is why the DOJ is exactly right to do what it did....straight from the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News. Not exactly a leftist publication.

"When a three-judge federal panel says a law “imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor and racial minorities in Texas,” one would hope state leaders take it to heart. Instead, Attorney General Greg Abbott reinstated the offending voter ID program within two hours of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that rendered the panel’s decision moot.

Another three-judge panel ruled — also in 2012 — against the state’s redistricting maps, concluding that minority groups had “provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.” That ruling was also made irrelevant by the high court decision.

Two rulings within the past year that found Texas had passed discriminatory laws; two rulings invalidated by the Supreme Court decision striking down Section 4 of the popular Voting Rights Act, which determined which jurisdictions needed pre-clearance for election changes.

No wonder, then, that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has targeted Texas to be the first state “bailed in” to pre-clearance requirements under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, the little-known, rarely used Section 3 (c). Section 3 (c) authorizes federal courts to place jurisdictions that deliberately discriminate against minorities into the pre-clearance category.

This newspaper supported the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County vs. Holder to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, because the formula unfairly singled out 16 jurisdictions, including Texas, for extraordinary oversight using decades-old data. However, the Department of Justice’s decision to try now to place Texas into pre-clearance is a sound move based on current information. We commend Holder and the Department of Justice for their aggressive protection of minorities’ voting rights.

For the moment, the Justice Department is supporting an existing lawsuit, filed by minority groups in a San Antonio federal court, that attacks Texas’ redistricting effort after the 2010 census and asks that Texas be placed into pre-clearance for 10 years. However, don’t be surprised if Holder eventually joins another lawsuit filed in a Corpus Christi federal court seeking to stop the voter ID program.

“This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder told the National Urban League on Thursday. “Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act … we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary.”

Holder’s words correctly placed the burden on Congress. It is up to lawmakers to rewrite the pre-clearance formula in Section 4 that was invalidated by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’s important for the Justice Department to use all the means at its disposal to protect voting rights."

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/ed...ter-rights.ece

No. He wasn't addressing you. See @: http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1053505561&postcount=9

Thank you for your service. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Thank you Michael Buffer Junior... speaking for EVERYBODY, I want to say, thank you for getting out of service, IBIdiot!

Look at the bright side. When someone screams, what DIPSHIT fucked up in this outfit, you won't have to hide anymore! Glad you clarified things for our newbie!

Gomer Pyle (of shit!)

Timmie, have you ever heard the word "lickspittel".

Timmie, have you ever heard the word "lickspittel". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You moppin' the drool off your chin while trying to figure out a response to my post?

Thank you Michael Buffer Junior... speaking for EVERYBODY, I want to say, thank you for getting out of service, IBIdiot!

Look at the bright side. When someone screams, what DIPSHIT fucked up in this outfit, you won't have to hide anymore! Glad you clarified things for our newbie!

Gomer Pyle (of shit!)

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Ysnap Rider...LOL

YOU ARE A FRIENDLESS IGNORANT WIMP UNHOLY STUPID IMBECILE UPPITYCUM-STAINED ASSHOLE-LICKER HATED PIMPLY FAILURE ARROGANT OBESE TRASH-HEAP BITCHY DIRTY CUM-BUCKET CRAZY SACK OF SHIT FILTHY OBESE FUCKFACE DOG-FACED PUTRID MONSTER BITCHY ASS-FACE RACIST UGLY SCUMBAG JIZZ-GUZZLING JIZZ-STAINED PANSYx10...