Read the reply it was for YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING in case you didn't quite get it.
enquiring minds want to know
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Read the reply it was for YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING in case you didn't quite get it.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
C'mon Rusty. You learned how to use the BOLD function and you learned how to embed. How hard was that? Lets sign you up at the local Elementary School for some English classes. You can disregard your lack of English skills, but its hard for anyone to take you seriously when you can't form sentences at the 5th grade level.
So what's your point learning is a crime.I will say it again this is a sports betting forum not a Harvard on-line school course.Fool!!
Too bad for you Rusty. You could, actually, learn something. In your case, however, there seems to be a certain perverse pride in ignorance. How Bush of you.
Is this your motto, Rusty? - Stupid good, smart bad.
Too bad KC exposed the fallacy of DTB's entire "agrument" in the post following yours.
It's not your fault though Turf. You were just the victim of another DTB drive-by... :142smilie
Since this is SUCH a big deal to you, Wayne, and it has had you thinking, based on SKULNIK's signature (could these be a valuable clue for you?), is this a unique situation for a new president? I'm too tired tonight to go over the entire order, but I'd guess that in most instances a new President probably has to enact this kind of thing as a normal right of executive privilege and to protect the office and person. Am I wrong in thinking that? Is this the first one of these things in our history? Or is it a common thing done by all Presidents to protect themselves and the office after taking over?
Seems to me a new president might have to sign something along these lines as a matter of normal right of passage, and I'd guess this is nothing new or unusual.
Please let me know of your comparison research on this, or, you can always rely on Skulnik's signature to back up the case you are trying to make to discredit Obama (again), if you think that helps your cause.
Seems to me a new president might have to sign something along these lines as a matter of normal right of passage, and I'd guess this is nothing new or unusual.
Please let me know of your comparison research on this, or, you can always rely on Skulnik's signature to back up the case you are trying to make to discredit Obama (again), if you think that helps your cause.
0bama?s hidden records: Why are these off limits?
Posted by adminApril 3, 20101 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent?s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0?s SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham?s divorce decree.
24 Why isn?t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn?t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
:0corn
Posted by adminApril 3, 20101 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent?s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0?s SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham?s divorce decree.
24 Why isn?t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn?t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
:0corn
There's No doubt in my mind, Obama is a stupid FRAUD, his talents are limited to LYING and reading a TELEPROMPTER.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXQTaWjMoFw&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXQTaWjMoFw&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXQTaWjMoFw&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXQTaWjMoFw&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3hSnEMV58F8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3hSnEMV58F8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dJrBhtnQ42U&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dJrBhtnQ42U&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
:142smilie
:142smilie
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sqcnjxYiG7M&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sqcnjxYiG7M&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
:mj07:
:mj07:
No I wasn't a "victim" of anything by anyone.
I was referring to you and your alter ego TU. You guys (usually) have nothing to add to any point made by anyone. The personal attacks are old and boring. All you guys ever do is insult, belittle, or point out character flaws or actions (which are irrelevant) in order to invalidate their argument.
By the way, You do know that once you stoop to ad hominem attacks you have conceded the argument and your position lacks merit, don't you?
How about giving it a rest.
Thanks in advance. :0074
...................................................................
Why dont you list #26 Why hasnt how many times Obama has farted on Sunday in church.
These things are of no interest now. Why didnt one of the neocon right wingers find this info when he was running for President ?
Then there was no executive order and you could have exposed him for his SAT score .
Geez you guys never cease to amaze me.
DTBblackgumby now trying to file papers so he can overturn the executive order and find that
birth certificate
:142smilie
what a joke you guys are\
Chad I knew he signed order as well as gathered team of attorneys to keep past from becoming public--just didn't know it was 1st thing he did in office.
(attorney fees)
Year-End 2008 Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $173,052.52
Amended post-general election Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $205,323.00
April 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $688,316.42
July 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $270,754.18
October 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were: $314,018.06 January 2010 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie are not yet available.
+++++++++++++++++++
In case your interested here are all of GW's -I couldn't find any-- pertaining to hiding presidential records--can you?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html
Only thing I want to to know on any politician--is what are they trying to hide and why. Appears in Gumby's case he's trying to hide everything that hasn't been previously made public--am I wrong???? if not than doesn't that bother you a bit--and how can he even utter the word transparency--let alone campaign on it.
enquiring minds want to know--don't you?
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Seriously, is this what you do with your time? Why don't you just go back to hating him because he is black?
...............................................................
:142smilie
Cant wait for DTBlackgumby to do to his black even dinner.
DTB stands up and says
Listen I dont have anything against you people
oh shit the rest of dinner should be a knockout for insurance sales.
Maybe you should keep your mouth shut DTB
kinda like we ask you to do in this forum
but we all know thats impossible :facepalm:
DTB, I tried to stop you, you are upside down on this one. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is glaring, so much so I had to come back from my leave of absence.
From slate.com. 1/20/09 and there are thousands of other sources. Like I said, it was big news when Obama struck down Bush's order trying to hide everything.
Newly minted presidents have often used executive orders to set the tone for their administration right out of the gate, as Barack Obama is expected to do this week. But while these orders can be issued unilaterally, they can just as easily be overturned by the next guy
With Executive Order 13233, the Bush administration tried to gut the Presidential Records Act, passed in 1978 to make sure that the internal documents of the executive branch are public and generally will become part of the historical record. The 1978 law itself was a compromise in favor of privacy in some respects: Presidential records aren't disclosed for up to 12 years after an administration leaves office, and requests for them are subject to the limits imposed by the Freedom of Information Act, which means that classified documents stay secret. But the Bush order essentially threw out the law's bid for transparency altogether. After stonewalling for months over access to documents from the Reagan era, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales drafted an order that gives a sitting president, or the president whose records are being requested, the power to review a documents request, with no time limit. If either president says no, you have to sue to get the records.
Like I said previously, I have no idea why you would start a thread re-hashing W's blunders and Obama's correction of one of his blunders.
From slate.com. 1/20/09 and there are thousands of other sources. Like I said, it was big news when Obama struck down Bush's order trying to hide everything.
Newly minted presidents have often used executive orders to set the tone for their administration right out of the gate, as Barack Obama is expected to do this week. But while these orders can be issued unilaterally, they can just as easily be overturned by the next guy
With Executive Order 13233, the Bush administration tried to gut the Presidential Records Act, passed in 1978 to make sure that the internal documents of the executive branch are public and generally will become part of the historical record. The 1978 law itself was a compromise in favor of privacy in some respects: Presidential records aren't disclosed for up to 12 years after an administration leaves office, and requests for them are subject to the limits imposed by the Freedom of Information Act, which means that classified documents stay secret. But the Bush order essentially threw out the law's bid for transparency altogether. After stonewalling for months over access to documents from the Reagan era, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales drafted an order that gives a sitting president, or the president whose records are being requested, the power to review a documents request, with no time limit. If either president says no, you have to sue to get the records.
Like I said previously, I have no idea why you would start a thread re-hashing W's blunders and Obama's correction of one of his blunders.
.............................................................
Well, well, well. As George W. would say, "It's time to smoke ?em out of their hole!" Thanks to my "humorous" introduction of Wesley Clark 10 days ago in New Hampshire -- and the lughead way the no-sense-of-humor media has covered it -- there were 15 million hits this weekend on my website. Everyone who visited the site got to read the truth about Bush not showing up for National Guard duty.
The weird thing about all this is that during my routine I never went into any details about Bush skipping out while in the Guard (it's not like it's the biggest issue on my mind or facing America these days!) I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown ("debate") which I called "The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!" (You can watch it here -- hardly anyone in the media has shown this clip because viewers would suddenly see the context of my comments.)
When the press heard me use that word "deserter," though, the bells and whistles went off, for this was one of those stories they knew they had ignored -- and now it was rearing its ugly, truthful head on a very public stage. Without a single other word from me other than the d-word, they immediately got so defensive that it looked to many viewers like they?the press?maybe had something to hide. After all, when I called Bush a deserter, how did they know I wasn't referring to how he has deserted the 43 million Americans who have no health coverage? Why didn't they assume I was talking about how Bush is a deserter because he has deserted the working people of this country (who have lost 3 million jobs since he's taken office)? Why wasn't it obvious to them that I was pointing out how Bush had deserted our constitution and Bill of Rights as he tries to limit freedom of speech and privacy rights for law-abiding citizens?
Instead, they have created the brouhaha over Bush's military record, often without telling their audience what the exact charges are. It seems all they want to do is to get Clark or me -- or you -- to shut up. "We have never investigated this and so we want you to apologize for bringing it up!" Ha ha ha.
Well, I'm glad they have gone nuts over it. Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.
What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, ?Yeah, but he made up the time later.? So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.
I know you hate MM but I guess you totally forgot how George W hid his national guard record .
George W never did reveal or answer to this ?
Maybe he had a executive order :142smilie
how quickly the neocons forget
I see you would like for us to believe that The grifters 1st order 'Which I put up" was for transparency reasons--
Thread wasn't to rehash "W's" blunders--it was showing how your boy "H" is the most secretive pres in history trying to block everything from his birth--dsfunctional family to modern day.
I'll ask you same question as Chad--Why?
--don't you want to know--
We got him tied to terrorist--gumby's rebuttal I was only 12 at the time he was blowing up federal bldgs.
We got Rezko and the radical Rev--gumbys rebuttal--their not the men I thought they were-
--or is it you realize now that what we told prior election is a reality and instead of admitting you were grifted--you do the ole :00x7 [
