Emanuel withholds most records detailing push for speed cameras

Just Sayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama said he would repeal the Patriot Act during his first campaign. The only thing he did was change the name of it so his stupid supporters wouldn't catch on.

Being a teabagger,your research on the subject of stopped at FOX.com :
On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

carey529 wrote:

<quoted text>
the fact that the man was ever elected is a testimonial to the stupidity and gullibility of the american voter...
future generations will look at this, scratch their heads wondering what the hell people were thinking!

The same thing most people are in this election.
He is far better than ANY teabagger.

Wall Street Government wrote:

<quoted text>
The same thing most people are in this election.
He is far better than ANY teabagger.

he's the worst thing to happen to this country since jimmy carter.
only an idiot would vote for obama.

a roll of quarters would be a far better pick than obama.

Wall Street Government wrote:

<quoted text>
Being a teabagger,your research on the subject of stopped at FOX.com :
On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

That's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Why didn't he veto it if he disagreed with it?

He has used his executive order for anything he wants so where's the beef?

Does he mean to give us the impression that he will be the president for eternity?

Smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors.

Big Hebrew is watching. He should go back to his native Israel and put some more brakes on those tanks over there.

carey529 wrote:

<quoted text>
he's the worst thing to happen to this country since jimmy carter.
only an idiot would vote for obama.
a roll of quarters would be a far better pick than obama.

There were far worse, namely the traitor Ronald Reagan by far the worst scumbag to ever to hold office anywhere but almost as bad as George Bush as he has kept most of his policies.
A roll of quarters is what most of the citizen's of this country will be their sole possession if they elect ANY teabagger, thanks to "Reaganomics."
I'll stick with the republican that currently holds office.

A pipsqueak maniac who never served in the military for the USA, but ran off to Israel and served in their military.

He's trash. His father belonged to an Israeli terrorist group.

everything the government has reported to do to protect the citizens is actually taking liberty and freedom and bush and odumbo are guilty

Emanuel withholds most records detailing push for speed cameras

HE'S JUWISH, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT FROM THIS GUY, DEMOCRACY?

Wall Street Government wrote:

<quoted text> Only a naive idiot would have taken his campaign slogan seriously.
You seem to be one.
Isn't that what the washington "outsider" politician is running on?
"We intend to change washington not accommodate it"?
The teabaggers ate that up.
Yes, given the choice, voting for a teabagger or the current republican president, I'll stick with a republican.

Just an observation but you did not seem to understand the message. Perhaps you are the naive idiot.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Most uniformed asinine statement concerning politics: "Dem or Repub makes no difference." Does anyone believe that if the winner of the 2000 popular vote had been inaugurated the country would have:
Destroyed the surpluses were project as far as the eye could see?
Downgraded the of the terrorist experts and demoted the terrorist experts?
Disregarded the warnings the CIA ....especially the one entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" or
Illegally and immorally invaded Iraq?
Given $100's of BILLIONS to Big Pharma?
Given massive tax breaks to the uber-rich?
Appointed corporatists and CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS like Alito & Roberts to the Supreme Court?
Unfortunately for the country, the popular vote winner wasn't inaugurated. Fortunately President Obama was elected to clean up the mess left by 30+ years of voodoo economics.

LOL, wasnt that Bill Clinton who didnt get Osama when he had the chance. Also your popular vote crap is funny, Bush won the election and even the normal news people and supreme courts said so.

Just Sayin wrote:

<quoted text>
That's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
Why didn't he veto it if he disagreed with it?
He has used his executive order for anything he wants so where's the beef?
Does he mean to give us the impression that he will be the president for eternity?
Smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors.

Didn't you read it?
It was part of a $662 billion defense bill.
He did add this:
In an executive statement to the Senate (11/17/11) President Obama expressed his administration's opposition to the provision as follows: "The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects... Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets." The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act, arguing that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people...(and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."

Under the original passed by the republican congress in 2001:

The authorization to use military force passed by the Congress right after the attacks against this Nation designates al-Qaida as a military threat, not a common criminal threat, so we apply the law of war.”);id. at S.8663 (Sen. Graham)(“The key fact is, no one is held as an enemy combatant without judicial review. Once you are determined to be an enemy combatant, then we are going to apply the law of war, as we have for 200 years.... Finally, after 10 years, the Congress of the United States, through this legislation, is going to make the simple statement, simple proposition that under the law of war, you can be held as an enemy combatant indefinitely to protect this Nation.”). Senators McCain, Lieberman and Sessions made similar remarks, reflecting the apparently consensus view that military detention until the end of the conflict is detention governed by the law of war.

A president can't veto a provision in a law passed 10 years ago.

Rich Caruso J wrote:

<quoted text>
Just an observation but you did not seem to understand the message. Perhaps you are the naive idiot.

Seems you didn't understand the message.
You must be stupid enough to believe Newt when he stated:
"We are here to fundamentally change washington, not accommodate it"
Perhaps you are the IDIOT.

Paul Revere wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, wasnt that Bill Clinton who didnt get Osama when he had the chance. Also your popular vote crap is funny, Bush won the election and even the normal news people and supreme courts said so.

Bill Clinton had a 'warroom' type operation dedicated to finding Bin Laden. Dubya & Cheny dismantled that and Condi Rice downgraded national coordinator for counter-terrorism Richard Clarke's office and influence. That sent a signal throughout the bureaucracy that Clarke's memos had to be filtered by the incompetent Condi Rice.

Only a moron would claim the popular vote is funny....No one has ever claimed Dubya won the popular vote. And because the Supreme Court did not allow a full recount we'll never know the outcome from FL.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill Clinton had a 'warroom' type operation dedicated to finding Bin Laden. Dubya & Cheny dismantled that and Condi Rice downgraded national coordinator for counter-terrorism Richard Clarke's office and influence. That sent a signal throughout the bureaucracy that Clarke's memos had to be filtered by the incompetent Condi Rice.
Only a moron would claim the popular vote is funny....No one has ever claimed Dubya won the popular vote. And because the Supreme Court did not allow a full recount we'll never know the outcome from FL.

LOL, even our founding fathers didnt trust the dumb masses. That is why only land owners and people who could actually sign their name were allowed to vote.

Obama sure knows how to pick the pipsqueeks.