Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: ANTI-LIBERAL ZONE

George Bush going WOBBLY!

73 Comments
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 3:52 AM irtexas writes:

Earmarks and Pork

Gunny,

I have made my own form letters on a lot of certain issues and add or take away depending on the issue. Or change topics to suit the cause. I send them out everyweek to the WH and my fed reps. I have them on my speed dial cuts down time.

I have an answer somewhere and I'll see if I can find it but one answer said that earmarks are not the same as PORK? It says earmarks are already accounted for in said bill and pork is what is thrown on after the bill is ready to go out. My question was if the earmarks are already included then why the added pork? No answere yet, maybe never. If that's the case then 9,800 extra's that were added on to this bill would mean pork not earmarks. I also asked why were they allowed? Like I said, maybe never.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 4:00 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

irtexas

It's all pork really. Earmarks are "bringing home the bacon" to a politician's district when maybe it could be done better or cheaper in another area. It's simply deal-making and a waste.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 5:51 AM USA Eagle writes:

Gunny

Sore spot with me.Good essay.I fired off an email even before posting here today.We must force the feds to be fiscally responsible and earmarks ought to be a crime.These greedy immoral buzzards need a thorough lesson in responsibility.Grrrrr...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 5:56 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

USA Eagle

You're exactly right.

What is nice about an EO is that follow-on POTUS' will be fearful of recinding it as it would seem an endorsement of spending!

Bush does this, the GOP's stock will skyrocket.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 7:01 AM Sgt Relic writes:

This is getting to be a habit

CQ can consider the call made. Ditto irtexas on the speed dial. I have WH, Sen. T. Dum & Sen. T. Dee and my local Con-man set to go. After the last 8 years they must need a forklift for my FBI file. Bush going 'wobbly', who'da thunk it! Not!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 7:36 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Sgt Relic

The WH needs to be bombarded with messages and calls demanding that he do this! Why he can't see the good of it and do it right away is beyond me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 8:49 AM Buck writes:

President Bush Will Do NOTHING!

That horse has taken the bit in its teeth and is running away.

The Will of the People?

Bedammed what the people say or want.
Examples are Ramos and Campeon, the Border, Illegals and ruinous federal spending.

The president is spending his last 4 years repaying the fat cats who financed his political career.

Earmarks and pork translate into money for local business. Local businesses who helped him.

Until the American people can control the governmental purse strings AND regulate politician's pay checks there will continue to be a drain on the federal treasury.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 9:03 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Buck

I hear you. I WISH we could control their pay. Deduct a percentage for everything NOT DONE on 31 Dec that was on their list on 1 Jan!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 9:41 AM clyde writes:

Gunny

Consider it done. The freshness date on the vast majority of these clowns is WAY past. Same with Bush. What an absolute disappointment this term.Had the golden opportunity to send the clowns down even lower than the whale droppings they already are. Blew it,BIG time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 9:44 AM Sgt Relic writes:

Not so sure it would help

With few exceptions, most members of congress wouldn't even miss the total loss of pay. It is, unfortunately, mostly a millionaires club.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 10:00 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

clyde

Agreed. Bush and the GOP let us down BIG TIME!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 10:01 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Sgt Relic

I've got a solution for that. They work for NO PAY and get FINED for not getting the job done!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 10:20 AM BrianR writes:

"GOING" wobbly????

Going?????


He never even found his veto pen until a few months ago, and then had to send out for a refill because all the ink had dried up.

The guy's been right on: the war, tax breaks, and 2 SCOTUS appointments (and that one after the Meiers whiffer).

He's been wrong on everything else during 6 years in office.

The only thing good about Bush has been that he'd have been slightly better than Gore or Kerry. But not all that much, as it's turned out.

The most beneficial effect he's had is more as a lightning rod, keeping the Dems so busy hating them and acting out about it that they haven't been able to get their act together to pass even more bad laws.

But they didn't have to, with all the bad laws passed while the GOP still held majorities, and Bush was signing everything into (bad) law.

Going???

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 10:31 AM BrianR writes:

PS, Gunny

An Executive Order doesn't take precedence over law. It would be meaningless. Frankly, Congress could call the agency heads into committee to explain their refusal to spend the funding.

If Bush doesn't want earmarks, then he has to veto the budget legislation. He can't sign it into law, then "order" agency heads not to spend the money. That exceeds his authority.

There's nothing in the Constitution giving him that power, nor does it mention "executive orders". Further, under the Constitution, it's his responsibility to carry out the laws duly passed by Congress and enacted. If he refuses to do so, he can be impeached.

Greatest example of his OWN violation of the law: where's the g-ddamned fence?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 11:22 AM YLG writes:

GunnyG

Consider it done....

BTW, I saw the "Captain's Quarters", and almost skipped this because I thought it had something to do with roberto and his helo ride at Wal-Mart.

Good thing I didn't!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 11:31 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

BRIAN!

One, thanks for the education.

Two, D*MMIT! I thought that we were on to something there. I read this on the Captain's Quarters and thought we were working towards getting a handle on this!

DANG you for busting my bubble! haha
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 11:33 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

YLG

Thanks. I'm checking into what Brian posted but I'm 99.9% sure he's right. More's the pity.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 11:37 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Brian

US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.

Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to US executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office.

It's vaguely alluded to as above but I'm thinking that your right taht Congress could gaff it off.

In any event, you're spot on about NO G-D8MN FENCE!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 11:40 AM irtexas writes:

#2 & #3

Gunny,

I did quick posts this morning on the 2 new honor killings. These are here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 12:31 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Guns

The prevailing issue is as you quoted: "faithfully execute" the laws Congress passes. He can't just slough them off; that's grounds for impeachment. It would mean the President had greater powers than Congress, and we know that is most def NOT the case.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 12:37 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Brian

That is some bad news but thanks for setting me straight.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 2:51 PM Pilgrim writes:

It's not bad news...

And Brian didn't "set anyone straight." Earmarks are designated in committees, and are NOT inserted into the spending bills until after they are passed by the full Senate or House, and the bill goes through the Conferance Committees, then they are amended WITHOUT DEBATE by the full House or Senate. Porkbusters.com explains clearly that the earmarks aren't even in the bills themselves, but are in committee reports, and as such CARRY NO FORCE OF LAW since they were not voted on as part of the original bill. The White House position is that UNLESS they are part of the actual enacted law, they do not have to be followed by the Executive Branch - and he has a good point.

Brian, since this is the "no liberal spin" zone, I smell a mole...

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 2:54 PM Pilgrim writes:

BTW

There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution giving a right to Privacy, there's nothing in the Constitution that says there's a "seperation between Church and State," and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to coerce the States to spend money or enforce Federal Laws, but liberistas have found all of those in there. Executive Orders have been in place for over 230 years, and there's never been a doubt of their Constitutionality.

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 3:25 PM BrianR writes:

Well, Pilgrim

I suggest you get your sniffer checked, then. Or go check out my blog.

Any bill that comes out of committe has to be then re-approved by each of the houses of Congress, INCLUDING the earmarks.

The earmarks are absolutely part of the budget bill that's submitted to the Prez for his signature or veto.

Sorry, bud, you're all wet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 4:03 PM BrianR writes:

BTW

If Executive Orders had the force of constitutionally defined laws, what keeps the Prez from issuing one naming himself as Emperor?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 03, 2008 4:07 PM BrianR writes:

BTW

If Executive Orders had the force of constitutionally defined laws, what keeps the Prez from issuing one naming himself as Emperor?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 12:43 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Pilgrim aka Robert

Thanks for the comments but Brian's post at 4:08 is almost unrefutable.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 12:48 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Brian

As I stated to Pilgrim/Robert, your logic is irrefutable. If the reverse were true, FDR WOULD have crowned himself Emperor.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:14 AM Pilgrim writes:

Not exactly...

Actually, Brian is pretty easy to refute, and logic has nothing to do with it:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1757.cfm

Cancel non-binding earmarks by executive order. Most earmarks are not written into the actual appropriations bills that are signed into law. Rather, they are included in conference reports, which are explanatory statements that accompany the legislation to the President's desk. Because they are not technically part of the bill, the Executive Branch is not legally bound to implement conference reports.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?sta tus=article&id=283651640706114&secid=1501

"The Congressional Research Service issued a report last week confirming that earmarks not included in the actual bill but written into accompanying reports — which is most of them — do not have force of law and can therefore be disregarded by the president."

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:14 AM Pilgrim writes:

Con't

http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/legal-memo-s ays-president-can-stop-earmarks-with-executive-order/

“Based on our review of the relevant constitutional provisions, statutes, and applicable case law it appears that the President possesses the necessary legal and constitutional authority to issue such an executive order. That said, the issuance of an executive order appears to be a discretionary act whose issuance is solely vested with the President of the United States. With respect to your second question, it appears that because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution – specifically, bicameralism and presentment – they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/21 /MN8SU2FKI.DTL&feed=rss.news

"At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush chastised Democratic leaders for failing to live up to their campaign promise to curb so-called earmarks and said he has ordered his budget director "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill." Aides later said those options would include simply disregarding earmarks not included in binding legislative language."

I could keep this up all night...

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:15 AM Pilgrim writes:

Con't

http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/legal-memo-s ays-president-can-stop-earmarks-with-executive-order/

“Based on our review of the relevant constitutional provisions, statutes, and applicable case law it appears that the President possesses the necessary legal and constitutional authority to issue such an executive order. That said, the issuance of an executive order appears to be a discretionary act whose issuance is solely vested with the President of the United States. With respect to your second question, it appears that because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution – specifically, bicameralism and presentment – they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/21 /MN8SU2FKI.DTL&feed=rss.news

"At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush chastised Democratic leaders for failing to live up to their campaign promise to curb so-called earmarks and said he has ordered his budget director "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill." Aides later said those options would include simply disregarding earmarks not included in binding legislative language."

I could keep this up all night...

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:26 AM Pilgrim writes:

Want some more?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20071227/pl_usnw/ccagw_challen ges_presidential_candidates_on_earmarks

"A December 18 Congressional Research Service report on earmarks stated that "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution - specifically, bicameralism and presentment - they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies."

And for the coup-de-grace, a Congressional Report stating the definition of earmarks and proposals to limit them:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33295_20060306.pdf

"(1) Currently, there is no formal
definition of “earmark,” nor is their an
informal definition accepted by all
practitioners and observers of the federal
budget process. Broadly, “earmark” may
refer to provisions associated with
legislation (appropriations or general
legislation) that specify certain
congressional spending priorities or in
revenue bills that apply to a very limited
number of individuals or entities.
Earmarks may appear in either the
legislative text or report language
(committee reports accompanying
reported bills and joint explanatory
statement accompanying a conference
report)."

The entire thing discusses "unauthorized appropriations" which, by Constitutional definition are illegal, hence, Bush can, and should, stop them. Why? Because the way it's done now, nobody knows who put them in, forcing Congress to put them in the legislation would make them accountable for them.

Sorry, Brian, but your "simple logic" is greatly outweighed by the facts.

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:32 AM Pilgrim writes:

Additional nonsense

BTW, the "simple logic" that the "Prez" could write an Executive Order declaring himself emperor is pedantic sophistry. It would be un-Constitutional. Now, let us define that. Un-Constitutional means the Constitution prohibits such an action because it contradicts the Constitution. Since EO's are NOT listed in the Constitution, they are not, and cannot be un-Constitutional. Just as driving on the right side of the road can't be Constitutional or un-Constitutional, the Constitution doesn't address it, so Congress or the President could easily decide one way or the other. If Congress passed a law saying left, and the President vetoed it and issued an EO saying right, everyone would have to drive on the right side - but it would not carry the force of law. You couldn't be judicially punished for it, but it certainly wouldn't be un-Constitutional.

Brian, I suggest you direct your sniffer towards some textbooks on the Constitution and remediate the results of Outcome Based Education.

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:37 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

WOW!

Robert aka Pilgrim, your BDS is rampant. Better seek help.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:55 AM Pilgrim writes:

An example

In 1942, FDR issued an Executive Order that interred American Citizens of Japanese ancestry after removing them from the West Coast. Congress later passed legislation affirming his actions. One individual, named Mitsuye Endo, filed a habeas corpus protest with the District Court, which was denied. She appealed to the 9th Circuit and was again denied. She finally appealled to the US Supreme Court (Ex Parte Endo) and the Circuit was reversed, the case remanded, and she and the rest of the wrongly interred individuals were restored to their homes.

In no fashion did the Supreme Court say that the President couldn't pass any Executive Order, they simply ruled that the one he did pass violated Habeas Corpus, and overturned it. If he had declared himself Emperor, the same thing would have happened, such is our system of Checks and Balances.

The Constitution really is a wonderful document, but after checking out your blog at your invitation, Brian, I don't think you have a complete understanding of it. Start with the Federalist Papers, read what the intent of the framers were within the context of the Confederation, and then move forward through the Constitutional Cases throughout history. As for "simple logic" read Dred Scott for a perfect example of how law and logic can be as far apart as any two things can possibly be.

As Forrest Gump said: "That's all I have to say about that." If you have any questions, feel free to ask, but I'm not going to continue researching this subject just to disprove my buddy Brian who has a blog. BTW. I have one, too. So does my 9 y/o daughter.

Sorry if that sounds condescending, because it is. As was your comments. Feel free to apologize, though, because, obviously, I deserve one.

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:57 AM Pilgrim writes:

Uncalled for.

GunnyG, seriously, I'm one of President Bushes biggest supporters, and a Conservative from the word "Reagan." Don't call this a "no liberal spin" zone if you're going to use liberal tactics.

You can also feel free to apologize for that remark, which is so obviously wrong, since I am obviously supporting the President's right to issue an Executive Order eliminating the Democrat's rampant earmark spending.

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:57 AM Pilgrim writes:

Uncalled for.

GunnyG, seriously, I'm one of President Bushes biggest supporters, and a Conservative from the word "Reagan." Don't call this a "no liberal spin" zone if you're going to use liberal tactics.

You can also feel free to apologize for that remark, which is so obviously wrong, since I am obviously supporting the President's right to issue an Executive Order eliminating the Democrat's rampant earmark spending.

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:07 AM norman writes:

Guns...

I really hate to write this, but Robert brings up some valid arguments, and you do yourself a disservice by using an attack as your refutation. I don't think calling him on BDS is valid this time, because at no point did I see him actually attack Bush... Instead, I see him defending Bush's actions in regards to the earmarks.

Robert,
Normally I think your arguments are full of sh1t, some even bordering on deranged, but in this one instance I believe you make a valid case.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:09 AM Pilgrim writes:

Perhaps

Perhap I'm being confused with someone else, since, um, I haven't actually posted here before today, or at least it's been so long ago that I don't remember it. I had to get a password reset just to reply to this particular thread. As a matter of fact, I have no idea where the "Pilgrim" thing came from, it was just kind of there when I signed in today.

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:11 AM norman writes:

Robert,

My last comment, BTW, was only if you are the same Robert who posts all the time on Townhall under a different name (I can't even remember the name now).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:23 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Robert aka Pilgrim

If you're trying to be "sub rosa" and go under the name of Pilgrim, you might want to try dropping the "Robert" signature.

But please, keep posting, you're doing a real good job for reinforcing our views on libsquirts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:25 AM Pilgrim writes:

No thanks.

Your last comment proves you're a complete ignoramus. Enjoy your blog. BTW, do you even know what a "Gunny" is, or did you just hear that term once and thought it would be neat to use it?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:30 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Robert aka Pilgrim

Ah, you finally caught on and dropped the "Robert." Guess bad habits are hard to break huh? Speaking of bad habits, do you go through a lot of "baby oil" in a month? You'd be outclassed in a kindergarden level discussion group.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:43 AM Pilgrim writes:

Whatever

Seriously, I'm not the "Robert" you seem to think I am, but obviously that's not getting through. As far as the constant insults, I don't see how that differentiates you from a liberal, since that's their favorite tactic. I'm not going to waste any more time on your blog, since I gave you an opportunity to apologize and you made a jackass of yourself. You might want to drop the "gunny" moniker, since that's what Marines refer to their platoon sergeant as, with the greatest respect. Unfitting for a kid blogging from his Mom's basement.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 5:49 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Robert aka Pilgrim

"I'm not going to waste any more time on your blog..."

Don't let the screen door hit ya on the way out!

PS: Seek mental help if you cannot connect the dots in your posts...Pilgrim as a sign in, Robert as a signature.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 10:31 AM BrianR writes:

Hahahahahahahaha!

I think you're right, Gunny! I do think this is Sir Robert the Loon of the Order of the Tin Foil Hat! Another new alias. What a doofus.

Well, Pilgrim, listen up and listen good (I couldn't resiste, heh heh)

Not only are you wrong, but you make the cardinal sin of being bloviational and boring while doing it.

Tsk tsk.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 10:36 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Brian

Also, Wobbie HATES Bush and has an advanced and chronic BDS.

This lured him in like a liberal to an SF bath house!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 10:42 AM str8_talk writes:

Thank You!

For the phone number, I made my very polite call this morning, she said she would pass it on. Hopefully with you and others, the message will get across. I'm going to put it in an email and distribute it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 11:30 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

str8t_talk

Let's hope SOMETHING positive happens!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 1:17 PM norman writes:

interesting

It didn't take long before Robert dissolved into personal attacks. Sad too, since if he had kept up the reasonable persona, he might have fooled people. I know I was willing to give him the benefit of a doubt that he was who he said he was and not Townhall's infamous pathological liar.

I guess I must be too nice, because I sure was wrong!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 04, 2008 10:20 PM The Crawfish writes:

speaking of pay, and vetoes

W vetoed the Defense Appropriations bill, so the military pay raise of 3.5% didn't go into effect on 01JAN.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 05, 2008 1:23 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

norman

What's so funny is that he's so dumb that he signs in with one name and then signs off: "Robert!"

What a moron!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 05, 2008 1:25 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

The Crawfish

It'll be back-dated but what I am curious about is what was tacked TO that bill that made W veto it!?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 05, 2008 1:54 AM Georgetwin writes:

GunnyG-BrianR

Is it me or is Robert getting even MORE STUPID, MORE arrogant and MORE obnoxious!?

Either Wonder Woman sprung a leak or The Wal-Mart Helicopter was out of order! LOL!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 05, 2008 1:59 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

georgetwin

He probably got an F on that paper he was writing! Too much crayon! Made him cranky and he probably missed his nap-time.

haha!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 05, 2008 3:05 AM Georgetwin writes:

GunnyG

I give him a grade of FU on EVERYTHING!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 1:47 AM Pilgrim writes:

Wow....

You clowns are really a piece of work, OK, better word starts with sh, but not allowed here. First, you morons aren't smart enough to figure out I'm not someone else who apparently you dislike, then, when I agree with you, and you start calling me names, then post inane juvenile comments slapping each other on the backs like a bunch of hicks on PBR, and then, you idiots have the cojones to call me stupid, arrogant, and obnoxious!

Unbelievable! The only thing more unbelievable is this fake gunny guy pretending he's in Iraq, which is completely and totally disrespectful to the real Marines and Soldiers fighting a war so some pimply faced teenager in his basement can pretend to be one of them.

Sheesh, I would expect this garbage on DailyKooks or morons.org, but I actually though people on the right were smarter than this...

That's right "gunny," I'm calling you out, as a real Veteran of the US Armed Forces, I'm calling you a liar. Nobody as stupid as you could get beyond Seaman Third Class.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 8:08 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Pilgrim aka Robert

Pilgrim writes: Friday, January, 04, 2008 4:58 AM
Uncalled for. GunnyG, seriously, I'm one of President Bushes biggest supporters, and a Conservative from the word "Reagan." Don't call this a "no liberal spin" zone if you're going to use liberal tactics.

You can also feel free to apologize for that remark, which is so obviously wrong, since I am obviously supporting the President's right to issue an Executive Order eliminating the Democrat's rampant earmark spending.

Robert
---------------

You kinda sorta see where I'm going with this? I draw your attention to your habitual signatures that show up on every post on the threads and you did it here.

You got busted out and are not even man enough to admit it.

BTW, Brian has my military.com page and can vouch for me yet YOU and HalD prefer to hide in the shadows.

So, WHO's the coward Robert?


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 10:05 AM BrianR writes:

Hahahahaha!

This guy's a hoot, Guns.

This is Roberto's typical MO every time one of his aliases gets sniffed out. He uses the same outraged syntax, every time...

Evidently, he thinks other people are even more stupid than he is. As if that's even humanly possible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 10:14 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Brian

You know it. What's friggin funny is that the idiot can't even get his aliases right!

Shouldn't he have done...

Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Not

Pilgrim

Robert
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 10:52 AM BrianR writes:

Well, Guns

That's why he's a Knight of the Order of the Tin Foil Hat!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 11:37 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Brian

And ruler of the HUA clan.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 1:28 AM Georgetwin writes:

BrianR-GunnyG

Luckily with Ron Paul sinking in the polls (was he ever rising?), Robert/Pilgrim/Jetpilot will have PLENTY of tinfoil available when he blows up Wonder Woman or goes to Wal-Mart to get some flight time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 2:06 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

georgetwin

HAHA! The Paulistas must be pulling their hair our and gnashing their teeth for being born about 150 too late! Because that is the era Paul's from! haha.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 2:14 AM Pilgrim writes:

Gawd, what morons!

I can't believe none of you idiots can figure out that there is more than one person on the frickin' planet named Robert! Yes, that is my name, an no, I am not the guy that posts here all the time. If this isn't clear by now, I'm sorry you're so stupid. BTW, your lack of response to my calling you out as an imposter proves what I said, you ain't no Gunny, just a pretender.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 3:16 AM Stan @ tbsn.thesequencers.us writes:

Here's the power Bush has on Earmarks

He has the power of the veto. And that's it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 3:21 AM Stan @ tbsn.thesequencers.us writes:

Paul

I heard a talk show host saying like "Who's Ron Paul" in a typical CorporateConservative dismissal.

What's funny about it, is that Paul's district is in his listening market ... it was a sports talk radio host though, so I'll give him a break. I mean, at least he was throwing some politics in there (which can effect sports)!!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 4:43 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Pilgrim aka Robert

Robert, you're like a moth to a flame. Get over yourself!

haha.

Those who need to know who I am...DO!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 4:57 AM Stan @ tbsn.thesequencers.us writes:

Gunny's OT

Dude, shouldn't you post that in your *I'M FAMOUS* thread???? ;-)

BTW: If you're so famous, then how come I don't know your real name?

Me, I'm not famous like you. I'm famous like me. (thanX JoyDrop!)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 5:47 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Stan @ tbsn.thesequencers.us

"BTW: If you're so famous, then how come I don't know your real name?"

One, this was written jokingly but evidently, it went over your pointy head.

Two, it's none of your business who I am. As I have stated to your fellow moonbat Robert, those who need to know who I am...DO.

Who are YOU?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 09, 2008 12:19 AM str8_talk writes:

Robert or Pilgrim

misspells the same words! Seperate should be separate.

CRAWFISH - yes I heard from my son who is in the process of new orders about the payraise getting vetoed, quite a hit. He's coming home this month, so now his "bonus" will be based on non-active duty rather than combat pay, that bites! This was his 2nd tour of duty,(1st was 13 mos, this one 13 mos also w/only 9 mos between) and he's an E-5 after only 3 years. Kind of stinks, doesn't it?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 09, 2008 1:37 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

str8t_talk

Yep, saw that as well. Same moron. HAHA! You'll note how fast Wobbie STFU when I posted his entire post showing his error! haha
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 09, 2008 6:46 PM str8_talk writes:

GunnyG

I pointed out a couple of weeks ago on a column to Anne that I thought HalD & Wobbie were the same person suffering from DID or Multiple Personality Disorder, because they were never on at the same time. Right after that, the very night they both showed up, like a circus. It was strange, like seeing a person rotoscoping, patting each other on the back. They have to be one and the same! Now they show up occasionally on the same night, but usually at different times, when one signs off the other signs on. It is like the other persona takes over, quite freaky really! Anne almost has her Master's in Psychology and I've had quite a few courses in Psychology as well as I plan to go on and pursue my Physician's Assistant Master's. They're quite the trio, Rob, Hal, & TR!

You might check out my latest blog:
http://str8truth.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=865d ae94-4de4-4415-bc21-48b7a1287a6b
Presidential "Honor" it exposes some of the liberal viewpoints and a former president w/out honor and the mess he made.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive