XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: SaPeIsMa@gmail.com   
      
   "Tom McDonald"  wrote in message   
   news:Kxopt.7866$OS5.970@newsfe24.iad...   
   > On 5/29/2013 9:25 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >> "Tom McDonald"  wrote in message   
   >> news:_bnpt.15217$uT3.13086@newsfe20.iad...   
   >>> On 5/29/2013 7:36 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>>> "Tom McDonald"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:%bept.42659$9X5.15117@newsfe31.iad...   
   >>>>> On 5/28/2013 9:53 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>>>>> "Jeanne Douglas"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-08852C.17293125052013@news.giganews.com...   
   >>>>>>> In article   
   >>>>>>> ,   
   >>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> In article , "SaPeIsMa"   
   >>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> > "Jeanne Douglas"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>> > news:hlwdjsd2-E96C05.22033024052013@news.giganews.com...   
   >>>>>>>> > > In article   
   >>>>>>>> > > ,   
   >>>>>>>> > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> > >   
   >>>>>>>> > >   
   >>>>>>>> > >> It's possible that Cindy Thomas (IRS supervisor) was following   
   >>>>>>>> > >> instructions she received from her bosses in the White House.   
   >>>>>>>> Read > >> this:   
   >>>>>>>> > >>   
   >>>>>>>> > >> I read one report indicating that some liberal democrat   
   >>>>>>>> members of   
   >>>>>>>> > >> Congress that were upset about tea party group's influence   
   >>>>>>>> > >> told   
   >>>>>>>> > >> Obama   
   >>>>>>>> > >> and   
   >>>>>>>> > >> his top aides that they should send the IRS after the tea   
   >>>>>>>> > >> party   
   >>>>>>>> > >> groups.   
   >>>>>>>> > >> That leads me to believe that it is possible that the IRS > >>   
   >>>>>>>> supervisors   
   >>>>>>>> > >> such   
   >>>>>>>> > >> as Cindy Thomas were following orders passed down from their   
   >>>>>>>> bosses > >> in   
   >>>>>>>> > >> the   
   >>>>>>>> > >> White House.   
   >>>>>>>> > >   
   >>>>>>>> > > Why would she obey illegal orders.   
   >>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>> > Because she's a good little ideological drone ?   
   >>>>>>>> > Because she doesn't have the brass to refuse ?   
   >>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>> > >   
   >>>>>>>> > > And remember that the President has no power over   
   >>>>>>>> > > non-politically-appointed workers.   
   >>>>>>>> > >   
   >>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>> > The President has all kinds of power, both direct and indirect.   
   >>>>>>>> > Hell, the promise that she would be taken care of and protected   
   >>>>>>>> > if   
   >>>>>>>> > things   
   >>>>>>>> > blow up would be good enough...   
   >>>>>>>> > One woman got to become a US Supreme Court Justice for all the   
   >>>>>>>> work   
   >>>>>>>> she > did   
   >>>>>>>> > to help push through Obamacare.   
   >>>>>>>> > And she didn't even have the decency to recuse herself when the   
   >>>>>>>> case > came   
   >>>>>>>> > to   
   >>>>>>>> > the Supreme Court.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I worked for a state agency before I retired. I worked with some   
   >>>>>>>> employees   
   >>>>>>>> just like Cindy Thomas. They would do whatever the boss told them   
   >>>>>>>> to do   
   >>>>>>>> (even if it was a violation of the rules). They knew that was the   
   >>>>>>>> best way   
   >>>>>>>> to get promotions. They were correct. Many of them got the   
   >>>>>>>> promotions   
   >>>>>>>> they   
   >>>>>>>> were seeking since the top bosses knew they would obey their orders   
   >>>>>>>> even   
   >>>>>>>> if the orders were in violation of the rules or laws. We called   
   >>>>>>>> them ass   
   >>>>>>>> kissers and lap dogs.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It worked out for the lady that Obama appointed to the supreme   
   >>>>>>>> court.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What? What the fuck are you talking about?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You really are this ignorant ??   
   >>>>>> Let me repeat the clues for the clueless   
   >>>>>>     ++ One woman got to become a US Supreme Court Justice   
   >>>>>>     ++ for all the work she did  to help push through Obamacare.   
   >>>>>>     ++ And she didn't even have the decency to recuse herself   
   >>>>>>     ++ when the case came to the Supreme Court.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I'll give you another clue, because you are so stump-ignorant   
   >>>>>>     Her name starts with a "K"..   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So you are pissing and moaning about something Scalia and Thomas do?   
   >>>>> ?> >  > Why?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What are you babbling about now ?   
   >>>> What are you claiming that Scalia and Thomas do ?   
   >>>   
   >>>  They didn't recuse themselves from cases in which they had a   
   >>> conflict of interest. I thought that was fairly clear. Apparently you   
   >>> need things spoon-fed you.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> What cases where those ?   
   >> You're making the claims, YOU PROVE your claim   
   >   
   > Start with Bush v Gore.   
      
   LOL   
       How ignorant are you really ?   
       (well, we'll soon find out)   
   And why should they recuse themselves for that case   
       Take as many screens as you need   
      
   Also note the following line   
      
   >>>> Unlike Kagan. NEITHER worked on pushing Obamacare through   
   >>>>     Clearly the notion of Conflict of Interest is beyond you   
   >>>>   
      
   Are you claiming that Scalia and Thomas worked to pass the Florida law that   
   was the basis of the Bush v Gore challenge ?   
   Do you even know the reason why that case ended up in front of the Supremes   
   ?   
      
   I'm willing to bet you don't know either of the asnwers.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   \You're such an imbecilic troll, you should  yourself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)