XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: kiltmac@gmail.com   
      
   On 5/29/2013 3:46 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > Tom McDonald  wrote in news:Ipspt.14715$MQ7.3462   
   > @newsfe18.iad:   
   >   
   >> On 5/29/2013 2:09 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>> "SaPeIsMa"  wrote in   
   >>> news:ko3psm$n3a$1@dont-email.me:   
   >>>   
   >>>> "Tom McDonald"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:Z4uot.26866$CG1.14761@newsfe21.iad...   
   >>>>> On 5/26/2013 12:52 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?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yeah   
   >>>>>> The one who didn't recuse herself as se should have when the   
   >>>>>> Constitutionality of the law she helped create and push through   
   > came   
   >>>>>> under review.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Would that be Scalia or Thomas?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Poor baby, can't even read for comprehension   
   >>>>       What do you think the word "herself" implicits, dummy ?   
   >>>> And neither Scalia nor Thomas were put on the Bench by Obama   
   >>>   
   >>> Nor are either one a "she".   
   >>>   
   >>>> Come back when you actually know something   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >> You know, I know that. I was referring to the issue of justices not   
   >> recusing themselves when they had a conflict of interest. Looks like I   
   >> needed to be more clear.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The comment was about the last person named to the Court. It had to do   
   > with this exchange:   
      
   Yes. I got that.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> It worked out for the lady that Obama appointed to the supreme   
   >>>>>>>> court.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What? What the fuck are you talking about?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yeah   
   >>>>>> The one who didn't recuse herself as se should have when the   
   >>>>>> Constitutionality of the law she helped create and push through   
   >>>>>> came under review.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)