Iamon lyme: Is it?

Will the whole of the White House have to retire to Cuba?

Will the shop down the road run out of Cuban cigars???!!!???

... Please, I need to know!! ;P

(V): Iamon lyme: "Is it?"

"... Please, I need to know!! ;P"


No V, it's not a scandal. The president is only saying it was wrong to target conservatives because they got caught doing it. After all, what's wrong with politically motivated witch hunts? Everyone does it, right? There... feel better now? Good.

Iamon lyme: Or just revenge.... like plebgate.

Maybe we should have Bieber busted for smoking weed in the UK for being such an annoying idiot... But that would break his common law right, even though it's illegal.

You need to watch "Yes minister" dude.

(V): "Maybe we should have Bieber busted for smoking weed in the UK for being such an annoying idiot..."

Spoken like a true liberal.

"But that would break his common law right, even though it's illegal."

I see. His common law right is illegal... or did you mean it's illegal to break his common law right? No, that can't be it... that would be like saying it's against the law to break the law. I need my lawyer to help me with this... but then he might need to call in his lawyer to help him.

Q: How many lawyers does it take to untangle this mess?

A: None. It can't be done.

(V): Okay, I get it now... this is one of YOUR rules. Right? Like the one that says you may not talk to feminists if you're not a feminist?

Is that it? Please... I don't want to call in a team of lawyers! Don't you know how expensive that can be?

Just tell me!!!

(V): Okay, NOW I get it... I think.

It doesn't matter what the lawgivers and rule makers say, you can elect to ignore any law you don't like if it doesn't specifically fall under the heading of "common law". It's either that, or you agree with the purists who have decided they will only honor common law.

That's it, isn't it. It has to be. That's the only thing that makes sense...


Awww crap, and there's the rub... it makes sense!!

I was flipping through channels on TV, and caught the tail end of a news story. This was less than an hour ago...

Obama is standing on a stage in front of a microphone, and judging from the look on his face his audience is less than happy with him. I tuned in just in time to hear a reporter say something about a scandal, and then she finished with "... and the president was unapologetic about investigating members of the press."


Members of the press? Seriously? The people who helped get him on the bus, and then helped him stay on the bus... and now he's throwing THEM under the bus?

Hey, I have free tickets for anyone wanting to ride on the Obama bus. Who wants a free ticket?

Oh come on... the tickets are free. It's a free ride!

ROTFLMAO!!

Iamon lyme:

Simple explanation...

" Common Law was established by Alfred the Great, who reigned from 871-899AD. He compiled the laws and customs of the nation into the "Liber Judicialis," based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Alfred's son, Edward, declared

To all who are charged with the administration of public affairs I give the express command that they show themselves in all things to be just judges precisely as in the Liber Judicialis it is written; nor shall any of them fear to declare the common law freely and courageously.

In contradiction to the Common Law, the Civil Law of Rome prevailed in continental Europe. When William the Conqueror invaded in 1066, he brought with him jurists and clerics steeped in the principles of Roman civil law. Our ancient laws and customs withstood the shock, and remained without any serious amendment. Common Law includes the Charter of Liberties, which makes the Monarch subject to the law, the 1102 Synod of Westminster, which abolished slavery in England, the 1627 Petition of Right, which granted the right to criticise the government without fear of arrest, as well as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Right. Common Law defends property rights and rights to self defence.

Many of our greatest constitutional documents are Common Law documents. These are not Acts of Parliament. Their principles cannot be repealed by Parliament, and when our Monarch swore to uphold the "laws and customs" of the people of the United Kingdom at her Coronation, those "laws and customs" include Common Law."
.......

"In the year 1215 the first of our constitutional rights were set down on paper, it was called the Magna Carta, this was basically an oath from the crown (King or Queen) to uphold the rights of the people set down in it and to look after the peoples best interests, in return for the crowns promise to the people they agreed to be ruled by the crown, so it was a contract between crown and people basically, and it became the law.
The crown had to uphold the rights and common law as did the people, not to cause death, harm, or loss to another, or be fraudulent in your contracts (in other words be honest and true).

In 1689 the bill of rights was set down on paper, this basically sealed all the rights given in the Magna Carta plus a few more, both documents contain our UK common law written down and formed our law.

These two documents are the main fundamental parts of our UK constitution, yes we do actually have one, many claim that the UK has no written constitution, this is not true. We have the most respected constitution in the world, it is the basis of the constitutions of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.

Rather than being one written document we have several that make up the UK constitution, the primary of which is the Magna Carta and the 1689 bill of rights. (the freeman movement in Canada seems to be gaining respect from some Canadian policemen) Part of both the Magna Carta and the 1689 bill of rights states that they cannot be repealed because they are such well made laws and rights! "

................Understand?

(V): "................Understand?"

Uh huh. So what does it mean when someone declares he will ONLY abide by and honor common law? How is that different... or is it a meaningless proclamation?

In other words, what law is he trying to avoid being held accountable for?

(V): "the freeman movement in Canada seems to be gaining respect from some Canadian policemen"

Iamon lyme: No. In America maybe.... your laws are all enforced so I believe.

But in the UK, all acts and statutes ....


""As common law comes from basic human morals if you’re considerate to everyone and respect their equal rights, don’t cause harm, injury or loss or fraud in any of your contracts you won’t break common law. Until a true crime has been committed we are all equal in the eyes of common law. As we are all equal, authority can only be gained through consent which in theory forms a contract, without that nobody can claim to have any more rights than you. If they try and take them by force that doesn’t make them authority but an enemy, unless you submit and then you have consented. Statute law is created by the government in the form of legislation and the only way this can possibly operate while it’s a common law country is through consent. Instead of being based on principle, statutes are based on words that can be added to, changed or removed. Statutes are legislated rules of society and are loosely described as law only because they are given the power of law by the consent of the governed, as it is a common law country and everyone is equal that means you. No one can consent for you on your behalf without your consent. Some would say the government can give statues the power of law because they represent the people but if you didn’t vote or voted for a different party or didn’t even put your details to register to vote, how can they claim to lawfully represent you. They can’t say the simple fact of you being in the country is consent because it is a common law country.""

"The fundamental law system of this country is common law which is based on principles rather than words. The source of common law is pure natural human nature, unwritten law or “gods” law."

""The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.

- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.""

>>>>>>>>>....... As one who hates government I'd thought you'd love this sort of thing. :P

Iamon lyme: Not the likes of Officer Bubbles I imagine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMTm3QRwEc

(V): I have no problem with government that represents and serves the people, and can be held accountable for its actions.

I don't trust political entities that work to serve only themselves, and will avoid accountability to the people. Political entities like this hold everyone else accountable, but not themselves. And, I don't trust lone wolf individuals who want to avoid their own responsibility by holding themselves unaccountable.

................Understand?

Iamon lyme: .... Common law states that everyone is accountable. No-one has any special privileges above another.

Clear?

Here's a good example of what I've been talking about. The Benghazi story. If you go back through the posts to the time it happened, you can find me saying this story will not go away.

Recently, I heard a political pundit (figuratively) stratching her head and wondering why this story won't go away. She was sitting with a group of like minded pundits, and they spelled it out for her. I'll summarize...

Point one: the goof up in Benghazi was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point two: covering up the goof up in Benghazi was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point three: Republicans are to blame for calling them on it, and insisting there be an investigation.

So, the 'obvious' conclusion is: Republicans are to blame for keeping this story in the headlines.


This is how they operate. Anything they do that blows up in their face will not be their fault, and can be pinned on the Republicans. They have so little regard for the intelligence and integrity of their own constituency they think they can get away with anything. And why is that? Because, they often do...

that's why...

Point one: Watergate was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point two: The cover up of Watergate was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point three: Democrats are to blame for calling them on it, and insisting there be an investigation.

Therefore: Democrats are to blame for the Watergate investigation, and for keeping that story in the headlines.

By the way, there is no point in directly confronting the president about Benghazi. Judging from many of his past responses to hardball questions, the answers you get might sound something like this:


Cover your nose and mouth when you sneeze. Then wash your hands and disinfect the room with bug spray. Wait three days, then come back and set your house on fire.

Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

- Dr. Seuss

Presumption of hubris is presumptuous hubris.

- Sir Lemon Lime

"While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he “committed or may have committed” while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency."

http://www.history.com/topics/watergate


"Recordings from these tapes implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up the questionable (and illegal) goings-on that had taken place after the break-in.[2][5] After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president had to hand over the tapes to government investigators; he ultimately complied.

Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and a strong possibility of a conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.[6][7] His successor, Gerald Ford, then issued a pardon to him."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal


The historians say.... he did know!!

(V): What exactly do you think the first eight words of your post mean?

(V): "The historians say.... he did know!!"

And I'm sure that's what Bob Woodward was saying as well. So what is he saying now? He was given a call by one of Obamas minions and 'advised' to back off talking about the presidents involvement in the cover up. We already know that Obama will investigate members of the press who don't get with the program and say only nice things about him... if this isn't true, then why are we hearing reporters say "...Obama was unapologetic about investigating members of the press?

One notable difference between Benghazi and Watergate is that Obama was in the loop from the beginning. Another difference is no one was killed because of Watergate. Military operatives who could have intervened were told to stand down. Only the president has the authority to tell the military to stand down.... so who do you think might have told the military to stand down?

One higher up in the military who was trying to help Obama cover his butt said it would take about 20 hours to put any operation together to help rescue the ambassador. That's nonsense... maybe during WWII it could take that long, but not today. It takes about 15 minutes to get pilots into the air and they can be given instructions onroute. And those instructions can be modified as conditions on the ground change.

(V): It almost appears his top advisors are running the show and Obama is only the front man. So if this completely blows up in Obamas face, who do you think he might throw under the bus next?


Don't worry about Hillary, because throwing her under the bus would be highly problematic... it's hard to say which would get the worst of it, Hillary or the bus.

But Lemon Lime, the president did not have enough time to do ANYTHING! By the time he put focus groups together and set up town hall meetings it would all be over and the damage done... so there's nothing he could have done about it, it all happened WAY too fast!

(V): There were ground troops nearby who could have gone in, but they were told to stand down too. Anyone who could have helped was told to do nothing. It could have been resolved in a few hours. With ground troops present and jets flying overhead, I'll wager many of those terrorists would have scattered and ran away to avoid being killed... so we could have spared the lives of some of them as well. See? The lives of some of those killers could have been spared.

The president is commander and chief of the military. No one in the military outranks him. The commander and chief has worked faithfully to undercut the military and make it less effective. And when the time came for him to make a decision, he worked tirelessly to sit on his hands and do nothing, and he told the military to do likewise.

This is no longer speculation...we now know this was not a spontaneous event set off by a youtube video, and warnings were repeatedly ignored. It happened on 9/11 of last year, the anniversary of the 9/11 we all know about, and only a few months to go before Obamas re-election.

But Lemon Lime, that doesn't make sense... if no one was there to defend the ambassador, how could ANY of those terrorists been killed?

Pedro Martínez: A statement that he did not before.

"he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members."

What do you think that means?

Iamon lyme: One rule of war that still holds true today. It's the ground troops that win the day, everything else is just support.

Like the CIA?

Halliburton?

Hillsborough.

96 dead. 24 years of cover up by the police, judicial system, politicians and civil servants.

They tried to blame the football fans.
At least half could have been saved.


Shame on all those who covered it up.

(V): Compare "...historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened..." with "The historians say.... he did know!!"

Your conclusion doesn't match up with the opening statement. Nevertheless, it's clear historians are reluctant to admit Nixon probably knew nothing about it until afterwards. I doubt it was Nixons idea to break into someones room. I believe he made the mistake of trying to "fix things" afterwards, so it wouldn't become public knowledge.

And now compare Nixons lack of transparency to how Obama has faithfully kept his promise to be transparent... even though he's been trying hard as hell not to be seen. LOL Someone needs to tell him that "transparency" doesn't mean "invisibility". But who knows, maybe that IS what he meant...

Anything I do will be transparent to you. Ha ha, that's right... you can't catch me if you can't see me!

Iamon lyme: My start was....

"The cover up of Watergate was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration."

.... your words. I then quoted two articles that state that Nixon was probably not part of the espionage. But, he tried to cover it up.

Hence my conclusion "The historians say.... he did know!!" .. debunking your claim he wasn't involved in the cover up.

Clear?

(V): "Clear?"

It's clear you haven't been paying attention. "Your start" was only one part of my summarisation of what left leaning pundits were saying about Benghazi. I then substituted the words 'Watergate' and 'Republicans' for 'Benghazi' and 'Democrats', to illustrate how absurd it would have been if Republicans had talked about Watergate (back when it happened) the way Democrats are now talking about Benghazi.

Did you not get that? But more to the point, are you getting any of THIS?

It's not my opinion the president wasn't involved. It's my opinion he was involved, and had others in his administration go along with a lame cover up story.... about what happened in BENGHAZI.

This is about Benghazi, remember? Warnings were ignored, action was not taken, and then a cover story was concocted to make it appear as though nothing could have been done about it.

Bob Woodward was not reminiscing, nor was he day dreaming about past events when he compared Benghazi to Watergate. Bob Woodward is not some old fool who only lives in the past... he was talking about CURRENT events.

You are free to focus exclusively on Watergate if that pleases you, but I wasn't talking about Watergate. I was talking about BENGHAZI.

(V): Do you know who Woodward is?

He said he wasn't ready to compare Benghazi to Watergate, not yet... then a few minutes later he began drawing parallels between the two. He's even called what Obama is doing "Nixonian".

So why would he say he is not ready to compare the two, and then almost immediately begin drawing comparisons? Well, because he said he wasn't ready yet... a few minutes later he WAS ready. LOL

Woodward isn't stupid. He had been called and threatened by one of Obamas goons, er, I mean advisors, and was told to back off. Not in so many words mind you, but like I said before Woodward is no fool. When he said he's not ready to compare Benghazi to Watergate (not yet) what he was doing was giving himself plausible deniability.

Say what? Plausible deniability? We see politicians doing that all the time, but it's a little scary to see a private citizen doing that... because why would any private citizen NEED to do that?

hmmmmm?

Iamon lyme: I know. I didn't need you to tell me that!! ;P

"This is about Benghazi, remember? Warnings were ignored, action was not taken, and then a cover story was concocted to make it appear as though nothing could have been done about it."

Yeah I know, the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places.

Can I concentrate on that? Is it ok??

Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?

(V): "Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?"

I was a liberal Democrat during the Watergate scandal, so how do you think I reacted? If nothing had changed since then I might still be saying dumb things like "...the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places."

Iamon lyme: I don't know. I wasn't there. It's like with talk on how a UK minister had a mistress.. The French perspective was "he wouldn't be trusted if he didn't have one".

"I might still be saying dumb things like "...the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places.""

So you are behaving the same, just switched parties??

... I woulda changed the way I was behaving if I was supposed to be different!

(V): "So you are behaving the same, just switched parties??"

Look at your other question again. You asked, "Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?"

The answer to that question was in the question... I was reacting. Think about it.

No no, don't react... just think about it.

Iamon lyme: Don't need to. You'll just say I'm being dumb again.

Like that bloke said you were.. the one who said he knew better than you.

Think about it, don't react though. ;P

(V): "Like that bloke said you were.. the one who said he knew better than you."

What bloke?


By the way, there is a big difference between a reaction and a response. Inanimate objects react, they don't respond. A response implies thought. Inanimate objects don't think, they react. This doesn't mean a response CAN'T be a reaction, so do as you will.... I'm not telling you what to do or how to do it.

And it IS dumb to try pinning the Benghazi tragedy and cover up on republicans. Republicans weren't the ones ignoring the warnings and coming up with a lame cover story afterwards. If republicans were being told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places, they were being told this by people who were concerned about budget cuts. So where do you see liberals worrying over cuts to the military? I'd like to see that too.

If the liberal leadership actually gave a rats derriere about security, the Benghazi attack would have come and gone without the amabassor being there, as well as the others who were with him.

Lemon Lime: "amabassor"?

And the ambassadors life could have been spared as well. I don't know who the amabassor is... was he there?

Iamon lyme: I wasn't.

" So where do you see liberals worrying over cuts to the military?"

I'm not looking for them to be worrying. I'd be worried if the USA does a turn around on finally accepting it cannot afford to be at war as much as it has been since the 1950's. Or more killings like that which happened yesterday in the UK.

"What bloke?"

The Church bloke... how you got to hate liberal churches...????

(V): "I wasn't."

So if not liberals, then who told republicans "...the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places"? Other republicans?

If republicans aren't to blame for the screw up in Benghazi, then what exactly is your point? And why would anyone be telling republicans we need to bolster defenses? Don't you think they (whoever "they" are) should be telling this to the people who have been undercutting defenses in such places? Who do you think is running the show in Washington? President Romney?


"What bloke?"

[ The Church bloke... how you got to hate liberal churches...???? ]

You must be thinking of someone else. I don't know about "liberal churches" or about some bloke who said he knew better than me.

(V): "The Church bloke..."

I remember a long time ago when my wife was interested in a particular church. I got into a disagreement with the pastor of that church, but it wasn't a liberal church and the disagreement was resolved. I don't remember talking about that, but it's possible I may have mentioned it. Is that what you're talking about?

Or are you talking about a bloke here (at this message board) "...who knew better than me"?

Iamon lyme: So if not liberals, then who told republicans "...the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places"? Other republicans?

I think it was the body within the US gov looking out for security of embassy's etc... At the time of the last budget setting for the likes.

Individual names.. I can't remember.. Maybe it was Mr E J Fudd??

"If republicans aren't to blame for the screw up in Benghazi, then what exactly is your point?"

Point!

"And why would anyone be telling republicans we need to bolster defenses?"

Because the Republicans were voting against more funds.

"I may have mentioned it. Is that what you're talking about?"

Yep.

"One time I talked to someone who started off claiming to have an IQ of 170. That should have been my first clue that something wasn't right with him. He told me the Bible was one of five books (representing five major religions) he reads, because they all (collectively) represented what he believed. I told Mr IQ of 170 it didn't make sense for him to include the Bible in that group, and explained why. And all he needed to do to see if this was true or not was to read what his Bible says about it. Mr IQ of 170 didn't like that, not one bit... because I was right. My average bowling score at that time was well over 200, so take THAT Mr IQ of 170!"

Sorry, it was a mystic church.

Politics (Iamon lyme, 2013-01-08 21:25:07)

(V): "Sorry, it was a mystic church."

Okay, NOW I know who you're talking about. He didn't belong to any church. He was a dope smoking lone wolf self proclaimed genius. You could find one of those on almost any street corner during the '70s, You've heard about the '60s and '70s, haven't you?

"Because the Republicans were voting against more funds."

No, they were voting against other things in the bill. Just because it might have been in the bill doesn't mean they approved of everthing in the bill. So now you think I'M dumb, eh?

It doesn't matter anyway, because lack of money wasn't the problem. The problem was warnings were ignored, nothing was done when the attack came, and then we were expected to believe a youtube video was to blame. Lack of money was not the problem. Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame. You can't BUY courage or common sense or integrity... either you've got it or you don't.

Iamon lyme: Oh... You said he was a mystic.... you didna say he was a 60/70's hippie!! lol

"No, they were voting against other things in the bill."

N' no-one thought "lets separate the two items and still approve the funds for defence"?

"So now you think I'M dumb, eh?"

Noooooo I think what you are telling me happened regarding cuts to the defence of embassy's is dumb. $530 million in cuts in two years in a world where a certain war etiquette such as existed in the cold war no longer exists.. is dumb.

"and then we were expected to believe a youtube video was to blame."

No... you say you are. The rest of the demo was based on the video I believe.

"Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame."

Like I said, cutting down on funding is dumb.

(V): "Oh... You said he was a mystic...."

No, I didn't say that.


"N' no-one thought "lets separate the two items and still approve the funds for defence"?"

Two items? Okay, I'll walk you through this. It's a common ploy used by liberals. What they will do is to put one thing you approve of among several things you don't. They don't actually expect you to vote for the entire bill, they expect you to vote against it. Then they will come back to claim you voted down the one thing you do approve of. See how that works?

They COULD have drafted a bill with only the items everyone can agree to, but why would they want to do that? Their purpose was to come back later to claim republicans voted down increasing funds for security. If republicans voted for the bill then sure, that part of the bill goes through, but then so does all of the unnecessary spending. For liberals it's a win/win situation. Either they get everything they want, or they get to come back to claim republicans aren't sincere about security. Pretty sneaky, huh?

It's also sneaky of them to suggest the security problem was only about money. It wasn't about money... it was about ignoring warnings, being afraid to act when the attack was happening, and then acting like scared little children instead of taking responsibility for the screw up.

Oh by the way, did I happen to mention anything about Benghazi? Did you know warnings were ignored, nothing was done when the embassy was under attack, and then a cover story was concocted to make it look as though nothing could have been done? Did I mention any of that? It may have slipped my mind as we were talking about other things.