Anonymous wrote:Aaaannnndd Elizbeth Lauten was arrested when she was 17, for shoplifting.

Is anyone really surprised at her hypocrisy though?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/Elizabeth-Lauten-arrest-786543

She has an old face. I placed her at 40, not 31.

Anonymous wrote:They took part in a public activity and they did look and act bored. They could smile. The congressman should refuse her resignation. We still have free speech and this is free speech

She didn't say anything about how homely both are.

Homely like the Bush girls?

Anonymous wrote:^^^ But if you are comparing a signing statement, i.e. a tweak, to a law that was passed in Congress, I'd say that the outrage is much less, because the law was passed in Congress, where it belonged.

i.e. a tweak? Bush used a signing statement to nullify Congress' prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment on detainees, which they passed in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

There is no reason for anyone to comment on how the girls dress. They are usually dressed like most teens. They are also very tall girls. Everything will look short on those legs. My DD is like that, she is all arms and legs and I usually have to buy her styles from Misses section and then shorten them.

The words and tone of what the woman wrote was beyond horrible. I hope she is seen as a liability by the Republicans. Good riddance.

I am an independent but this has made me more sympathetic towards Obama.

She was not chiding. She was being a bitch.

^^^ But if you are comparing a signing statement, i.e. a tweak, to a law that was passed in Congress, I'd say that the outrage is much less, because the law was passed in Congress, where it belonged.

our last president added a signing statement to pretty much every law that landed on his desk. Where was your outrage?

Did it change the law? Remember, it is the quality--not the quantity of the EO's

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He did state that he has changed the law.

Yes, in manner that he believes to be legal.

The constitution specifically states the powers of immigration sit with Congress.

our last president added a signing statement to pretty much every law that landed on his desk. Where was your outrage?

As great as it is now.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He did state that he has changed the law.

Yes, in manner that he believes to be legal.

The constitution specifically states the powers of immigration sit with Congress.

our last president added a signing statement to pretty much every law that landed on his desk. Where was your outrage?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He did state that he has changed the law.

Yes, in manner that he believes to be legal.

The constitution specifically states the powers of immigration sit with Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They took part in a public activity and they did look and act bored. They could smile. The congressman should refuse her resignation. We still have free speech and this is free speech

She didn't say anything about how homely both are.

I had to laugh at your post. Not in a mean-spirited way, I'm just amused at how beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the Obama girls are starting to become pretty cute teenagers. On the other hand, I think Jennifer Lawrence and Miley Cyrus are terribly unattractive and I've heard many say they are both beautiful. Go figure...

Pp you responded to. I think Miley Cyrus is most unattractive and don't know who Jennifer Lawrence is but if she looks like Miley, then she, too, is unattractive.

Anonymous wrote:

To come to that conclusion, you would either have to have an admission by the driver that he was driving over the speed limit, or indisputable proof. In the case of the President, you have neither an admission nor indisputable truth. I am not sure why you are so determined to argue this. You may think that the President broke the law. He thinks he didn't. A tie goes to him because he is innocent until proven guilty. This is a basic principle of American law. But, as so often happens, nothing is really sacred to conservatives when it comes to President Obama.

Our Constitution provides for divided government. One provision is that the legislature creates laws--not the President. Obama said last week that he had changed the law. That is against our laws.

He was referring to an executive order which is legal. He did not say, suggest, or allude to breaking a law. If you believe that he acted illegally, take him to court.

Again, why are you determined to be judge and jury while touting the Constitution at the same time? If you have read the Constitution close enough to understand divided government, certainly you understand that the President is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, regardless of your opinion, he is innocent of breaking any laws.

It is amazing that the same people criticizing how teenaged girls behaved at a turkey pardoning once applauded a grown man who interrupted the State of the Union address by calling the President a liar.

I do not recall applauding Joe Wilson although he has been proven right.

It is amazing that the same people criticizing how teenaged girls behaved at a turkey pardoning once applauded a grown man who interrupted the State of the Union address by calling the President a liar.

I do not approve of attacking the President's family. My posts have been in support of the fact that other Presidential families have also been attacked--particularly Amy Carter. I did say that my daughter would have behaved like the O girls.

To come to that conclusion, you would either have to have an admission by the driver that he was driving over the speed limit, or indisputable proof. In the case of the President, you have neither an admission nor indisputable truth. I am not sure why you are so determined to argue this. You may think that the President broke the law. He thinks he didn't. A tie goes to him because he is innocent until proven guilty. This is a basic principle of American law. But, as so often happens, nothing is really sacred to conservatives when it comes to President Obama.

Our Constitution provides for divided government. One provision is that the legislature creates laws--not the President. Obama said last week that he had changed the law. That is against our laws.

Anonymous wrote:Just because someone is not convicted does not mean they did not break a law. Lots of people drive too fast without getting a speeding ticket. They are breaking the law, aren't they?

To come to that conclusion, you would either have to have an admission by the driver that he was driving over the speed limit, or indisputable proof. In the case of the President, you have neither an admission nor indisputable truth. I am not sure why you are so determined to argue this. You may think that the President broke the law. He thinks he didn't. A tie goes to him because he is innocent until proven guilty. This is a basic principle of American law. But, as so often happens, nothing is really sacred to conservatives when it comes to President Obama.

It is amazing that the same people criticizing how teenaged girls behaved at a turkey pardoning once applauded a grown man who interrupted the State of the Union address by calling the President a liar.