TexasCHLforum.com

We were also told by the other side that any negative questions about BO were racists...

Justice Scalia died with pillow over his head.
It's suspect. Not only to me, but to many very intelligent and highly qualified people.

Mr. Poindexter, while I respect his service, is a friend of BO. That may mean something, or it may be nothing at all.

The whole pot of stew put together isn't adding up.

Just because he served in Vietnam, God bless him, I'm supposed to bury my head in sand?

I think not.

parabelum wrote:We were also told by the other side that any negative questions about BO were racists...

Justice Scalia died with pillow over his head.
It's suspect. Not only to me, but to many very intelligent and highly qualified people.

Mr. Poindexter, while I respect his service, is a friend of BO.

That is a lie. There is not one shred of evidence that Poindexter even met BO until he received his Presidential Unit Citation award. Only the President can award an PUC, and who is President when it's awarded is not relevant and certainly not indicative that he is "a friend of BO". He has never given money to BO. He has never given money to the Democrat party. Please stop lying about this honorable man. Before you slander him again, at least take the time to know who it is you are slandeirng. http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/poinde ... medal.html These are NOT the actions of a dishonorable man.

parabelum wrote:That may mean something, or it may be nothing at all.

The whole pot of stew put together isn't adding up.

Just because he served in Vietnam, God bless him, I'm supposed to bury my head in sand?

I think not.

NO! Because he served HONORABLY in Vietnam, unlike John Kerry, and because he spent many years of his life and his own money fighting to get a Citation for his unit, which only an honorable leader would do. Please stop lying about him.

baldeagle wrote:

parabelum wrote:We were also told by the other side that any negative questions about BO were racists...

Justice Scalia died with pillow over his head.
It's suspect. Not only to me, but to many very intelligent and highly qualified people.

Mr. Poindexter, while I respect his service, is a friend of BO.

That is a lie. There is not one shred of evidence that Poindexter even met BO until he received his Presidential Unit Citation award. Only the President can award an PUC, and who is President when it's awarded is not relevant and certainly not indicative that he is "a friend of BO". He has never given money to BO. He has never given money to the Democrat party. Please stop lying about this honorable man. Before you slander him again, at least take the time to know who it is you are slandeirng. http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/poinde ... medal.html These are NOT the actions of a dishonorable man.

parabelum wrote:That may mean something, or it may be nothing at all.

The whole pot of stew put together isn't adding up.

Just because he served in Vietnam, God bless him, I'm supposed to bury my head in sand?

I think not.

NO! Because he served HONORABLY in Vietnam, unlike John Kerry, and because he spent many years of his life and his own money fighting to get a Citation for his unit, which only an honorable leader would do. Please stop lying about him.

Enough with Mr.Poindexter already, for crying out loud. He served honorably, donated to democrats, and I believe he is comfy with BO.

Respectfully, he was only a part of this picture that for me isn't adding up.
According to former D.C. homicide commander, just to name one expert who voiced his opinion on this, I'm not alone in thinking that this is off.

You have provided link after link to support Mr. Poindexter, thank you.

Can you also at least do the same for Justice Scalia, or is disparagement of those who are skeptical of this the preffered modus operandi?

You've called me names and I've taken your blatant insults, and I again tell you sir, you truly don't know me.

For the sake of others, I'll withdraw my further comments on this.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Any person nominated by Obama must first get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before the Senate debates and votes. Chairman Grassley has given a strong indication his committee will not act on any nomination.

Chas.

On top of that, have we already forgotten that SCOTUS struck down recess appointments in 2014 when it ruled that the administration had violated the Constitution in 2012 with recess appointments?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court ... n-english/

Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Let’s talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.

As unlikely as it sounds, the Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the president’s power to make recess appointments. And the Court’s opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments – as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.

So, if the Senate keeps its recesses to less than 10 days, Obama won't be able to make a recess appointment........ and THAT raises the specter of what Democrats did in Texas and Minnesota when they left the state so that they couldn't be compelled to vote on something. Wouldn't it be surpassing strange if Senate democrats "ran away from home" for 12 days, effectively paralyzing the Judiciary Committee, giving Obama a chance to claim it as a recess, and appoint a "recess" SCOTUS justice? I doubt it could ever happen, but still......... kind of a creepy thought, isn't it?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Any person nominated by Obama must first get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before the Senate debates and votes. Chairman Grassley has given a strong indication his committee will not act on any nomination.

Chas.

On top of that, have we already forgotten that SCOTUS struck down recess appointments in 2014 when it ruled that the administration had violated the Constitution in 2012 with recess appointments?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court ... n-english/

Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Let’s talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.

As unlikely as it sounds, the Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the president’s power to make recess appointments. And the Court’s opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments – as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.

So, if the Senate keeps its recesses to less than 10 days, Obama won't be able to make a recess appointment........ and THAT raises the specter of what Democrats did in Texas and Minnesota when they left the state so that they couldn't be compelled to vote on something. Wouldn't it be surpassing strange if Senate democrats "ran away from home" for 12 days, effectively paralyzing the Judiciary Committee, giving Obama a chance to claim it as a recess, and appoint a "recess" SCOTUS justice? I doubt it could ever happen, but still......... kind of a creepy thought, isn't it?

It's my understanding that if any business is done at all then the clock starts over. All the Dems could run away and it wouldn't keep the clock from restarting.

Unlike the Lege, which gave rise to the infamous SO Bees years ago, absenting themselves to prevent a quorum and a vote they would certainly lose, the Constitution and Senate rules require a quorum, which is 51. The Texas Senate quotum is 2/3rds of those elected.

The CIA Heart Attack Gun


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

Guys, I just can't consider anything from Infowars as credible.

They've just been wrong with too many of their conspiracy theories. While I do belief there are some fishy things surrounding this, I do not think Infowars is a credible source to use.

mojo84 wrote:Guys, I just can't consider anything from Infowars as credible.

They've just been wrong with too many of their conspiracy theories. While I do belief there are some fishy things surrounding this, I do not think Infowars is a credible source to use.

The CIA Heart Attack Gun apparently really exists. A quick google search pulls up numerous articles about it. If it really works or not using 1975 technology? IDK. But I think if we can fake a moon landing we can perfect technologies to effect hard to detect cause of death by 2016. Technology has gotten better in 41 years I'm sure.

Whether or not a it was used in Scalia's death or even if a conspiracy exist, is up for debate.

People question events and its OK but if infowars comes up with the same questions, suddenly it's not credible?

The idea is simple IMHO, it's possible and it's fishy. The timing is perfect. Too perfect.

I heard a sound byte/blurb this weekend that the family didn't suspect anything other then natural causes and wasn't requesting an autopsy. If this wasn't expected or probable, don't you think his own family would be up in arms or asking questions ? For me that just kinda laid it to rest. Up until that point I was also thinking it felt fishy/suspect...

Pariah3j wrote:I heard a sound byte/blurb this weekend that the family didn't suspect anything other then natural causes and wasn't requesting an autopsy. If this wasn't expected or probable, don't you think his own family would be up in arms or asking questions ? For me that just kinda laid it to rest. Up until that point I was also thinking it felt fishy/suspect...

the autopsy is federally mandated so no request on the families is needed. the autopsy is in process as we type our hapless stories. wonder why he hasn't been planted yet? that's why

JP171 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:I heard a sound byte/blurb this weekend that the family didn't suspect anything other then natural causes and wasn't requesting an autopsy. If this wasn't expected or probable, don't you think his own family would be up in arms or asking questions ? For me that just kinda laid it to rest. Up until that point I was also thinking it felt fishy/suspect...

the autopsy is federally mandated so no request on the families is needed. the autopsy is in process as we type our hapless stories. wonder why he hasn't been planted yet? that's why

What?

JP171 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:I heard a sound byte/blurb this weekend that the family didn't suspect anything other then natural causes and wasn't requesting an autopsy. If this wasn't expected or probable, don't you think his own family would be up in arms or asking questions ? For me that just kinda laid it to rest. Up until that point I was also thinking it felt fishy/suspect...

the autopsy is federally mandated so no request on the families is needed. the autopsy is in process as we type our hapless stories. wonder why he hasn't been planted yet? that's why

Federally mandated ? That's a new one for me - mind linking/pointing to where that mandate is ?

JP171 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:I heard a sound byte/blurb this weekend that the family didn't suspect anything other then natural causes and wasn't requesting an autopsy. If this wasn't expected or probable, don't you think his own family would be up in arms or asking questions ? For me that just kinda laid it to rest. Up until that point I was also thinking it felt fishy/suspect...

the autopsy is federally mandated so no request on the families is needed. the autopsy is in process as we type our hapless stories. wonder why he hasn't been planted yet? that's why

I thought he'd already been embalmed and laid out?

LSUTiger wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Guys, I just can't consider anything from Infowars as credible.

They've just been wrong with too many of their conspiracy theories. While I do belief there are some fishy things surrounding this, I do not think Infowars is a credible source to use.

The CIA Heart Attack Gun apparently really exists. A quick google search pulls up numerous articles about it. If it really works or not using 1975 technology? IDK. But I think if we can fake a moon landing we can perfect technologies to effect hard to detect cause of death by 2016. Technology has gotten better in 41 years I'm sure.

Whether or not a it was used in Scalia's death or even if a conspiracy exist, is up for debate.

People question events and its OK but if infowars comes up with the same questions, suddenly it's not credible?

The idea is simple IMHO, it's possible and it's fishy. The timing is perfect. Too perfect.

Faked the moon landings? You had me up until that point....then you lost me.

Apollo astronaut Al Bean landed on the moon during the Apollo 12 mission is the friend of a friend of mine. My friend is the actor Dave Foley. Dave spent a lot of time with Bean, asking him about the Apollo 12 mission, while he prepared for playing the part of Al Bean in the "From the Earth to the Moon" mini-series Tom Hanks made for HBO. Al Bean is one of seven STILL LIVING men who walked on the moon. Are you saying that all 12 of these men were/are liars, including the seven who are still alive.......and that they continue to lie about this? Your saying that MY father in law, who worked on the Apollo program (he designed and built guidance packages for spacecraft during the 40 years he worked at NASA/JPL) and witnessed a lunar launch at Canaveral is a liar? I know a LOT of good, honorable, decent people who worked on the space program, and 12 American men DID walk on the moon. They left artifacts there which can be seen today......not to mention the descent stages of the lunar modules which were left behind as the LEMs blasted off and returned to dock with the command modules in lunar orbit, and which can be seen today.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/n ... sites.html

This picture was taken on Sept. 5, 2011 by the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo 17 landing site.


This one was taken of the same site in 2009, with different lighting conditions:


Apollo 15 landing site:


Etc., etc., etc.

Please.