PDA

View Full Version : About impeachment.



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-20-2013, 09:50 PM
Scandal, Impeachment , Conviction 1621, of Sir Francis Bacon Keeper of the Great Seal of England. Parliament used an old weapon , one that had lain unused for more than 300 years - the process of impeachment, by which members of the Commons serving as investigators with the Lords as judges could act against officialdom. The charge was bribery. Bacon was investigated and found guilty. His letter confessing such and basicly pleading it was common practice for all judges to take bribes , served to no avail. His defender after his conviction and banishment from ever serving in public office was Basil Montagu. He tried to exonerate Bacon by arguing that all judges in the 17 century took bribes. That was answered by an essay about Bacon, published in 1837 by Thomas McCauley. McCauley wrote, " That these practices were common, we admit. But they were common just as all wickedness to which there is strong temptation always was and always will be common. They were common , just as theft, cheating, perjury, adultery have always been common. They were common , though prohibited by law. They were common not because people did not know what was right, but because people like to do what was wrong. They were common, though condemned by public opinion. They were common, as every crime will be common when the gain to it will be great, and the chance of punishment small. But, though common, they were universally allowed to be altogether unjustifiable; they were in the highest degree odious; and, though many were guilty of them, none had the audacity publicly to avow and defend them. Source : Horizon, Winter 1974, pages 35, 36 and 37. Article by Harvey Marshall Matusow.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The catch phrase of the day then was," Let us have law and order until it suits us to break the law." A philosophy Obama excels at replicating often. Impeachment is not a heavily used action in our history. It is a bit more complicated now than it was in England in 1621 but still the principle remains rock solid. That our Representatives are entrusted with great power to do our bidding and corruption simply can not be allowed to be a common occurrence. Obama has a great many transgressions not all of which rise to the level of impeachment but of that great many more than one does reach that level. And one is all that it takes. Our founders by way of the Constitution saw fit to include high crimes and misdemeanors in that list of transgressions that are impeachable offenses. My question is , does anybody truly believe he is not guilty of even one!!??? --Tyr

Kathianne
08-20-2013, 09:57 PM
Scandal, Impeachment , Conviction 1621, of Sir Francis Bacon Keeper of the Great Seal of England. Parliament used an old weapon , one that had lain unused for more than 300 years - the process of impeachment, by which members of the Commons serving as investigators with the Lords as judges could act against officialdom. The charge was bribery. Bacon was investigated and found guilty. His letter confessing such and basicly pleading it was common practice for all judges to take bribes , served to no avail. His defender after his conviction and banishment from ever serving in public office was Basil Montagu. He tried to exonerate Bacon by arguing that all judges in the 17 century took bribes. That was answered by an essay about Bacon, published in 1837 by Thomas McCauley. McCauley wrote, " That these practices were common, we admit. But they were common just as all wickedness to which there is strong temptation always was and always will be common. They were common , just as theft, cheating, perjury, adultery have always been common. They were common , though prohibited by law. They were common not because people did not know what was right, but because people like to do what was wrong. They were common, though condemned by public opinion. They were common, as every crime will be common when the gain to it will be great, and the chance of punishment small. But, though common, they were universally allowed to be altogether unjustifiable; they were in the highest degree odious; and, though many were guilty of them, none had the audacity publicly to avow and defend them. Source : Horizon, Winter 1974, pages 35, 36 and 37. Article by Harvey Marshall Matusow.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The catch phrase of the day then was," Let us have law and order until it suits us to break the law." A philosophy Obama excels at replicating often. Impeachment is not a heavily used action in our history. It is a bit more complicated now than it was in England in 1621 but still the principle remains rock solid. That our Representatives are entrusted with great power to do our bidding and corruption simply can not be allowed to be a common occurrence. Obama has a great many transgressions not all of which rise to the level of impeachment but of that great many more than one does reach that level. And one is all that it takes. Our founders by way of the Constitution saw fit to include high crimes and misdemeanors in that list of transgressions that are impeachable offenses. My question is , does anybody truly believe he is not guilty of even one!!??? --Tyr

What says the House? Have you contacted your reps and what was their replies?

Gaffer
08-20-2013, 10:03 PM
The house says they can bring charges. But the senate needs two thirds to convict him and there are not enough moral democrats to do the job. Party over country is their motto.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-20-2013, 10:13 PM
What says the House? Have you contacted your reps and what was their replies? I've sent emails but no letters. I doubt they even read anything I send because I do not hold anything back when I lodge my complaints and give my suggestions. Folks are never happy to be told that they are shatting in the water bucket and drinking it with glee. A diplomat I'll never be. ;)-Tyr -------------------------- By the way you didn't answer my question..;)

red state
08-20-2013, 10:40 PM
I'll answer you question, TYR. That SOW in OUR White House is a lying sack of $#!T who needs to be impeached for sleeping on the job and concerning himself more with an election and being on some show or something more than concerning himself with a retired S.E.A.L. who sat on a roof top in Libya and made himself a sitting target (LITERALLY) while keeping a laser lit for OUR Air Force (that never came) to strike a muSLUM mob that knew NOTHING of some video that NOBODY had seen (YET) we were told repeatedly that the video, and not the coordinated effort to celebrate the anniversary for the muSLUM "victory" during 9/11, was the cause of the attack on the Libyan embassy. Heads should roll for many things such as the worse loss, in history, of our S.E.A.L. elite forces and the worse attack/massacre on our military base within American soil/borders that I'm aware of (FORT HOOD) as well as the Fast & Furious LIE. I'm not saying that we can have B.O.'s head for all of this cuz he has been smart enough to have "fall guys" but his head and @$$ is on the line (OR SHOULD BE) for what happened and continues to happen over the Libya "incident". All we've heard from these liars is that it happened LONG, Long, long ago and, according to THEM, it really doesn't matter at this point or "what difference does it make". Yes, heads should roll and if there are those who rather confront others on what they've done or not done and not address the question of whether the piece of $#!T muSLUM in OUR White House should or could be impeached over ONE of the many crooked things he's had his hand on, I'll certainly be that huck-a-berry.

Kathianne
08-20-2013, 10:43 PM
The house says they can bring charges. But the senate needs two thirds to convict him and there are not enough moral democrats to do the job. Party over country is their motto.

Gaffer, that does round out the process, but you see the House sending impeachment charges? I don't, and that's the opposition strong house.

Kathianne
08-20-2013, 10:46 PM
I've sent emails but no letters. I doubt they even read anything I send because I do not hold anything back when I lodge my complaints and give my suggestions. Folks are never happy to be told that they are shatting in the water bucket and drinking it with glee. A diplomat I'll never be. ;)-Tyr -------------------------- By the way you didn't answer my question..;)

If it feels good, do it. Oh wait, that is a liberal saying.

Myself, I wish to be taken seriously when possible. More to the point, I wish to throw their election words back in their faces. Youtube is good for that. ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-20-2013, 11:42 PM
If it feels good, do it. Oh wait, that is a liberal saying.

Myself, I wish to be taken seriously when possible. More to the point, I wish to throw their election words back in their faces. Youtube is good for that. ;) If I am not taken seriously then that's ok too. This is America and people will have their own opinions . What I know is that piece of human shit that is deliberately destroying our country is a damn traitor that should be impeached and then tried and sentenced to the max for his crimes. Others may think that nonsense, racism, hatred, pride, arrogance, of foolishness. I think it is a fair judgment of the bastard. As he openly and contemptuously told Congress to go ffkk themselves because he'd just do it anyway(which is treason in my book because he actually did). Maybe it's fair to say well it's up to them to call his bluff but it's our asses on the line. I don't like depending on such damn weasels myself. I see a civil war coming in our future and it will more than likely going to be caused by that worthless traitorous son of a bitch. Excuse my French please . I tend to get fired up when talking about that slime ball bastard and/or his ugly unpatriotic scum of a wife. -Tyr

Kathianne
08-20-2013, 11:50 PM
If I am not taken seriously then that's ok too. This is America and people will have their own opinions . What I know is that piece of human shit that is deliberately destroying our country is a damn traitor that should be impeached and then tried and sentenced to the max for his crimes. Others may think that nonsense, racism, hatred, pride, arrogance, of foolishness. I think it is a fair judgment of the bastard. As he openly and contemptuously told Congress to go ffkk themselves because he'd just do it anyway(which is treason in my book because he actually did). Maybe it's fair to say well it's up to them to call his bluff but it's our asses on the line. I don't like depending on such damn weasels myself. I see a civil war coming in our future and it will more than likely going to be caused by that worthless traitorous son of a bitch. Excuse my French please . I tend to get fired up when talking about that slime ball bastard and/or his ugly unpatriotic scum of a wife. -Tyr

Tyr, I'm confused, as you've always stood for and argued for the Constitution. Now you're saying it doesn't matter, you or many of you, should be able to define treason, as you see it. Am I missing something?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-21-2013, 12:03 AM
Tyr, I'm confused, as you've always stood for and argued for the Constitution. Now you're saying it doesn't matter, you or many of you, should be able to define treason, as you see it. Am I missing something? Calling for a day in court for Obama is not me demanding my judgment of his guilt be automaticly given. I would rely on justice being rendered and the Constitution being upheld. Kat, justice either is or is not rendered in a court trial. I've not once maintained that any kind of vigilante justice ever be exercised against Obama. I have repeated upheld the Rule of Law and the Constitution. If he is not guilty then treason charges would either be dropped or he'd be found so by the Justice system. So actually my faith is in that system rather than not in it. This is not about my hating that bastard. I view it as being about justice. I'd bet my life and that of my family on his being guilty. That is how sure I am. I am not perfect and have never claimed to be but one thing I know and it is this. That bastard is a lying fraud that works desperately against the best interests of this nation that I love! That means he seeks to harm not only me but mine--my family! I don't play about such as that. Not ever.. I am not a gentle man when time comes to not be a gentle man. I do not ever expect any justice to come about him unless we have a civil war and no, I don't want a civil war. I have a huge family and nothing is worse than a civil war, nothing! I call for his impeachment because I truly support and believe very, very deeply in our Constitution!-Tyr

Kathianne
08-21-2013, 12:15 AM
Calling for a day in court for Obama is not me demanding my judgment of his guilt be automaticly given. I would rely on justice being rendered and the Constitution being upheld. Kat, justice either is or is not rendered in a court trial. I've not once maintained that any kind of vigilante justice ever be exercised against Obama. I have repeated upheld the Rule of Law and the Constitution. If he is not guilty then treason charges would either be dropped or he'd be found so by the Justice system. So actually my faith is in that system rather than not in it. This is not about my hating that bastard. I view it as being about justice. I'd bet my life and that of my family on his being guilty. That is how sure I am. I am not perfect and have never claimed to be but one thing I know and it is this. That bastard is a lying fraud that works desperately against the best interests of this nation that I love! That means he seeks to harm not only me but mine--my family! I don't play about such as that. Not ever.. I am not a gentle man when time comes to not be a gentle man. I do not ever expect any justice to come about him unless we have a civil war and no, I don't want a civil war. I have a huge family and nothing is worse than a civil war, nothing! I call for his impeachment because I truly support and believe very, very deeply in our Constitution!-Tyr

So you are arguing that you and/or like minded citizens should be able to redefine treason in a different manner tan the founders. Furthermore you are arguing that Obama should stand trial based on these new definitions, which aren't yet codified, but you adhere to. Am I getting this right so far?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-21-2013, 12:26 AM
So you are arguing that you and/or like minded citizens should be able to redefine treason in a different manner tan the founders. Furthermore you are arguing that Obama should stand trial based on these new definitions, which aren't yet codified, but you adhere to. Am I getting this right so far?

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/articlesofimpeachment/ New Articles of Impeachment<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaig n.com%2Farticlesofimpeachment%2F&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=85&action=like&font=verdana&colorscheme=light&height=21" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border: currentColor; width: 85px; height: 21px; overflow: hidden;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
<iframe name="I0_1377058927194" width="100%" tabindex="0" title="+1" id="I0_1377058927194" src="https://apis.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=o&usegapi=1&size=medium&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com%2Far ticlesofimpeachment%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.t2Q_JGbEyBM.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DEQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTMTcZZqzUGWE3MA8WTKZmW3uEvw6A#_methods=onP lusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_re nderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1377058927194&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com&pfname=&rpctoken=63616528" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="margin: 0px; left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 90px; height: 20px; visibility: visible; position: static;" data-gapiattached="true"></iframe>

<iframe title="Twitter Tweet Button" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1375828408.html#_=1377058927340&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacamp aign.com%2Farticlesofimpeachment%2F&size=m&text=New%20Articles%20of%20Impeachment&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com%2Far ticlesofimpeachment%2F" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width: 107px; height: 20px;" allowtransparency="true" data-twttr-rendered="true"></iframe>

inShare (javascript:void(0);)54
<iframe width="74" height="18" id="iframe-stmblpn-widget-1" src="http://badge.stumbleupon.com/badge/embed/1/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com%2Fa rticlesofimpeachment%2F" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px currentColor; overflow: hidden;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>



ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA


RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:


ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN USURPING THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS TO COMENCE WAR UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION.


ARTICLE I


In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.


I.


THE IMPEACHMENT POWER


1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”


2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:


Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.


3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.


In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Kathianne
08-21-2013, 12:32 AM
Tyr, before I read through the 'articles' you or some other writer has written and you've posted, I'd like my direct questions answered.

This isn't as frivolous as it my seem. When it becomes common to a segment of our electorate, that something else beyond our framework, our Constitution, is in play we've got a new system of government going on. Problem is, it's beyond infinitesimal regarding support.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-21-2013, 12:51 AM
Tyr, before I read through the 'articles' you or some other writer has written and you've posted, I'd like my direct questions answered.

This isn't as frivolous as it my seem. When it becomes common to a segment of our electorate, that something else beyond our framework, our Constitution, is in play we've got a new system of government going on. Problem is, it's beyond infinitesimal regarding support. this---


So you are arguing that you and/or like minded citizens should be able to redefine treason in a different manner tan the founders. Furthermore you are arguing that Obama should stand trial based on these new definitions, which aren't yet codified, but you adhere to. Am I getting this right so far? The answer is no, I am not setting new definitions and not arguing that he be brought forth to be impeached and tried based upon my judgments. I am saying he has so greatly overstepped his authority as President to have engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors at the very least of it. I am not a lawyer and not an expert on treason but I can read and can understand that no man alive could so consistently set forth policies that damage this nation and it be mere mistakes. That Obama's end runs around Congress are not just mistakes, heartfelt responsibility and his trying to do his job faithfully and to the best of his abilities. Instead its all done to further push his agenda. An anti-American agenda . His character matters when it comes to a judgment on intent . His not being impeached so far is because they Senate will balk at it. Therefore the House goes with the why waste time on it. Its not because there are not legal grounds to do so. That's my point. The socalled "phony scandals" all point to the real Obama. And patriotism I know. He hasn't an ounce of patriotism in him. Fact. -Tyr

Kathianne
08-21-2013, 01:02 AM
this---

The answer is no, I am not setting new definitions and not arguing that he be brought forth to be impeached and tried based upon my judgments. I am saying he has so greatly overstepped his authority as President to have engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors at the very least of it. I am not a lawyer and not an expert on treason but I can read and can understand that no man alive could so consistently set forth policies that damage this nation and it be mere mistakes. That Obama's end runs around Congress are not just mistakes, heartfelt responsibility and his trying to do his job faithfully and to the best of his abilities. Instead its all done to further push his agenda. An anti-American agenda . His character matters when it comes to a judgment on intent . His not being impeached so far is because they Senate will balk at it. Therefore the House goes with the why waste time on it. Its not because there are not legal grounds to do so. That's my point. The socalled "phony scandals" all point to the real Obama. And patriotism I know. He hasn't an ounce of patriotism in him. Fact. -Tyr

Without the House and Senate there isn't a chance of impeachment. Right now, I don't see it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-21-2013, 08:34 AM
Without the House and Senate there isn't a chance of impeachment. Right now, I don't see it. The movement to impeach grows daily. Were the media not the slime it is he would have already been impeached. The Senate is what stops it. Everybody knows that the Senate and Reid will block it. 2014 its imperative that we win the Senate. As far as I am concerned that SOB Reid should be handed his head in a bucket so to speak. How they keep electing that slime ball is a mystery to me. People from Nevada simply must be the dumbest shits on earth.--Tyr

Gaffer
08-21-2013, 08:57 AM
We have the house. The house will impeach, but the senate will never convict. There are too many cronies of the dark one in there to get anything accomplished. Like having all the local gangsters of his time on Al Capone's jury.

It takes a 2/3 majority to convict in the senate. You couldn't find 1/3 of honest upright senators no matter how long you looked. The election next year won't replace all the senate cronies. There's too much cheating and fraud on their part. I have no faith in the system anymore.

A civil war is the only way to take down the elites in washington. I don't want that but I don't see any other way to do it. And the big problem after that is what comes next? I can picture lots of scenarios for the future and I don't like any of them.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-21-2013, 09:25 AM
We have the house. The house will impeach, but the senate will never convict. There are too many cronies of the dark one in there to get anything accomplished. Like having all the local gangsters of his time on Al Capone's jury.

It takes a 2/3 majority to convict in the senate. You couldn't find 1/3 of honest upright senators no matter how long you looked. The election next year won't replace all the senate cronies. There's too much cheating and fraud on their part. I have no faith in the system anymore.

A civil war is the only way to take down the elites in washington. I don't want that but I don't see any other way to do it. And the big problem after that is what comes next? I can picture lots of scenarios for the future and I don't like any of them. Sad that the bolded statement above is likely dead on accurate. Sad for our children and grandchildren because sooner or later that is likely to happen. The system is too damn corrupt and the power seized too damn great for the other avenues attempted to succeed IMHO. Still I opt to give all avenues a shot because nothing is worse than a civil war, NOTHING. -Tyr

Arbo
09-08-2013, 09:25 PM
A civil war is the only way to take down the elites in washington.

Congratulations, you just got on an NSA watch list. ;)

If Obama were to attack Syria without the legislature approving, I see a valid point in impeachment. Not sure what this long laundry list of other 'impeachable' offenses are, lord knows a lot of the BS he pulls many before him have pulled.

I long for the day he isn't in office, but empty rhetoric about 'impeachment' is meaningless.

Kathianne
09-08-2013, 09:30 PM
I'm unsure why this popped up on my active threads, but a few points:

1. 'Treason' is defined in the Constitution, the only crime that is so defined there. That is how serious the framers took that crime. Seriously, nothing Obama has done comes close to that definition.
2. There were reasons for 2 houses that the framers chose regarding Congress and impeachment, one to submit charges, the other to hear. The Senate is the more 'elite' members, from the get go. Truth is, they've become way too plebeian in the past 50 years. Still however, they are less likely to go off on polls and such. They may hate casting a vote, but they will, pain and all. Unlike the House members, their constituents are state wide.

Arbo
09-08-2013, 09:33 PM
1. 'Treason' is defined in the Constitution, the only crime that is so defined there. That is how serious the framers took that crime. Seriously, nothing Obama has done comes close to that definition.


Spot on. That's why I am curious what this big list of impeachable things he has done is.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2013, 09:38 PM
Congratulations, you just got on an NSA watch list. ;).

Gaffer is former military and a Vietnam War veteran so I doubt your admonishment about NSA WATCH LIST WAS NEEDED BY HIM SINCE HE HAS A FAR BETTER GRASP OF SUCH THINGS THAN YOU DO IMHO. Every American patriot is on their watch list or haven't you heard? :laugh2: Stick around and read his posts you'll learn far more than you likely ever knew..:laugh:

Kathianne
09-08-2013, 09:38 PM
When it comes to impeachment, 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' is the way to go. Treason is a very high mark, even if the crime were committed, nearly impossible to prove. That's in the constitution.

Personally, I don't like the current trend towards screaming for 'impeachment.' It's been going on since Nixon and it didn't come to that then and nothing has come close to that behavior since.

Ratchet it down.

Obama is more than likely going to be a lame duck, regardless of choices made in the coming days. His own works, though they will blame GOP, Bush, democrats in Congress, world...

Arbo
09-08-2013, 09:51 PM
I doubt your admonishment about NSA WATCH LIST WAS NEEDED BY HIM SINCE HE HAS A FAR BETTER GRASP OF SUCH THINGS THAN YOU DO IMHO.

Did you see the wink after the line? Do you not understand that was a joke? Really?



Personally, I don't like the current trend towards screaming for 'impeachment.' It's been going on since Nixon and it didn't come to that then and nothing has come close to that behavior since.

Ratchet it down.

Obama is more than likely going to be a lame duck, regardless of choices made in the coming days. His own works, though they will blame GOP, Bush, democrats in Congress, world...

Well said.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2013, 09:59 PM
Did you see the wink after the line? Do you not understand that was a joke? Really?



Well said. Sure I saw it and know often its a way to admonish an opponent with an out to claim it was only a joke when/if called on it. Very few tricks one doesn't learn about human nature working in certain jobs.. Question is how will Gaffer look at it? I haven't a clue on that. --Tyr

Arbo
09-08-2013, 10:07 PM
Sure I saw it and know often its a way to admonish an opponent with an out to claim it was only a joke when/if called on it. Very few tricks one doesn't learn about human nature working in certain jobs.. Question is how will Gaffer look at it? I haven't a clue on that. --Tyr

I have been 'online' since the days were we had 300 baud modems and you wrote your own BBS software in basic or pascal. This is the first time I have ever heard ANYONE claim that a wink smilie is anything other than a mark of joking around. Very impressive re-interpretation you have there. :rolleyes:

But how about we stick to the topic. I am very interested to see a list of the impeachable things you and others think Obama has done. Can you provide that?

fj1200
09-08-2013, 11:20 PM
But how about we stick to the topic. I am very interested to see a list of the impeachable things you and others think Obama has done. Can you provide that?

I would suggest searching the forum for "impeachment" but sadly that wouldn't narrow it down much. :poke:

Arbo
09-08-2013, 11:29 PM
I would suggest searching the forum for "impeachment" but sadly that wouldn't narrow it down much. :poke:

I have no doubt there are similar threads that have been going on for years. I just figured if someone was so sure that there were so many impeachable things, they'd be able and willing to list them.

fj1200
09-08-2013, 11:34 PM
I have no doubt there are similar threads that have been going on for years. I just figured if someone was so sure that there were so many impeachable things, they'd be able and willing to list them.

Oh they have. I'm sure only a short wait will be required and it will be presented again. :)

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 12:11 AM
When it comes to impeachment, 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' is the way to go. Treason is a very high mark, even if the crime were committed, nearly impossible to prove. That's in the constitution.

Personally, I don't like the current trend towards screaming for 'impeachment.' It's been going on since Nixon and it didn't come to that then and nothing has come close to that behavior since.

Ratchet it down.

Obama is more than likely going to be a lame duck, regardless of choices made in the coming days. His own works, though they will blame GOP, Bush, democrats in Congress, world...

Look to the Constitution and other primary documents.

Gaffer
09-09-2013, 08:57 AM
Congratulations, you just got on an NSA watch list. ;)

If Obama were to attack Syria without the legislature approving, I see a valid point in impeachment. Not sure what this long laundry list of other 'impeachable' offenses are, lord knows a lot of the BS he pulls many before him have pulled.

I long for the day he isn't in office, but empty rhetoric about 'impeachment' is meaningless.

I see the joke in what your saying about the NSA. I'm sure I'm already on their list. I see your also still using selective quoting and only addressing small parts of what others talk about.

There are many things that can be brought into impeachment but the most important of all of them would be lying. Using the IRS to target political rivals and lying about it, (hmmmm sounds familiar), authorizing fast and furious and lying about it. Having the NSA spy on ordinary citizens and lying about it. Benghazi, and lying about it and having others lie as well. His impeachment needs to be focused on the lies rather than the event itself.

The biggest problem is the dems in the senate will circle the wagons to protect him. A lairs support group so to speak.

Arbo
09-09-2013, 09:20 AM
I see the joke in what your saying about the NSA. I'm sure I'm already on their list.

Me too, no doubt.


I see your also still using selective quoting and only addressing small parts of what others talk about.

I don't need to 'quote' at all to reply, and I find no reason to quote stuff that I don't think needs a reply, sometimes even it if does, there is no need to fill up space by quoting the whole thing.


There are many things that can be brought into impeachment but the most important of all of them would be lying. Using the IRS to target political rivals and lying about it, (hmmmm sounds familiar), authorizing fast and furious and lying about it. Having the NSA spy on ordinary citizens and lying about it. Benghazi, and lying about it and having others lie as well. His impeachment needs to be focused on the lies rather than the event itself.

The biggest problem is the dems in the senate will circle the wagons to protect him. A lairs support group so to speak.

I think the biggest problem is a lack of hard evidence on any of those issues, along with the reality that most other presidents have done the same in the past.

Gaffer
09-09-2013, 09:38 AM
I think the biggest problem is a lack of hard evidence on any of those issues, along with the reality that most other presidents have done the same in the past.

Yes that is the problem, because he has so many standing in the way to prevent proper investigation of things. He owns the justice dept and can stymie an investigation simply by classifying the most important things. Anyone who speaks out becomes a criminal. They started closing all the loop holes after nixon.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2013, 10:18 AM
Yes that is the problem, because he has so many standing in the way to prevent proper investigation of things. He owns the justice dept and can stymie an investigation simply by classifying the most important things. Anyone who speaks out becomes a criminal. They started closing all the loop holes after nixon. Obama's defenders like to point out the lack of hard evidence. That kind of evidence almost always takes a serious and extensive investigation. Obama controls access to most areas and ways to do such an investigation so he prevents the truth from coming out . THAT DOESNT STOP HIS FFING DEFENDERS THEY THEN WANT TO IGNORE HIS EFFORTS TO PREVENT SUCH AND CRY INSTEAD, WHERE IS THE HARD EVIDENCE? Obama is supposedly about to make war on Syria but as presented no hard evidence that Assad is guilty as charged. I hope Congress tells the SOB NO and he does it anyway. I think that may be a bridge too far and will at least get him impeached even if not convicted....-Tyr

Arbo
09-09-2013, 10:23 AM
Oh they have. I'm sure only a short wait will be required and it will be presented again. :)

Well, the excuses were presented, but of course, nothing solid.

Arbo
09-09-2013, 10:26 AM
Obama's defenders like to point out the lack of hard evidence.

Obama's defenders? Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

More likely those based in the reality that there is nothing solid to use, and that those that run around yelling 'impeach him!', merely look foolish for doing so when there isn't enough evidence to do such a thing.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2013, 11:23 AM
Obama's defenders? Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

More likely those based in the reality that there is nothing solid to use, and that those that run around yelling 'impeach him!', merely look foolish for doing so when there isn't enough evidence to do such a thing. :laugh:--Tyr

Arbo
09-09-2013, 11:29 AM
:laugh:--Tyr

That's all you have? You were asked for a list of impeachable offenses, and all we got was excuses. With them the typical 'obama defenders' line of BS. Either you have a list of impeachable offenses, or you have NOTHING. Excuses do not matter.

So let's see that list instead of just excuses and deflection.

Little-Acorn
09-09-2013, 12:25 PM
BTW, when the Constitution was written, "high crimes" didn't mean really serious crimes like murder, kidnapping etc. It meant, any crime committed by a person in high office, who uses that office in the commission.

And "misdemeanors", particularly when plural, didn't mean parking tickets or shoplifting. It meant "instances of misbehavior".

"Demeanor", in fact, means "behavior".

Food for thought.

fj1200
09-09-2013, 12:35 PM
More likely those based in the reality that there is nothing solid to use, and that those that run around yelling 'impeach him!', merely look foolish for doing so when there isn't enough evidence to do such a thing.

And lack of political will and denial of political reality.

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 01:01 PM
As the impeachment of Andrew Johnson proved, the House may impeach on anything they agree to, easier said than done. That doesn't mean that if the Senate doesn't think the charges are grave enough to cause removal from office, they won't vote for that. Again, both Johnson and Clinton.

With Clinton at least they tried to bring charges alongside of our laws: perjury and obstruction; the Senate decided not grave enough.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2013, 02:30 PM
As the impeachment of Andrew Johnson proved, the House may impeach on anything they agree to, easier said than done. That doesn't mean that if the Senate doesn't think the charges are grave enough to cause removal from office, they won't vote for that. Again, both Johnson and Clinton.

With Clinton at least they tried to bring charges alongside of our laws: perjury and obstruction; the Senate decided not grave enough. How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

Arbo
09-09-2013, 02:33 PM
How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

He hasn't started a war with Syria... yet.

What are the other scandals that are impeachable?

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 02:34 PM
How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

If you could get the House to vote on articles of impeachment, he'd be tried. Would it happen? I doubt it.

I've said it before and likely will again, we do not want to yell impeachment cause we don't like the guy. I understand they did it to Bush, but it's undermining our system of government.

fj1200
09-09-2013, 02:34 PM
How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

He hasn't started a war yet and so far has been asking Congress for the go ahead. And his handling of the most incompetent military action ever devised is not as of yet an impeachable offense. Besides he probably has the cover under the War Powers Act to make the strike.

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 02:39 PM
He hasn't started a war yet and so far has been asking Congress for the go ahead. And his handling of the most incompetent military action ever devised is not as of yet an impeachable offense. Besides he probably has the cover under the War Powers Act to make the strike.

Luckily it seems that even the crazy, partisan, hacks in Congress for the most part do not go throwing impeachment around easily. Oh there are those few, but how long do they stay? I detested Clinton, knew he was lying while wagging his finger, still didn't think he should be impeached. He's still the brunt of jokes today, though considering who's now in office, there are times I wish Clinton back. ;)

aboutime
09-09-2013, 02:49 PM
Someone should just rename this thread...."The Defend Obama/Clinton Spot".

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 02:53 PM
Someone should just rename this thread...."The Defend Obama/Clinton Spot".

Really. :lol:

Arbo
09-09-2013, 03:02 PM
Someone should just rename this thread...."The Defend Obama/Clinton Spot".

As I said to another poster, simply knowing the truth of the matter, which others have presented repeatedly, does not make one a 'supporter' of anyone. It just means they know the reality of the law, and the reality of how government protects it's own 99.9% of the time. What you have is a weak argument.

aboutime
09-09-2013, 03:03 PM
As I said to another poster, simply knowing the truth of the matter, which others have presented repeatedly, does not make one a 'supporter' of anyone. It just means they know the reality of the law, and the reality of how government protects it's own 99.9% of the time. What you have is a weak argument.

Who's arguing?

Little-Acorn
09-09-2013, 04:17 PM
if the Senate doesn't think the charges are grave enough to cause removal from office, they won't vote for that.

That's not the Senate's decision to make. It's the House's.

The house votes on the content of the charges.

The Senate votes "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

Unless they fail to do their duty.

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 04:19 PM
That's not the Senate's decision to make. It's the House's.

The house votes on the content of the charges.

The Senate votes "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

Unless they fail to do their duty.

Read again, it IS the Senate's job to remove him from office, by 2/3 vote. :lol:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2013, 04:36 PM
Scandal, Impeachment , Conviction 1621, of Sir Francis Bacon Keeper of the Great Seal of England. Parliament used an old weapon , one that had lain unused for more than 300 years - the process of impeachment, by which members of the Commons serving as investigators with the Lords as judges could act against officialdom. The charge was bribery. Bacon was investigated and found guilty. His letter confessing such and basicly pleading it was common practice for all judges to take bribes , served to no avail. His defender after his conviction and banishment from ever serving in public office was Basil Montagu. He tried to exonerate Bacon by arguing that all judges in the 17 century took bribes. That was answered by an essay about Bacon, published in 1837 by Thomas McCauley. McCauley wrote, " That these practices were common, we admit. But they were common just as all wickedness to which there is strong temptation always was and always will be common. They were common , just as theft, cheating, perjury, adultery have always been common. They were common , though prohibited by law. They were common not because people did not know what was right, but because people like to do what was wrong. They were common, though condemned by public opinion. They were common, as every crime will be common when the gain to it will be great, and the chance of punishment small. But, though common, they were universally allowed to be altogether unjustifiable; they were in the highest degree odious; and, though many were guilty of them, none had the audacity publicly to avow and defend them. Source : Horizon, Winter 1974, pages 35, 36 and 37. Article by Harvey Marshall Matusow.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The catch phrase of the day then was," Let us have law and order until it suits us to break the law." A philosophy Obama excels at replicating often. Impeachment is not a heavily used action in our history. It is a bit more complicated now than it was in England in 1621 but still the principle remains rock solid. That our Representatives are entrusted with great power to do our bidding and corruption simply can not be allowed to be a common occurrence. Obama has a great many transgressions not all of which rise to the level of impeachment but of that great many more than one does reach that level. And one is all that it takes. Our founders by way of the Constitution saw fit to include high crimes and misdemeanors in that list of transgressions that are impeachable offenses. My question is , does anybody truly believe he is not guilty of even one!!??? --Tyr ^^^^ Shown above was the first post of this thread . Some certain person should try reading it and maybe then not need to keep asking me silly questions.

logroller
09-09-2013, 07:16 PM
^^^^ Shown above was the first post of this thread . Some certain person should try reading it and maybe then not need to keep asking me silly questions.
Some certain poster has asked for specifics, not generalities. You should try responding, no baiting back to a rhetorical question. A question is not an argument, nor an answer. At best its presupposition, but its not a valid argument and hardly an answer in itself.

Its rather simple: 1) cite a law; 2) show evidence of some action in violation of said law; 3) cite examples of other cases, describing their relevance.

You seem to be leaving out step one and two-- which makes your case/ argument weak.
I realize its easier to invoke the emotions of others, and while demands for impeachment can occur with this as the focus, an actual impeachment and removal from office will require a much more logical basis of support.

Stirring up fervor without the logic only further weakens the case, which people unceasingly do by calling those who ask for hard evidence, 'Obama supporters' -- informal logical fallacy-- argumentum ad hominem. If an argument is sound, one shouldn't debase it so.

aboutime
09-09-2013, 07:21 PM
JUST AN ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THIS DISCUSSION:


Actually. The CHIEF JUSTICE....in this case "ROBERTS" would preside over the Senate INSTEAD of the VICE PRESIDENT.

The Supreme Court plays no role in impeachment trials. However, in the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as presiding officer of the Senate since it would be a conflict of interest to have the vice president presiding over a trial at which he would become President if the current President were to be found guilty.

Arbo
09-09-2013, 07:32 PM
Some certain poster has asked for specifics, not generalities. You should try responding, no baiting back to a rhetorical question. A question is not an argument, nor an answer. At best its presupposition, but its not a valid argument and hardly an answer in itself.

Its rather simple: 1) cite a law; 2) show evidence of some action in violation of said law; 3) cite examples of other cases, describing their relevance.

You seem to be leaving out step one and two-- which makes your case/ argument weak.
I realize its easier to invoke the emotions of others, and while demands for impeachment can occur with this as the focus, an actual impeachment and removal from office will require a much more logical basis of support.

Stirring up fervor without the logic only further weakens the case, which people unceasingly do by calling those who ask for hard evidence, 'Obama supporters' -- informal logical fallacy-- argumentum ad hominem. If an argument is sound, one shouldn't debase it so.

Well said, and spot on. So as of yet, a case has not been made.

gabosaurus
09-09-2013, 07:33 PM
If they didn't impeach Dubya, they won't impeach anyone. Right now, impeachment is only endorsed by right wing fanatics and attention hungry teabaggers.

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 07:43 PM
If the House is determined to bring articles of impeachment, they only need to make it sound as if they are invoking laws, some articles didn't even bother to do that with Johnson. Nope, this was a case of the Radical Republicans being furious with him and like DA bringing a case to Grand jury, a ham sandwich could be indicted.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html

Article 10 is especially interesting to read.

Truth is, 'impeachment articles are whatever the House votes in favor of.' Then it's up to the Senate whether or not to remove from office.

I've made it quite clear where I stand on impeachment, don't think it should be 'used' to threaten presidents. The only president that I was in favor of impeaching was Nixon and he resigned rather than face that. He would have been convicted.

Missileman
09-09-2013, 07:46 PM
Luckily it seems that even the crazy, partisan, hacks in Congress for the most part do not go throwing impeachment around easily. Oh there are those few, but how long do they stay? I detested Clinton, knew he was lying while wagging his finger, still didn't think he should be impeached. He's still the brunt of jokes today, though considering who's now in office, there are times I wish Clinton back. ;)

Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for having a fling with Lewinski. His PERJURY about the matter, however, was definitely grounds for it.

Missileman
09-09-2013, 07:47 PM
If they didn't impeach Dubya, they won't impeach anyone. Right now, impeachment is only endorsed by right wing fanatics and attention hungry teabaggers.

What exactly were Bush's impeachable offenses?

aboutime
09-09-2013, 08:01 PM
What exactly were Bush's impeachable offenses?


Missileman. Let us know if Gabby gives you any kind of Honest answer. Will ya?

Missileman
09-09-2013, 08:03 PM
Missileman. Let us know if Gabby gives you any kind of Honest answer. Will ya?

Five will get you ten that she offers no answer at all.

gabosaurus
09-09-2013, 09:46 PM
Missileman. Let us know if Gabby gives you any kind of Honest answer. Will ya?

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Bush lied to Congress about his reason for invading Iraq.

Bush authorized of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the NSA to a far greater extend than Obama has. Which Obama (unwisely) has used as a precedent.

Bush lied to the American people several times. He stood at Ground Zero and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. Yet when faced with the fact that the Saudi Royal Family trained and financed the hijackers, who were traveling under Saudi passports, he did an about face and chose to deny everything.

Bush authorized the FBI to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts. Which is a blatant misuse of its authority.

Bush also had the FBI monitor peaceful anti-war demonstrations and had them integrated into Pentagon databases as possible threats to U.S. security.

The Bushies also decided that their bogus “war on terror” exempted it from criminal law and international conventions law preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

aboutime
09-09-2013, 10:00 PM
Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Bush lied to Congress about his reason for invading Iraq.

Bush authorized of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the NSA to a far greater extend than Obama has. Which Obama (unwisely) has used as a precedent.

Bush lied to the American people several times. He stood at Ground Zero and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. Yet when faced with the fact that the Saudi Royal Family trained and financed the hijackers, who were traveling under Saudi passports, he did an about face and chose to deny everything.

Bush authorized the FBI to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts. Which is a blatant misuse of its authority.

Bush also had the FBI monitor peaceful anti-war demonstrations and had them integrated into Pentagon databases as possible threats to U.S. security.

The Bushies also decided that their bogus “war on terror” exempted it from criminal law and international conventions law preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.



And, As expected. We're still waiting to hear the truth from Gabby.
Consistently accurate at repeating all of the pre-selected Liberal, Talking Points, as directed by Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Echoing the assigned words like a Good Liberal Sheep. Thank you Gabby.

Kathianne
09-09-2013, 10:03 PM
And, As expected. We're still waiting to hear the truth from Gabby.
Consistently accurate at repeating all of the pre-selected Liberal, Talking Points, as directed by Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Echoing the assigned words like a Good Liberal Sheep. Thank you Gabby.

Her reasons are as good as anyone's regarding Obama. She didn't like Bush, many don't like Obama. I'm comfortable with my aversion towards throwing the impeachment word around, but that is my right. Same as all of you have the same right to call for it. Doesn't mean Congress will run with that, but you're all free to keep at it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2013, 10:33 PM
Her reasons are as good as anyone's regarding Obama. She didn't like Bush, many don't like Obama. I'm comfortable with my aversion towards throwing the impeachment word around, but that is my right. Same as all of you have the same right to call for it. Doesn't mean Congress will run with that, but you're all free to keep at it. I don't agree with Gabby on a lot of things but yes she certainly has every right to her opinion as we do ours. Over the course of my time here I have mellowed a bit and see Gabby's contribution here as a positive one for it strongly presents an opposing view here . One can never claim her not spirited, confident and dedicated to her stands. I admire that even in those that I oppose. -Tyr

Arbo
09-09-2013, 11:17 PM
Five will get you ten that she offers no answer at all.

Much in the way we have no answer for Obama's impeachable offenses. Just emotional 'should be' stuff.

Arbo
09-09-2013, 11:21 PM
Log's post seemed to be backing one poster over another, though I doubt he meant that. I can see though why it appeared to tyr to be that way. It's one of those hazards of mod. Seemed like he was fighting 'for' the unnamed poster, like we don't know who that could be.

Giving an example of what forums a valid argument that can be seen a more credible is not picking sides.

Marcus Aurelius
09-09-2013, 11:25 PM
I don't think he was actually telling you that you MUST respond, but was pointing out what/how you should reply with in order to backup your words. Either way, doesn't matter, as no member has to ever respond to a thread if they choose not to.

I need to come up with a way to differentiate between a mod being a mod, or just posting in a debate.

How about this...

When acting as moderator or admin, actions/comments are posted in red letters. When acting as 'poster', comments are posted in typical black characters.

fj1200
09-09-2013, 11:25 PM
I like Log and think it's vice versa too. I don't think he was being unfair intentionally, not at all. The wording was not as impartial as it could have been and seemed to be favoring an 'unnamed' poster, (perhaps whining in pm), with another poster whose style isn't what is favored by some. I get that, but that is one of the problems with being 'on staff' have to be careful how you word things. Especially if for one reason or another you're not crazy about someone.

Off staff I haven't any problem calling people bombastic, or giving :rolleyes: too. Everything has its pros and cons.

The 'unnamed poster' raised a valid question; it does no good to rail on about the POTUS and how they're impeachable umpteen different ways without getting into some specifics. A simple response would be to link to the thread that quoted 37 different impeachable offenses; I recall both of us taking a whack at that list. ;)

Nevertheless the "mod question" gets raised occasionally even when the poster is no where near mod status.

fj1200
09-09-2013, 11:27 PM
How about this...

When acting as moderator or admin, actions/comments are posted in red letters. When acting as 'poster', comments are posted in typical black characters.

A solution in search of a problem. :poke:

logroller
09-10-2013, 02:55 AM
I like Log and think it's vice versa too. I don't think he was being unfair intentionally, not at all. The wording was not as impartial as it could have been and seemed to be favoring an 'unnamed' poster, (perhaps whining in pm), with another poster whose style isn't what is favored by some. I get that, but that is one of the problems with being 'on staff' have to be careful how you word things. Especially if for one reason or another you're not crazy about someone.

Off staff I haven't any problem calling people bombastic, or giving :rolleyes: too. Everything has its pros and cons.
When I moderate I make it plainly apparent-- usually, if not always, I'll quote a rule of the site. I didn't so in this thread; nor did I take any other staff action. Never remember agreeing to b impartial in my posts, just my staff actions. If my post came off as authoritative, maybe its because my argument was sound and persuasive-- Leaving only accusations of an appeal to authority. There are rules to debate in general, but I only enforce those of the site, and rarely do I.

For the record, I've never had any pm contact with arbo. I sided with a position, that the evidence of impeachable offense wasn't presented, not the poster. Until this very week I've not taken a moderation action against any of my numerous outspoken critics, and in the same action I moved one of jimnyc's posts too-- so accusations of my being partial to or against any given poster are simply unfounded. But hey, what else should I expect after I call someone out for lacking evidentiary support of an accusation but yet another unfounded accusation? Its ridiculous IMHO. There-- I spoke my peace-- back to the subject at hand.

I do belief there's grounds for impeaching holder at the very least over the fast and furious debacle, and specifically the obstruction of a congressional investigation and providing false information. Whether or not it can be proven that Obama was culpable from a legal standpoint is difficult. It would hinge on the application of executive privilege and whether or not administrative immunity qualified for those not at the executive level. There has to be check in place, and if the ministerial actions of officers are immune by virtue of their just following orders, then the executive knowledge of said acts can't also be immune-- someone must answer for them-- the proverbial buck must stop somewhere.
For example, Reagan took responsibility for the Iran-contra affair despite his claim of not being aware. Its one of those things that, while I may be dismayed, I appreciate the president owning up to it and not hiding behind some claim of privilege. But then again, that would require a degree of confidence in healthy public scrutiny that has evaded this country for long time.

Certainly since the starr investigation its been a media circus for the most part: like a public service themed reality show. People just want the drama. Clinton/bush/Obama did some shady stuff, and most politicians do, but unfortunately that's the crux of the story. Too busy taking about semen on dresses, the definition of sexual relations, WMD and birth certificates to get at the root issue of lax transparency in government and its legitimate purpose. Too easy to color it with partisanship and whip up animosity than have a civil discussion devoid of rhetoric and name-calling. Probably because drama sells. Hillary gave a five and half hour testimony before congress on the Benghazi affair and one line, "what difference does it make?", steals the show.

What makes a good talking point doesn't necesarily make it a reflection of truth. I see it all too often where a commonly mentioned assertion just doesn't reflect reality. Maybe its gas prices, or
Immigration, or terrorism. Many a pundit wants to say Obama is the devil but fails to look at the stark facts and context of the big picture. People are, of course, quick to say I'm 'blaming bush', which im not-- Im just saying its an equally weak ploy to blame Obama when, just for example, more people died on bush's terror watch than during Obama's and, likewise, much of the hoopla surrounding privacy matters stem from the patriot act rallied for by the bush admin. Similarly, fast and the furious was borne of a program began by the previous administration. It's bigger than Obama, and bush.

I'm pissed of about it, don't get me wrong, but its not productive to devolve into a blame game. Doing so will likely just make things worse by muffling meritorious debate.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 08:54 AM
Hey, you are welcome to come at me to argue anytime, I may respond or not, but it won't bother me. As a mod though, you have to remember that if you tell me that I didn't answer so-and-so, in such-and-such a manner, it's not the same as when I do the same to you. Indeed, regardless of red or black lettering, you do wear a uniform so your suggestions come with the potential of power. It's why Holder may be on your hot seat in the mix of a response to the problem here and your response to the debate you sort of get into a paragraph or so down.

As I said earlier, I don't think openly debating moderating or whether one is 'not moderating' on the boards is good for much. I don't think it is, so I'm slinking off that topic, again. So for the rest of your post:


I do belief there's grounds for impeaching holder at the very least over the fast and furious debacle, and specifically the obstruction of a congressional investigation and providing false information. Whether or not it can be proven that Obama was culpable from a legal standpoint is difficult. It would hinge on the application of executive privilege and whether or not administrative immunity qualified for those not at the executive level. There has to be check in place, and if the ministerial actions of officers are immune by virtue of their just following orders, then the executive knowledge of said acts can't also be immune-- someone must answer for them-- the proverbial buck must stop somewhere.

I agree that Holder is the guy (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/on-leno-kids-grill-obama-on-benghazi-irs-ap-scandals-are-eric-holders-days-numbered/) that protects the West Wing's occupant, the one thing he seems to have done a marvelous job at. There were more than enough democrats in the House at the time of Fast & Furious to prevent that from being fully investigated. In time, it will all come out, these things do.

I think there's even more tying him to the Benghazi crisis (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/08/karl_rove_juan_williams_get_in_heated_argument_ove r_benghazi.html), in both cover-up and later obstruction of Congress. Too bad every time it's being addressed, another crisis flares and it disappears from the radar again. (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/08/rep-frank-wolf-is-still-talking-about-benghazi-video/)

Then there's the IRS scandal (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/090613-670166-irs-holder-advised-black-nonprofits-tax-law.htm?p=full), which is the #1 scandal (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/congressional-committee-demanding-answers-from-irs-over-veteran-targeting/) which stands between DOJ and White House (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/irs-scandal-poll_n_3359575.html), that one may yet cause some accountability, as it's still ongoing.

Where we part company is the need to prove legal culpability is really relevant. The House can, if it so chooses, bring articles against the proverbial ham sandwich. Thankfully, they've yet allowed partisanship to take them to this route, though there was Clinton. That was the reason I put out the link to the Articles of Impeachment against Johnson, they weren't exactly without personal animosity, hardly. We do not want that, but we could find it if the extremists of either party keep on the paths they've been traveling.


For example, Reagan took responsibility for the Iran-contra affair despite his claim of not being aware. Its one of those things that, while I may be dismayed, I appreciate the president owning up to it and not hiding behind some claim of privilege. But then again, that would require a degree of confidence in healthy public scrutiny that has evaded this country for long time.

Certainly since the starr investigation its been a media circus for the most part: like a public service themed reality show. People just want the drama. Clinton/bush/Obama did some shady stuff, and most politicians do, but unfortunately that's the crux of the story. Too busy taking about semen on dresses, the definition of sexual relations, WMD and birth certificates to get at the root issue of lax transparency in government and its legitimate purpose. Too easy to color it with partisanship and whip up animosity than have a civil discussion devoid of rhetoric and name-calling. Probably because drama sells. Hillary gave a five and half hour testimony before congress on the Benghazi affair and one line, "what difference does it make?", steals the show. We're still in agreement, you are just reiterating what I wrote above. One point, related to the one I made above, Clinton was actually brought up on 'legal charges' that were quite strong in that he committed them, lying under oath and obstruction. The legal charges gave cover for the Senate to censure, but not removal. My contention is that even though 'guilty' of these 'crimes' they shouldn't have been brought forth in impeachment. The Senate agreed.

Impeachment is very serious, it should be a last resort or the way to remove someone dangerous to the country. By dangerous I don't me, 'the majority' doesn't like the president or agree with him/her. Both the IRS and NSA subjects may hold the possibility of a 'dangerous' administration, but that would take Congress getting a special prosecutor, something they are now not interested in doing.


What makes a good talking point doesn't necesarily make it a reflection of truth. I see it all too often where a commonly mentioned assertion just doesn't reflect reality. Maybe its gas prices, or
Immigration, or terrorism. Many a pundit wants to say Obama is the devil but fails to look at the stark facts and context of the big picture. People are, of course, quick to say I'm 'blaming bush', which im not-- Im just saying its an equally weak ploy to blame Obama when, just for example, more people died on bush's terror watch than during Obama's and, likewise, much of the hoopla surrounding privacy matters stem from the patriot act rallied for by the bush admin. Similarly, fast and the furious was borne of a program began by the previous administration. It's bigger than Obama, and bush.

I'm pissed of about it, don't get me wrong, but its not productive to devolve into a blame game. Doing so will likely just make things worse by muffling meritorious debate.

While I hold positions that are certainly partisan, I've never really been a rubber stamp with a party. Obama's folks complain that the right is using the same tactics that the left did with Bush. Whether incivility, posters, protesters, or screaming for impeachment. IMO they were wrong to do what they did to Bush, just as it's wrong to treat Obama the same way. Over and over again during the Bush years, I'd respond to folks on the boards that loved putting up 'Chimpy', "Kill Bush" and such that they wouldn't like it in a few years. I was right. It's also not going away anytime soon.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2013, 09:39 AM
When I moderate I make it plainly apparent-- usually, if not always, I'll quote a rule of the site. I didn't so in this thread; nor did I take any other staff action. Never remember agreeing to b impartial in my posts, just my staff actions. If my post came off as authoritative, maybe its because my argument was sound and persuasive-- Leaving only accusations of an appeal to authority. There are rules to debate in general, but I only enforce those of the site, and rarely do I.

For the record, I've never had any pm contact with arbo. I sided with a position, that the evidence of impeachable offense wasn't presented, not the poster. Until this very week I've not taken a moderation action against any of my numerous outspoken critics, and in the same action I moved one of jimnyc's posts too-- so accusations of my being partial to or against any given poster are simply unfounded. But hey, what else should I expect after I call someone out for lacking evidentiary support of an accusation but yet another unfounded accusation? Its ridiculous IMHO. There-- I spoke my peace-- back to the subject at hand.

I do belief there's grounds for impeaching holder at the very least over the fast and furious debacle, and specifically the obstruction of a congressional investigation and providing false information. Whether or not it can be proven that Obama was culpable from a legal standpoint is difficult. It would hinge on the application of executive privilege and whether or not administrative immunity qualified for those not at the executive level. There has to be check in place, and if the ministerial actions of officers are immune by virtue of their just following orders, then the executive knowledge of said acts can't also be immune-- someone must answer for them-- the proverbial buck must stop somewhere.
For example, Reagan took responsibility for the Iran-contra affair despite his claim of not being aware. Its one of those things that, while I may be dismayed, I appreciate the president owning up to it and not hiding behind some claim of privilege. But then again, that would require a degree of confidence in healthy public scrutiny that has evaded this country for long time.

Certainly since the starr investigation its been a media circus for the most part: like a public service themed reality show. People just want the drama. Clinton/bush/Obama did some shady stuff, and most politicians do, but unfortunately that's the crux of the story. Too busy taking about semen on dresses, the definition of sexual relations, WMD and birth certificates to get at the root issue of lax transparency in government and its legitimate purpose. Too easy to color it with partisanship and whip up animosity than have a civil discussion devoid of rhetoric and name-calling. Probably because drama sells. Hillary gave a five and half hour testimony before congress on the Benghazi affair and one line, "what difference does it make?", steals the show.

What makes a good talking point doesn't necesarily make it a reflection of truth. I see it all too often where a commonly mentioned assertion just doesn't reflect reality. Maybe its gas prices, or
Immigration, or terrorism. Many a pundit wants to say Obama is the devil but fails to look at the stark facts and context of the big picture. People are, of course, quick to say I'm 'blaming bush', which im not-- Im just saying its an equally weak ploy to blame Obama when, just for example, more people died on bush's terror watch than during Obama's and, likewise, much of the hoopla surrounding privacy matters stem from the patriot act rallied for by the bush admin. Similarly, fast and the furious was borne of a program began by the previous administration. It's bigger than Obama, and bush.

I'm pissed of about it, don't get me wrong, but its not productive to devolve into a blame game. Doing so will likely just make things worse by muffling meritorious debate. There, see, that wasn't so hard and contributed to the forum too.;) Now to address your previous post to me that clearly favored the "suggestion" that I reply using the parameters that were attempted to be forced upon me by the opponent I'll say this. We are here to discuss and debate primarily political subjects and tempers/attitudes are known to flare when doing such. With that stated and the ongoing little game being played by my opponent (which surely you know about) don't you think coming on to either -tell me or even suggest how I reply is in error? If not then please cite any example of me telling you (logroller not the mod) how to reply to any other member here. And after you fail with that, then do you care to explain even if it was just a friendly suggestion to me or even an explaination , why you would feel that was not insulting my intelligence? I need no such help if that was the intent and if it were just a simple observation then I do not see where you can claim either no bias or that you were just being helpful. For your future edification you should maybe consider this, nobody gets to tell me when or how to reply in my posts as long as I abide by the forum rules and the word nobody certainly means NOBODY.. I haven't spent 59 long years and countless troubles in my life upholding that principle to yield to anybody or anything about it now.. And that is why here I am a good guy(some will disagree :laugh:) but out in the real world I am a dangerous person to be trifled with. That's a statement of fact certainly not a threat to you or anybody here. As a true patriot, (which I am) I have firm beliefs and that makes me dangerous , as are all men that will fight to uphold greater principles and freedom. --Tyr

Arbo
09-10-2013, 09:51 AM
When I moderate I make it plainly apparent-- usually, if not always, I'll quote a rule of the site. I didn't so in this thread; nor did I take any other staff action. Never remember agreeing to b impartial in my posts, just my staff actions. If my post came off as authoritative, maybe its because my argument was sound and persuasive-- Leaving only accusations of an appeal to authority. There are rules to debate in general, but I only enforce those of the site, and rarely do I.

For the record, I've never had any pm contact with arbo. I sided with a position, that the evidence of impeachable offense wasn't presented, not the poster. Until this very week I've not taken a moderation action against any of my numerous outspoken critics, and in the same action I moved one of jimnyc's posts too-- so accusations of my being partial to or against any given poster are simply unfounded. But hey, what else should I expect after I call someone out for lacking evidentiary support of an accusation but yet another unfounded accusation? Its ridiculous IMHO. There-- I spoke my peace-- back to the subject at hand.

Well said and spot on. Even though others make false claims that people want they to answer in a certain way, the reality is just an answer is what is being asked for, one that addresses the question. When asked 'what charges are there', one would think that for good discussion or debate, they actually answer that question rather than cry about being asked a question. As you said previously, it makes for a weak argument, if an argument at all.

And to bring it back on topic, you are correct WRT Holder. And you backed it up with good logic. ;)

fj1200
09-10-2013, 10:30 AM
Evasion, shallow reasoning and faulty memory. Perhaps vitamins would help you with the memory part. The first two , well I have no suggestion for you on those problems.:laugh:--Tyr

Actually I remember it quite well and I'm a little surprised at the tack you are taking. I expected you to just link to that impeachment thread that details the 37? count "indictment."

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2013, 10:39 AM
Actually I remember it quite well and I'm a little surprised at the tack you are taking. I expected you to just link to that impeachment thread that details the 37? count "indictment." And I would have had the question came from you or any other member here besides him but he spent days evading my relevant questions with the flimsy excuse--not relevant to the subject. He needs to learn what's good for the goose is good for the gander amigo.. After three or four days of having questions dismissed as moronic and not relevant I decided to do the same to him and he went off about that. Some people you just can't please. ;) Now back on topic. Do you think Obama has engaged in no impeachable offense? -Tyr

Arbo
09-10-2013, 10:49 AM
And I would have had the question came from you or any other member here besides him but he spent days evading my relevant questions with the flimsy excuse--not relevant to the subject. He needs to learn what's good for the goose is good for the gander amigo.. After three or four days of having questions dismissed as moronic and not relevant I decided to do the same to him and he went off about that.

Yes, I ignored your idiotic questions in the CAGE. The CAGE has nothing to do with debate up here. You are simply making excuses.


Now back on topic. Do you think Obama has engaged in no impeachable offense? -Tyr

Clearly most of the people that have been responding to you have suggested there is nothing Obama has done that he could or would be impeached for. Which is why it was asked what (specifically) you think he has done that would be serious enough to start an impeachment process and get all the legislators to agree and impeach him. Without a response that gives examples and solid proof, there is no point in further discussion on the topic. As others have said/suggested, it's just crying and screaming like a partisan with nothing to back it.

fj1200
09-10-2013, 10:54 AM
And I would have had the question came from you or any other member here besides him but he spent days evading my relevant questions with the flimsy excuse--not relevant to the subject. He needs to learn what's good for the goose is good for the gander amigo.. After three or four days of having questions dismissed as moronic and not relevant I decided to do the same to him and he went off about that. Some people you just can't please. ;) Now back on topic. Do you think Obama has engaged in no impeachable offense? -Tyr

OK. And no. No impeachable offense at least based on the previous listing. Incompetence is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

And moreso he won't be impeached because Congress doesn't care about itself anymore. Party is more important.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2013, 11:07 AM
OK. And no. No impeachable offense at least based on the previous listing. Incompetence is not a high crime or misdemeanor. 1. So none of his scandals qualify???
2. Can not disagree with that at all. The House isn't as bad as the Senate in that IMHO. And the Senate primarily because Reid holds tight reins there.

And moreso he won't be impeached because Congress doesn't care about itself anymore. Party is more important.
Partly will remain more important if the President continues to hold all this Unconstitutional power IMHO.-Tyr

fj1200
09-10-2013, 11:12 AM
1. So none of his scandals qualify???

2. Can not disagree with that at all. The House isn't as bad as the Senate in that IMHO. And the Senate primarily because Reid holds tight reins there.

1. No, I don't think so.
2. The House only isn't so bad because the threshold is lower; mere majority for impeachment with no responsibility to actually convict.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 11:15 AM
I disagree with the premise that the Congress won't address impeachment because 'it doesn't care about itself anymore.' While that clause may be very correct, I don't think it has anything to do with impeachment. It has to do with evading responsibility and staying in office.

Presidents have most always done things that many citizens and legislators seriously disagree with. Often it causes them to be one term presidents. That's how the system works.

Impeachment is for very serious issues, crimes or no crimes. Nixon qualified, Johnson's and Clinton's actions did not. The first was caught in partisan Congressional machinations, the later's crimes did not rise to be serious enough for removal from office. They could have censured him without the brouhaha.

fj1200
09-10-2013, 11:23 AM
I disagree with the premise that the Congress won't address impeachment because 'it doesn't care about itself anymore.' While that clause may be very correct, I don't think it has anything to do with impeachment. It has to do with evading responsibility and staying in office.

It has direct relevance if even an impeachable offense won't result in conviction if the Congress votes party over the facts. I submit that suborning perjury is conviction worthy.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 11:40 AM
It has direct relevance if even an impeachable offense won't result in conviction if the Congress votes party over the facts. I submit that suborning perjury is conviction worthy.

Any actions are impeachable, if the House decides to bring the Articles and enough vote to bring him/her to Senate for trial.

As the Clinton impeachment proved, even 'crimes' won't necessarily result in removal from office. That's just a fact.

The 'high crimes and misdemeanors' like most things in the Constitution, i.e., see definition of 'treason,' were written to stand time. They did not want a Parliamentary system.

fj1200
09-10-2013, 11:45 AM
Any actions are impeachable, if the House decides to bring the Articles and enough vote to bring him/her to Senate for trial.

As the Clinton impeachment proved, even 'crimes' won't necessarily result in removal from office. That's just a fact.

The 'high crimes and misdemeanors' like most things in the Constitution, i.e., see definition of 'treason,' were written to stand time. They did not want a Parliamentary system.

Not sure where we disagree there. Suborning perjury? A crime and worthy of conviction IMO. That won't necessarily result in removal? Clearly, but the motive of the jurors is also my opinion. And removal of the POTUS doesn't change the results of an election as far as the party in power is concerned; we have plenty of other "non-parliamentary" features in place.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 12:18 PM
Not sure where we disagree there. Suborning perjury? A crime and worthy of conviction IMO. That won't necessarily result in removal? Clearly, but the motive of the jurors is also my opinion. And removal of the POTUS doesn't change the results of an election as far as the party in power is concerned; we have plenty of other "non-parliamentary" features in place.

When it comes to the framework of government, I guess I like to keep the basics in place. They new parties would arise though hated them. Since Washington left NY, they've been with us, along with partisanship. Sometimes worse than now, more often less so.

Removal from office should only, IMO, be if the executive is a danger to the people or the country's well being. Nixon's crimes rose to that, Clinton's did not. He was a pig, a liar, but his 'wrongs' left him a legacy. His removal from office would have harmed the country more.

aboutime
09-10-2013, 02:37 PM
Any actions are impeachable, if the House decides to bring the Articles and enough vote to bring him/her to Senate for trial.

As the Clinton impeachment proved, even 'crimes' won't necessarily result in removal from office. That's just a fact.

The 'high crimes and misdemeanors' like most things in the Constitution, i.e., see definition of 'treason,' were written to stand time. They did not want a Parliamentary system.


Kathianne. There is only one action I am sure of concerning Obama. And watch how many begin asking for proof. And that action is. Obama HAS violated his Oath of Office.
Which reads: "The Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is not defending the Constitution when he pretends it doesn't apply to him.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 02:44 PM
Kathianne. There is only one action I am sure of concerning Obama. And watch how many begin asking for proof. And that action is. Obama HAS violated his Oath of Office.
Which reads: "The Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is not defending the Constitution when he pretends it doesn't apply to him.




Ok.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 04:10 PM
Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for having a fling with Lewinski. His PERJURY about the matter, however, was definitely grounds for it.

Agree and it was one of the charges. Failed to be removed though. Was censured. (I'm hoping I don't see I already responded to this, 2nd read through.)

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 04:13 PM
Giving an example of what forums a valid argument that can be seen a more credible is not picking sides.

English, please.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 04:16 PM
The 'unnamed poster' raised a valid question; it does no good to rail on about the POTUS and how they're impeachable umpteen different ways without getting into some specifics. A simple response would be to link to the thread that quoted 37 different impeachable offenses; I recall both of us taking a whack at that list. ;)

Nevertheless the "mod question" gets raised occasionally even when the poster is no where near mod status.


I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, need clarity.

What is noticeable is just how often Arbo, Log, and yourself are thanking each other. Nothing wrong with that, just wondering if you're all starting your own 'superior' cabal?

fj1200
09-10-2013, 04:24 PM
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, need clarity.

What is noticeable is just how often Arbo, Log, and yourself are thanking each other. Nothing wrong with that, just wondering if you're all starting your own 'superior' cabal?

Cabals are for the weak although the superiority would be unquestioned. :poke:

But is this the first time you've taken a notice to "thanking" trends? Because if you could do a search for ":clap:" and other forms of blatant back patting you might be surprised.

Kathianne
09-10-2013, 04:39 PM
Cabals are for the weak although the superiority would be unquestioned. :poke:

But is this the first time you've taken a notice to "thanking" trends? Because if you could do a search for ":clap:" and other forms of blatant back patting you might be surprised.

Hmm, I don't think I've slacked on thanking yourself or Log when appropriate, IMO. What others do is not of much consequence to me, unless something catches my eye. In this case we seem to have a 'new' member that has started a crusade on those he's deemed his lessors. He makes reference to 'what he's heard from another member' regarding the board, I comment, log chimes in. Now all the CYA on your part for Log's actions, when he basically did fine 'defending' himself.

That 'new' member has been placing folks in boxes since he came, just thought it interesting that it seems he belong in a box with a couple others too.

fj1200
09-10-2013, 04:40 PM
:dunno:

Arbo
09-10-2013, 05:20 PM
English, please.

Giving an example of what forums a valid argument that can be seen as more credible is not picking sides.

Arbo
09-10-2013, 05:22 PM
What is noticeable is just how often Arbo, Log, and yourself are thanking each other. Nothing wrong with that, just wondering if you're all starting your own 'superior' cabal?

Perhaps it's just because some thank logical and well reasoned arguments.



Thanks for bringing this up again. Notice no 'pm' contact. No phone, other board contact, email, texting, etc?

Oh yeah, we text and plot how to go after you. LOL. Some serious CT stuff going on here. HAHA.

Drummond
09-10-2013, 05:32 PM
Because if you could do a search for ":clap:" and other forms of blatant back patting you might be surprised.

Jealous, FJ ? Aww, diddums.

Fact is, there are times when only " :clap: " .... or even, ":clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: " will do !!! Stellar posts deserve nothing less.

I'm trying to remember. Have you EVER had a post of yours applauded here ? I don't recall that you have ....

fj1200
09-10-2013, 05:36 PM
Jealous, FJ ?

Why would I be? As I said cabals are for the weak and you fit my qualifications to a T. I don't require sycophantic praise to know my points are valid.

BTW, I've seen what you faun praise over and stellar doesn't come anywhere near describing it.

Drummond
09-10-2013, 05:56 PM
Why would I be? As I said cabals are for the weak and you fit my qualifications to a T. I don't require sycophantic praise to know my points are valid.

BTW, I've seen what you faun praise over and stellar doesn't come anywhere near describing it.

Yep ... jealous.

Ah, well. Never mind ...

fj1200
09-10-2013, 06:42 PM
Yep ... jealous.

Ah, well. Never mind ...

Yup, that's what I thought. Run along now.

aboutime
09-10-2013, 07:07 PM
Yup, that's what I thought. Run along now.


You "thought?". Are you Arbo?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2013, 07:23 PM
Giving an example of what forums a valid argument that can be seen as more credible is not picking sides.

The potter -- forms-- the clay to make a bowl.. The --forums-- are political and lively sometimes. Definition of forum.

fo·rum


/ˈfôrəm/


noun

plural noun: forums



1.



a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.


"it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research"


synonyms: meeting, assembly, gathering, rally, conference, seminar, convention, symposium, colloquium, caucus; More




setting, place, scene, context, stage, framework, backdrop;

medium, means, apparatus, auspices

"a forum for discussion"





2.



a court or tribunal. Now your sentence makes sense if the right word is used.. You corrected the previous -a- to as but missed that part when correcting. Just trying to be helpful, no need to keep being opponents, right? --Tyr

aboutime
09-10-2013, 10:21 PM
Now your sentence makes sense if the right word is used.. You corrected the previous -a- to as but missed that part when correcting. Just trying to be helpful, no need to keep being opponents, right? --Tyr



Tyr. I somehow suspect. If we could hear what was being typed below. We'd be hearing Slurred Speech, and Hiccups.....endlessly.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2013, 10:48 PM
Tyr. I somehow suspect. If we could hear what was being typed below. We'd be hearing Slurred Speech, and Hiccups.....endlessly. A second time that I extended an olive branch. Rejected. Will not be another. This in my last post and no reply came ...



Now your sentence makes sense if the right word is used.. You corrected the previous -a- to as but missed that part when correcting. Just trying to be helpful, no need to keep being opponents, right? --Tyr

Arbo
09-10-2013, 10:52 PM
.....

gabosaurus
09-11-2013, 12:11 AM
A second time that I extended an olive branch. Rejected. Will not be another. This in my last post and no reply came ...

Like I have said before, it's no use trying to converse with some people. If a mentally impaired person comes up to you and start yelling nonsensical gibberish, what good does it do you to yell back? It's like having a shouting match with a goat.

Gaffer
09-13-2013, 01:13 PM
In order to impeach bambam you will need to break through all that highly classified transparency. It's not just the fox guarding the chicken coop. It's wolves, bears, mountain lions and alligators. Congress needs the facts and the proof and they are not being given what they need to proceed. You can't make a case against the govt when the govt controls the access to the evidence. This is the weakness in our system.

aboutime
09-13-2013, 01:17 PM
In order to impeach bambam you will need to break through all that highly classified transparency. It's not just the fox guarding the chicken coop. It's wolves, bears, mountain lions and alligators. Congress needs the facts and the proof and they are not being given what they need to proceed. You can't make a case against the govt when the govt controls the access to the evidence. This is the weakness in our system.

Well said, and exactly On Point. Problem is. When we refer to the past, and History. We also are reminded of many others who ALSO practiced the very same kinds of Control over govt.

I shouldn't need to mention any names...for those who know, and remember History. But those who are unaware of, or do not know it. We are almost seeing History being repeated. As someone called it....'Doomed' to repeat it. That is the WEAKNESS, and the main characters are playing it to the hilt.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-13-2013, 11:18 PM
In order to impeach bambam you will need to break through all that highly classified transparency. It's not just the fox guarding the chicken coop. It's wolves, bears, mountain lions and alligators. Congress needs the facts and the proof and they are not being given what they need to proceed. You can't make a case against the govt when the govt controls the access to the evidence. This is the weakness in our system. When a President has such a dark and hidden agenda compounded with such a dark and hidden operating system with his cabinet heads the media should be raising hell about it to no end. Instead we see a completely slavish media going along with the "messiah". Congress sees this too and should use every ounce of authority they have to investigate. Instead they yield more and more authority to him... Its insane.. And that is why many, many Americans are saying only another revolution can stop this. I now think that is an obvious conclusion to those of us not blinded ,deaf and sold out. Tyr

Arbo
09-13-2013, 11:34 PM
And that is why many, many Americans are saying only another revolution can stop this.

And yet most Americans will do nothing. They will talk big talk on the internet, but do nothing of substance in real life. And if government comes for them, most will not fight. Sort of the like pro-gun people that like the 'from my cold dead hands' line. Most will talk big, swear up and down they would shoot any cop that comes for their guns, but 99% are all talk and zero action.

logroller
09-14-2013, 12:03 AM
And yet most Americans will do nothing. They will talk big talk on the internet, but do nothing of substance in real life. And if government comes for them, most will not fight. Sort of the like pro-gun people that like the 'from my cold dead hands' line. Most will talk big, swear up and down they would shoot any cop that comes for their guns, but 99% are all talk and zero action.
And (most likely) alive. As Patton said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.” Such could be pared down to any cause and the powers that be know that. Even resist a cop and, no matter the justification, you're as good as convicted. Get into a shoot out with one and you're done. Just a brief internal investigation to, indubitably, clear the cop of any wrongdoing. Most cops are good and its important to applaud those who stand up for what is right.

For example, the Colorado recall was successful because 90% of the sheriffs supported the recall. It wasn't even about opposition to gun control-- it was about those charged with enforcing those laws calling out the legislators for passing laws that, if executed, failed to protect the people. Most of Colorado actually supported some form of gun legislation and, feeding off this, legislators passed laws which were disrespectful of law-abiding citizens' rights to not only firearms, but public safety. In a nutshell, thy took it too far.

But that does raise an interesting point though. The recall I mean. Yes it's fun to discuss impeachment, even demand it, but we aren't in any position to do so-- citizens I mean. But if congress fails to do so, can we recall them? A federal official has never been recalled. Indeed there's some question of whether a state even can recall a federal official. Some say that the constitution prescribes the qualifications and terms of federal officials and states cannot, by virtue of recall, undermine such. What say all?

Arbo
09-14-2013, 12:10 AM
And (most likely) alive. As Patton said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.” Such could be pared down to any cause and the powers that be know that. Even resist a cop and, no matter the justification, you're as good as convicted. Get into a shoot out with one and you're done. Just a brief internal investigation to, indubitably, clear the cop of any wrongdoing. Most cops are good and its important to applaud those who stand up for what is right.

I agree. And that is a big part of why most big talkers will never take the actions they say they will.

There will never again be a revolution like the American Revolution, there will never be one that brings forth a 'new nation' that is better than anything ever before made. That time is past. Populations are too big, government has too much control and power.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-14-2013, 12:56 AM
I agree. And that is a big part of why most big talkers will never take the actions they say they will.

There will never again be a revolution like the American Revolution, there will never be one that brings forth a 'new nation' that is better than anything ever before made. That time is past. Populations are too big, government has too much control and power. So now you are God and can say what can never be! Interesting... Also easy to see your glee in making such statements. I suspect that your kind would surely be on the wrong side if push ever comes to shove. In fact, I know from reading your posts that you would be on the wrong side . Tyr

Arbo
09-14-2013, 03:23 AM
So now you are God and can say what can never be! Interesting... Also easy to see your glee in making such statements. I suspect that your kind would surely be on the wrong side if push ever comes to shove. In fact, I know from reading your posts that you would be on the wrong side . Tyr

How about we stick to actual discussion instead of the continual bad attacks you use?

Not I or anyone else said I was God, nor does that have anything to do with the topic. It seems pretty self evident that at this point in time, governments have grown too big and powerful, capable of using their power to quickly knock down just about any serious threat to their power. It is pretty evident throughout the world that this is the case. Oh, in some countries there may be 'rebellions' that fight the government, and sometimes even 'win', but in general this only leads to a different horrible tyrant being in power, and rarely makes a bit of difference for the average citizen.

If you disagree, feel free to provide examples that may back the idea that citizens of America have the desire or will power to actually stand up to our own government and forcibly take over one of the most invasive and powerful governments in existence, win, and manage to undue decades of damage to the country.

logroller
09-14-2013, 05:21 AM
So now you are God and can say what can never be! Interesting... Also easy to see your glee in making such statements. I suspect that your kind would surely be on the wrong side if push ever comes to shove. In fact, I know from reading your posts that you would be on the wrong side . Tyr

Which side is wrong-- shoving or being shoved?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-14-2013, 09:07 AM
Which side is wrong-- shoving or being shoved? Those now being shoved are in the right, the American citizens. The Federal government isn't suffering so who do you think is the injured party in this? And who do you think is doing the shoving?--Tyr

Arbo
09-14-2013, 09:26 AM
.....

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-14-2013, 09:26 AM
How about we stick to actual discussion instead of the continual bad attacks you use?

Not I or anyone else said I was God, nor does that have anything to do with the topic. It seems pretty self evident that at this point in time, governments have grown too big and powerful, capable of using their power to quickly knock down just about any serious threat to their power. It is pretty evident throughout the world that this is the case. Oh, in some countries there may be 'rebellions' that fight the government, and sometimes even 'win', but in general this only leads to a different horrible tyrant being in power, and rarely makes a bit of difference for the average citizen.

If you disagree, feel free to provide examples that may back the idea that citizens of America have the desire or will power to actually stand up to our own government and forcibly take over one of the most invasive and powerful governments in existence, win, and manage to undue decades of damage to the country. How about you give your magnificent advice to somebody that gives a damn? Your entire spew was exactly what King George thought and found out to be so very wrong. So you admit the government has grown too powerful but then spit out how we mustn't dare fight that!! That is the classic stance of a cowardly citizen in my opinion. One that hasn't a clue that citizenship in this nation requires sacrifice and often that includes loss of life. Your firm conviction that its useless to ever fight back is noted and rightly condemn . Enjoy your justification for such a lame reasoning for running away.---------- Dad, "son why didn't you fight the bully at school today"? Son, " but Dad ,he was too big and far too powerful for me. I'd rather just let him bully me every day until I graduate." Dad, "son what makes you think it'll stop then and how are you ever going to be a man if your answer is to run away"? Son, "Dad do you think I am a coward"? Dad, "no son not if you will stand and fight that bully tomorrow son. A man must sometimes stand to fight even if he himself thinks he may not win. It's called courage son." Son, "but why dad"? Dad, " a thing called honor and personal integrity son."--Tyr

Arbo
09-14-2013, 09:31 AM
So you admit the government has grown too powerful but then spit out how we mustn't dare fight that!!

Nope, never said that or suggested that. You should reread what was actually written.

But it is noted from the above misunderstanding you go on to say based on YOUR misunderstanding that I am a coward, have no clue what citizenship in this country requires. Mischaracterize then attack. Not a good argument on your part. Just making note of that in case you want to learn how to improve your arguments.

So when you re-read what was written and understand it, feel free to let us know.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-14-2013, 09:40 AM
Nope, never said that or suggested that. You should reread what was actually written.

But it is noted from the above misunderstanding you go on to say based on YOUR misunderstanding that I am a coward, have no clue what citizenship in this country requires. Mischaracterize then attack. Not a good argument on your part. Just making note of that in case you want to learn how to improve your arguments.

So when you re-read what was written and understand it, feel free to let us know. No, will not recant a thing. I think my post was just fine and it is best to let the readers decide if I have erred greatly or not with it. -Tyr

Arbo
09-14-2013, 09:48 AM
No, will not recant a thing. I think my post was just fine and it is best to let the readers decide if I have erred greatly or not with it. -Tyr

So you are standing by your misunderstanding (or intentional mischaracterization), I expected no less. Perhaps one day you will actually be able to read what others say and comment on that, rather than commenting based on fantasy.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-14-2013, 01:30 PM
So you are standing by your misunderstanding (or intentional mischaracterization), I expected no less. Perhaps one day you will actually be able to read what others say and comment on that, rather than commenting based on fantasy.


No, will not recant a thing. I think my post was just fine and it is best to let the readers decide if I have erred greatly or not with it. -Tyr Does that look like I would yield to any of your assertions? Apparently you think the readers are not capable of judging for themselves but I hold the opinion that they are! Who is operating from a position of conceit with that? -Tyr

Arbo
09-15-2013, 09:57 AM
Apparently you think the readers are not capable of judging for themselves but I hold the opinion that they are!

You are not good with making assumptions. Even though that seems to be most of what your posts are, you read another persons post (or at least one word in it) then make all sorts of assumptions about what the poster was saying, rather than the actual content.

red states rule
09-15-2013, 10:47 AM
Like I have said before, it's no use trying to converse with some people. If a mentally impaired person comes up to you and start yelling nonsensical gibberish, what good does it do you to yell back? It's like having a shouting match with a goat.

Well some of us do try to carry on a discussion with you Gabby in a vain attempt to see if you can actually carry on a rational conversation

aboutime
09-15-2013, 07:27 PM
Well some of us do try to carry on a discussion with you Gabby in a vain attempt to see if you can actually carry on a rational conversation


I'm actually surprised how gabby was able to so correctly Identify herself here.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-15-2013, 10:21 PM
You are not good with making assumptions. Even though that seems to be most of what your posts are, you read another persons post (or at least one word in it) then make all sorts of assumptions about what the poster was saying, rather than the actual content. Assumptions as you call them may be valid judgments made based upon the accumulation of your previous posts. You have not given any sense that you have integrity or honor so my doubting much of your information put in your posts is me dealing in reality. I don't have to actually get a snake bite to know that the snake will indeed bite and tailor my actions accordingly. . --Tyr

logroller
09-15-2013, 10:35 PM
please discuss the topic, not the poster.

red states rule
09-16-2013, 04:28 AM
Bottom line is the only impeachable offense will be the IRS issue. Cracks are starting to appear and every story the White House has put out has turned out to be a lie

One of the Articles of Impeachment for Nixon was his use of the IRS

Now we have email showing senior managers were involved in the targeting. Give Lois Learner immunity and let her spill her guts

Something the White House, Obama, his lap dogs, and the liberal media do not to happen

Arbo
09-16-2013, 09:21 AM
Still, nothing in terms of 'impeachment' will happen. IRS or not.

jimnyc
09-16-2013, 09:24 AM
Still, nothing in terms of 'impeachment' will happen. IRS or not.

What will happen, and what should happen, are 2 different things. IMO, the crap and subsequent coverups in Benghazi & also Fast and Furious - and then the IRS crap. I think all are worse than a BJ or perjury - but none are even being investigated properly even.

red states rule
09-19-2013, 04:15 AM
What will happen, and what should happen, are 2 different things. IMO, the crap and subsequent coverups in Benghazi & also Fast and Furious - and then the IRS crap. I think all are worse than a BJ or perjury - but none are even being investigated properly even.

With liberals you have to ask yourself what the same people who are yelling "phony scandals" would be saying if GWB were still in office

You know damn well if the IRS ADMITTED to targeting liberal groups - the liberal media and every elected Dem in Congress would be demanding Bush be impeached and removed from office

The Washington Compost would have front page stories every day - 7 days per week - reporting the "outrage" and human rights violations of the nations progressives

and how would these same folks react over the slaughter of US citizens in Benghazi and Fast and Furious? If GWB were in office - all hell would have broken loose and the protestors would be outside the WH 24/7 which "reporters" bring food and drinks to them on a regular basis

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-09-2013, 08:11 PM
John , the liberal citizen says we shouldn't fight the government because its just too big and too powerful. We should should fight but also the Republican party should begin impeachment proceedings too. To John , the liberal citizen I say this..
Your entire cowardly suggestion was exactly what King George thought and found out to be so very wrong. So you admit the government has grown too powerful but then spit out how we mustn't dare fight that!! That is the classic stance of a cowardly citizen in my opinion. One that hasn't a clue that citizenship in this nation requires sacrifice and often that includes loss of life. Your firm conviction that its useless to ever fight back is noted and rightly condemn . Enjoy your justification for such a lame reasoning for running away.---------- Dad, "son why didn't you fight the bully at school today"? Son, " but Dad ,he was too big and far too powerful for me. I'd rather just let him bully me every day until I graduate." Dad, "son what makes you think it'll stop then and how are you ever going to be a man if your answer is to run away"? Son, "Dad do you think I am a coward"? Dad, "no son not if you will stand and fight that bully tomorrow son. A man must sometimes stand to fight even if he himself thinks he may not win. It's called courage son." Son, "but why dad"? Dad, " a thing called honor and personal integrity son."--Tyr

gabosaurus
10-09-2013, 09:01 PM
He hasn't started a war yet and so far has been asking Congress for the go ahead. And his handling of the most incompetent military action ever devised is not as of yet an impeachable offense. Besides he probably has the cover under the War Powers Act to make the strike.

Sorry, you are making too much sense for anyone here to understand. :rolleyes:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-09-2013, 09:42 PM
Sorry, you are making too much sense for anyone here to understand. :rolleyes: You forgot these three letters there -- non ... :poke:

fj1200
10-10-2013, 09:02 AM
Sorry, you are making too much sense for anyone here to understand. :rolleyes:

That's pretty standard though.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-10-2013, 03:31 PM
That's pretty standard though. Don't be too hard on yourself. A few changes here , a few changes there and even you'd make a good egg. :poke:--Tyr

fj1200
10-10-2013, 05:09 PM
Don't be too hard on yourself. A few changes here , a few changes there and even you'd make a good egg. :poke:--Tyr

I'm not hard on myself at all. I am the voice of common sense here. It's a curse but I can handle it. ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-10-2013, 06:50 PM
Another look at reasons for impeaching the Obama.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/amber-alert-our-country-is-missing/ Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. Do you ever get the feeling our country has been stolen? Where’s America? I want my country back. I think it may be time to call the police and issue an “Amber Alert.” The kidnapper’s name is Barack Obama. You might know him. He lives in the White House.

In the past, I’ve written about all the strange priorities of Obama. Priorities that suggest he’s out to hurt us, not help us. But the news that Obama allowed the shutdown of the “Amber Alert” system certainly takes the cake. Oh, it’s back up now, after a huge public outcry. But as my father used to say, “Watch what a guy does, not what he says.” The original action tells you all you need to know about our President.

He is a man intent on hurting, damaging or destroying middle-class America, our military, our economy and our values.

Let’s start with a few actions that happened long before the government shutdown.

Obama shut down White House tours.

He released illegal alien felons from prison.

He closed pools on military bases, thereby hurting the kids of our heroes away at war, defending America.

He canceled Fourth of July fireworks displays at military bases.

He canceled Top Gun flight training school for our best Navy fighter pilots.

He canceled “flyovers” at graduation ceremonies for our Annapolis, West Point and Air Force Academy grads.

Is this normal behavior for a patriot?

Why not cut welfare, food stamps and stimulus spending?

Why not cut “earned income tax credits” for illegal aliens who never paid taxes in the first place?

Why not cut spending on the advertising campaign in Mexico that “educates” Mexicans that their relatives in America qualify for food stamps?

Why not dramatically cut the 22 million government employees?

Why not cut the obscene $100,000 and $200,000 pensions for government employees?

Why not cut the foreign aid for people that hate America, like Egypt, Libya or the Palestinians?

Obama has money for all of this, but not for the military or Amber Alerts. We need to issue an Amber Alert. Our country has been stolen.

Who would make choices like this? Who would want to intentionally hurt members of the military, but keep spending on advertising to encourage dependence on government?

It sure feels like these are the decisions of someone who doesn’t like America, who dislikes the military and wants to make patriotic middle-class Americans feel as much pain as possible. We need to issue an Amber Alert. Our country has been stolen.

While the military and their families go without, there’s plenty of money for Obama to play golf, take vacations and spend $100 million traveling to Africa. While he was in Africa waving to adoring crowds, he pledged $7 billion to increase electricity access for Africans with American taxpayer money. These are just not normal decisions made in the best interests of America.

We need to issue an Amber Alert. Our country has been stolen.

But the decisions Obama has made during this government shutdown take the cake.

First, he tried to close down the World War II memorial in Washington, an outdoors memorial that requires no government employee oversight in the first place.

The objective? To deny entrance for 90-year-old military vets flying into D.C. for the trip of a lifetime (to honor their dead comrades).

Then it was the cancellation of the broadcasting of NFL games to overseas military.

Then military chaplains were threatened with arrest if they chose to work for free.

Once again, Obama showed his true colors: his disrespect for the military, veterans and religion. We need to issue an Amber Alert. Our country has been stolen.

Then there’s the closing of national parks and recreation areas. Even privately managed parks have been shut down.

Obama even shut down the ocean; fishing-boat charters are prohibited from going out to sea.

However, it is important to note Obama’s military golf course at Andrews Air Force Base just happens to be unaffected by the shutdown. Golf must now be deemed “an essential government service” by Obama. Maybe Obama is hunting for terrorists in golf holes?

By the way, even though Obama’s home golf course remains open, the grocery stores on the base have been shut down, forcing military families to pay 30 percent more at area supermarkets. A military family eating must not be “essential” to Obama.

But all that pales in comparison to risking the entire U.S. economy on a mission to embarrass the GOP. Obama runs around the country loudly threatening a Treasury debt default and promising “catastrophic losses,” thereby inciting fear and panic among bond and stock investors across the globe.

He knows this kind of talk could lead to a collapse. But that’s not a concern to our President, because he’s betting that a stock crash or economic collapse would frighten Republicans into accepting Obama’s budget and re-opening the government.

The President of the United States is trying to incite a financial crash. Isn’t that called terrorism? We need to issue an Amber Alert. Our country has been stolen.

What matters to Obama is to purposely inflict as much damage as possible, as long as the Republican Party is destroyed. As Obama’s hero, Saul Alinsky, said: “The end justifies the means.”

Alinsky’s end was the destruction of capitalism and America.

Obama is quite simply the biggest bully ever in the White House.

He uses exaggeration, extortion, fraud and intimidation to attack his opponents and get his way. The Obama crime family makes the mafia look like Boy Scouts.

Yes, it’s time for an Amber Alert. Our country has been stolen.

fj1200
10-10-2013, 08:06 PM
Another look at reasons for impeaching the Obama.

I can see you're finally moving on to the hard hitting stuff. :rolleyes:

jimnyc
10-10-2013, 08:24 PM
impeachable offenses are defined as:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." --US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4.

"... those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." --Alexander Hamilton, March 7, 1788 in "The Federalist Papers : No. 65."

In 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford "defined impeachable offenses as 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'"

From here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Impeachable_offenses

I know these don't really amount to a hill of beans, but I think it would nearly fit into what Hamilton stated. I DO think he has violated public trust (Benghazi, IRS, NSA...). I know that what Hamilton stated isn't "law", but I think a president SHOULD be held to certain standards. There's a lot of wiggle room to make similar claims to most presidents before Obama, I understand that, but I don't think any of them are slam dunks as far as facts are concerned. Unfortunately, due to cover ups and LACK of transparency, we still haven't even heard the half of it regarding the crap that has taken place during this presidency.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-10-2013, 09:30 PM
I can see you're finally moving on to the hard hitting stuff. :rolleyes: How bout those scandals? Is there anything that this corrupt piece of shat does that qualifies in your judgment? :( -Tyr

fj1200
10-10-2013, 10:39 PM
How bout those scandals? Is there anything that this corrupt piece of shat does that qualifies in your judgment? :( -Tyr

Some things surely need to be looked into but these latest "reasons" are rather petty for impeachment rationale IMO.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-11-2013, 08:11 AM
Some things surely need to be looked into but these latest "reasons" are rather petty for impeachment rationale IMO. OK, if you want to call completely shattering the public trust in the office of the President of this nation a petty thing go right ahead. And if you want to act as if the accumulation of all those things is petty and of no importance go right ahead. Some of us know that when one tosses enough rocks into a pond it ceases to exist! That's exactly what Obama is doing, yet so many millions of Americans haven't a damn clue about it while millions more see something wrong but can not or simply will not dare admit it.
While some of us saw it coming before the bastard was even sworn in. "Hope and Change" my assssssssss! ...-Tyr

jimnyc
10-11-2013, 08:25 AM
Some things surely need to be looked into but these latest "reasons" are rather petty for impeachment rationale IMO.

I honestly don't even know if the scandals qualify, and surely wouldn't know how to prosecute them. I also don't consider myself any type of historian or constitutional scholar. But I will say, I don't think demanding answers, speaking out about, or even consider impeachment from these scandals would be petty rationale. Allowing Benghazi and Fast and Furious alone to go unanswered, unpunished, is telling every future president and high level politician, that there are certain things they can do without even answering for, let alone being held accountable, even when American lives are lost in the process.

Quite frankly, I think when an American life is lost during ANY type of failure like those 2, should at the VERY least, be publicly investigated. How can Americans lose their lives, and those involved not even have to appropriately answer to what happened, what went wrong? And if the person at the top screwed up somehow, they should be held accountable. We have dead federal agents and an ambassador. I think decisions on both fronts ultimately came from the very top of this administration. It's hard to say if anything is impeachable as they'll barely answer any questions about what happened, and are even strong arming others into not testifying about what they know.

But IF there was a direct hand leading to these deaths, or even just a cover up to avoid political fallout, then I wouldn't be against impeachment proceedings. And I certainly wouldn't refer to either as petty, solely based on the loss of American lives.

aboutime
10-11-2013, 01:40 PM
Some things surely need to be looked into but these latest "reasons" are rather petty for impeachment rationale IMO.


fj. We all know. They are only petty because YOU say they are petty. Just like Obama.

No further discussion needed. You sound like every member of the Obama Defense Plan. Never admit, or concede that THE MESSIAH has been doing anything wrong. Just overlook it, and hope it all goes away. Much like every UNEDUCATED American who voted for him twice did.

fj1200
10-11-2013, 01:58 PM
...
But IF there was a direct hand leading to these deaths, or even just a cover up to avoid political fallout, then I wouldn't be against impeachment proceedings. And I certainly wouldn't refer to either as petty, solely based on the loss of American lives.

I don't disagree with any of that but the list I was referring to was pretty petty IMO. The problem is that Congress no longer serves its basic function to a large extent and Congress no longer cares about itself as an important institution; its individual members care about party.

fj1200
10-11-2013, 02:05 PM
OK, if you want to call completely shattering the public trust in the office of the President of this nation a petty thing go right ahead. And if you want to act as if the accumulation of all those things is petty and of no importance go right ahead. Some of us know that when one tosses enough rocks into a pond it ceases to exist! That's exactly what Obama is doing, yet so many millions of Americans haven't a damn clue about it while millions more see something wrong but can not or simply will not dare admit it.
While some of us saw it coming before the bastard was even sworn in. "Hope and Change" my assssssssss! ...-Tyr

No, I call your rationale for impeachment a petty listing.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-12-2013, 10:43 AM
No, I call your rationale for impeachment a petty listing. Yes, one must not present the whole enchilada when listing grievances against Obama! Those transgressions show a pattern of not only contempt for this nation but for his honorably abiding by his sworn oath of office. And if that oath of office means anything those deliberate and contemptuous transgression do too. Thus not a damn thing petty about them IMHO. also I AM NOT engaged in presenting a legal case against him because I am not a lawyer so your overall gripe holds no water in that matter. How about we let the Attorneys draw up legal papers while we regular folks speak in everyday terms and feel free to list all the negatives about that ffing bastard? Or is it your contention that this site and our posts are important in regards to actually impeaching Obama? I've mentioned many times his scandals ,two of which caused the deaths of American citizens yet even in the past you chose to bally-ho those concerns too! Dude, you can not retire your damn racehorse and race it too! --Tyr

Arbo
10-12-2013, 11:15 AM
Or is it your contention that this site and our posts are important in regards to actually impeaching Obama?

Is your contention the opposite? If so, why would one keep posting what they see as not important?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-12-2013, 12:08 PM
Yes, one must not present the whole enchilada when listing grievances against Obama! Those transgressions show a pattern of not only contempt for this nation but for his honorably abiding by his sworn oath of office. And if that oath of office means anything those deliberate and contemptuous transgression do too. Thus not a damn thing petty about them IMHO. also I AM NOT engaged in presenting a legal case against him because I am not a lawyer so your overall gripe holds no water in that matter. How about we let the Attorneys draw up legal papers while we regular folks speak in everyday terms and feel free to list all the negatives about that ffing bastard? Or is it your contention that this site and our posts are important in regards to actually impeaching Obama? I've mentioned many times his scandals ,two of which caused the deaths of American citizens yet even in the past you chose to bally-ho those concerns too! Dude, you can not retire your damn racehorse and race it too! --Tyr I present this from a previous post of mine.


The answer is no, I am not setting new definitions and not arguing that he be brought forth to be impeached and tried based upon my judgments. I am saying he has so greatly overstepped his authority as President to have engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors at the very least of it. I am not a lawyer and not an expert on treason but I can read and can understand that no man alive could so consistently set forth policies that damage this nation and it be mere mistakes. That Obama's end runs around Congress are not just mistakes, heartfelt responsibility and his trying to do his job faithfully and to the best of his abilities. Instead its all done to further push his agenda. An anti-American agenda . His character matters when it comes to a judgment on intent . His not being impeached so far is because they Senate will balk at it. Therefore the House goes with the why waste time on it. Its not because there are not legal grounds to do so. That's my point. The socalled "phony scandals" all point to the real Obama. And patriotism I know. He hasn't an ounce of patriotism in him. Fact. -Tyr

fj1200
10-12-2013, 01:45 PM
Yes, one must not present the whole enchilada when listing grievances against Obama! Those transgressions show a pattern of not only contempt for this nation but for his honorably abiding by his sworn oath of office. And if that oath of office means anything those deliberate and contemptuous transgression do too. Thus not a damn thing petty about them IMHO. also I AM NOT engaged in presenting a legal case against him because I am not a lawyer so your overall gripe holds no water in that matter. How about we let the Attorneys draw up legal papers while we regular folks speak in everyday terms and feel free to list all the negatives about that ffing bastard? Or is it your contention that this site and our posts are important in regards to actually impeaching Obama? I've mentioned many times his scandals ,two of which caused the deaths of American citizens yet even in the past you chose to bally-ho those concerns too! Dude, you can not retire your damn racehorse and race it too! --Tyr

My mistake, I was under the impression that a thread "About impeachment" would be about impeachment and impeachable offenses. I'll take a look for the "About petty grips" thread and make my comments there in the future. Please point to where I bally-hooed Benghazi and F&F.

And for future charges that I'm "defending BO;" He sucks at being POTUS.

Arbo
10-12-2013, 02:28 PM
And for future charges that I'm "defending BO;" He sucks at being POTUS.

You have to remember, you need certain words in each post, otherwise you are 'defending him'. Be sure to include words like: muslim, anti-american, hoodwinked, lefty, contemptuous, transgressions, socialist, golfing. The more your message sounds like an angry rant by someone that didn't attend high school the better.

:laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-16-2013, 09:07 PM
My mistake, I was under the impression that a thread "About impeachment" would be about impeachment and impeachable offenses. I'll take a look for the "About petty grips" thread and make my comments there in the future. Please point to where I bally-hooed Benghazi and F&F.

And for future charges that I'm "defending BO;" He sucks at being POTUS. Ok, LET IT BE so noted that fj objects to anybody daring to present character references on Obama and/or his lousy job performance while they dare to present their opinions that the bastard should be impeached for those offenses applicable as well. Is that better?;););)--Tyr

fj1200
10-17-2013, 09:50 AM
Ok, LET IT BE so noted that fj objects to anybody daring to present character references on Obama and/or his lousy job performance while they dare to present their opinions that the bastard should be impeached for those offenses applicable as well. Is that better?;););)--Tyr

WTF are you talking about? If you want to be serious about impeachment then make an actual case, if you want to rant about his character then do that. But if you want to be taken serious about the former minimize your rantings about the latter.




Obligatory statement: BO sucks as POTUS

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-17-2013, 10:38 AM
WTF are you talking about? If you want to be serious about impeachment then make an actual case, if you want to rant about his character then do that. But if you want to be taken serious about the former minimize your rantings about the latter.




Obligatory statement: BO sucks as POTUS Sorry, did not know I had been appointed to bring official charges against Obama myself. Which scandal do you suggest I choose to launch with? At least THREE top candidates in that field alone IMHO. ;) You know we are just debating on a political discussion board not acting in a courtroom my friend. I am not an attorney nor are you a judge. Glad we got that out of the way.. ;) Can not his character be presented to show cause for his actions!!????? I find it incredible that you seem to think such is not worthy of consideration at all . --TYR

fj1200
10-17-2013, 01:34 PM
^No, his golfing habits, as example, are not worthy of consideration in an impeachment discussion.

aboutime
10-17-2013, 04:20 PM
Sorry, did not know I had been appointed to bring official charges against Obama myself. Which scandal do you suggest I choose to launch with? At least THREE top candidates in that field alone IMHO. ;) You know we are just debating on a political discussion board not acting in a courtroom my friend. I am not an attorney nor are you a judge. Glad we got that out of the way.. ;) Can not his character be presented to show cause for his actions!!????? I find it incredible that you seem to think such is not worthy of consideration at all . --TYR



Tyr. VERY GOOD POINT, and something all of us need to remember.

As in. When we leave DP to go somewhere else on our computer, or laptop. Or, we shut it down before going to bed. Or simply take care of living the rest of our life...away from the keyboard.
NOTHING anyone says here, types here, offers as an opinion here, or pretends only they have the right answers to everything....means ANYTHING to anyone until they return to DP again.

Just like all of us are anonymous on the Internet, and here on DP.
Nothing is ever accomplished here. No life changing decisions are, or can be made here.

In other words. No matter what is said here by anyone. MEANS A THING. Think about it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-17-2013, 06:47 PM
Tyr. VERY GOOD POINT, and something all of us need to remember.

As in. When we leave DP to go somewhere else on our computer, or laptop. Or, we shut it down before going to bed. Or simply take care of living the rest of our life...away from the keyboard.
NOTHING anyone says here, types here, offers as an opinion here, or pretends only they have the right answers to everything....means ANYTHING to anyone until they return to DP again.

Just like all of us are anonymous on the Internet, and here on DP.
Nothing is ever accomplished here. No life changing decisions are, or can be made here.

In other words. No matter what is said here by anyone. MEANS A THING. Think about it. Pretty much on in the general sense except I have received a benefit here that has value. That is learning from others. Also entertainment value and the ability to read posts that are uplifting . Not all of what goes on here is negative fighting. We must take the good and the bad together to realize that life is like a rollercoaster for most people. DP serves a greater purpose if one chooses to allow it to my friend. We pretty much all have griped about it at one time or another but it's by far the best one around IMHO.- :beer:--Tyr

red states rule
10-27-2013, 12:34 PM
Sorry, did not know I had been appointed to bring official charges against Obama myself. Which scandal do you suggest I choose to launch with? At least THREE top candidates in that field alone IMHO. ;) You know we are just debating on a political discussion board not acting in a courtroom my friend. I am not an attorney nor are you a judge. Glad we got that out of the way.. ;) Can not his character be presented to show cause for his actions!!????? I find it incredible that you seem to think such is not worthy of consideration at all . --TYR

Tyr you should know by know trying to talk to FU - you have to remember..........................

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j325/13desideri/liberal-debates-liberals-socialists-progressives-sad-patheti-political-poster-1302150039_zps66cbea77.jpg

fj1200
10-27-2013, 01:18 PM
http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j325/13desideri/liberal-debates-liberals-socialists-progressives-sad-patheti-political-poster-1302150039_zps66cbea77.jpg

A self portrait I see. I guess me pegging you as a 10-year old was about right. :slap:

red states rule
10-27-2013, 02:24 PM
Seems FU's skin is getting thinner by the day :laugh2:


http://www.officialteapartyusa.com/gfile/75r4!-!IKMFGM!-!zrzor45!-!GQRNJJFK-PSKR-HLDM-NJSE-EGQSPPFGMOMG!-!72y1nq/if-you-smell-politics-democrats-obama-president-funny-true-m-demotivational-poster-12411516972.jpg

aboutime
10-27-2013, 02:55 PM
A self portrait I see. I guess me pegging you as a 10-year old was about right. :slap:


fj. They question you should be asking red states rule is....Where did he get a photo of YOU?

red states rule
10-27-2013, 02:56 PM
fj. They question you should be asking red states rule is....Where did he get a photo of YOU?

Yearbook photo? Mug shot?

Keep em' guessing AT - that is the way to go :laugh2:

aboutime
10-27-2013, 03:04 PM
Yearbook photo? Mug shot?

Keep em' guessing AT - that is the way to go :laugh2:


red states rule. I wasn't aware they had :laugh:Yearbooks for Pre-school students.:laugh:

red states rule
10-27-2013, 03:07 PM
red states rule. I wasn't aware they had :laugh:Yearbooks for Pre-school students.:laugh:

FU made his own. After all it is always all about him :laugh2:

fj1200
10-27-2013, 05:36 PM
The echo chamber is alive and well. Where discussion goes to die. :dunno:

Missileman
10-27-2013, 05:58 PM
The echo chamber is alive and well. Where discussion goes to die. :dunno: You're still alive? According to the Tweedle twins, you should have been wounded fatally. [/sarcoff] :laugh:

fj1200
10-27-2013, 06:07 PM
You're still alive? According to the Tweedle twins, you should have been wounded fatally. [/sarcoff] :laugh:

The kill shot is pretty tough when they're shooting blanks. ;)

red states rule
10-28-2013, 03:15 AM
Looks like FU sent out an SOS for backup. Off course FU could not punch a time clock without backup :laugh2:

fj1200
10-28-2013, 06:08 AM
... backup. Off course ...

OMG, you can't make this stuff up. :laugh:

Missileman
10-28-2013, 08:59 AM
OMG, you can't make this stuff up. :laugh:

I know, right? From perhaps the most enthusiastic circle-jerker on the board. :laugh2:

Arbo
10-28-2013, 09:34 AM
The echo chamber is alive and well. Where discussion goes to die. :dunno:

An understatement of what goes on due to some. ;)

red states rule
10-29-2013, 03:51 AM
Wow, looks like desperation has set in on FU. Those SOS distress calls are being sent out at a frantic pace by FU. Guess he is not as great as he thought he was :laugh2:

fj1200
10-29-2013, 08:47 AM
Wow, looks like desperation has set in on FU. Those SOS distress calls are being sent out at a frantic pace by FU. Guess he is not as great as he thought he was

It's a shame that you don't even know when you've been beaten like a drum on game day.


Seems FU's skin is getting thinner by the day


fj. They question you should be asking red states rule is....Where did he get a photo of YOU?


Yearbook photo? Mug shot?

Keep em' guessing AT - that is the way to go


red states rule. I wasn't aware they had Yearbooks for Pre-school students.


FU made his own. After all it is always all about him

That you need to create lies only speaks to your further desperation to become relevant.

Arbo
10-29-2013, 09:58 AM
That you need to create lies only speaks to your further desperation to become relevant.

Becoming relevant is not possible for someone so detached from reality.

aboutime
10-29-2013, 02:33 PM
It's a shame that you don't even know when you've been beaten like a drum on game day.











That you need to create lies only speaks to your further desperation to become relevant.


Don't accuse me of Lying. I am not a Democrat, and NEVER voted for Obama. Nor did I ever contribute to the DNC where LIES are born, and Never die.

Arbo
10-29-2013, 03:04 PM
Don't accuse me of Lying. I am not a Democrat, and NEVER voted for Obama. Nor did I ever contribute to the DNC where LIES are born, and Never die.

There is so much ignorance in the above post, there should be an award given for it.

red states rule
10-30-2013, 03:36 AM
Becoming relevant is not possible for someone so detached from reality.

Yea people like you would consider my beliefs detached from reality

Like government living with its means

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn

Stop rewarding failure and punishing success with the US tax code

Not making social programs a full time occupation

Making the US self sufficient and utilize all out natural resources of oil and natural gas

Treat terrorism as an act of war and not a crime

If you can find a service in the Yellow Pages then make sure government is not offering the same service

I can understand how you and your fellow Obama lap dogs find those beliefs so "extreme"

Arbo
10-30-2013, 09:17 AM
Yea people like you would consider my beliefs detached from reality

I wasn't talking about you. I understand that seeing someone else quoted doesn't make it clear (for you) that THEY are being addressed rather than yourself, but I just clarified that for you.

red states rule
10-30-2013, 05:53 PM
I wasn't talking about you. I understand that seeing someone else quoted doesn't make it clear (for you) that THEY are being addressed rather than yourself, but I just clarified that for you.

I am sorry. I guess it is too much to ask you why you consider these positions to be detached from reality

Like government living with its means

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn

Stop rewarding failure and punishing success with the US tax code

Not making social programs a full time occupation

Making the US self sufficient and utilize all out natural resources of oil and natural gas

Treat terrorism as an act of war and not a crime

If you can find a service in the Yellow Pages then make sure government is not offering the same service

I can understand how you and your fellow Obama lap dogs find those beliefs so "extreme"

Arbo
10-30-2013, 06:30 PM
I am sorry.

Yes, you are. But not in the connotation you think.

red states rule
10-31-2013, 03:11 AM
Yes, you are. But not in the connotation you think.

You are the boards gentle ray of sunstroke Arbo. Your sneer light up any room you stomp into

Again why are these "brain dead beliefs"?

Like government living with its means

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn

Stop rewarding failure and punishing success with the US tax code

Not making social programs a full time occupation

Making the US self sufficient and utilize all out natural resources of oil and natural gas

Treat terrorism as an act of war and not a crime

If you can find a service in the Yellow Pages then make sure government is not offering the same service

I can understand how you and your fellow Obama lap dogs find those beliefs so "extreme"

fj1200
10-31-2013, 08:03 AM
Again why are these "brain dead beliefs"?

Like government living with its means

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn

Stop rewarding failure and punishing success with the US tax code

Not making social programs a full time occupation

Making the US self sufficient and utilize all out natural resources of oil and natural gas

Treat terrorism as an act of war and not a crime

If you can find a service in the Yellow Pages then make sure government is not offering the same service

I can understand how you and your fellow Obama lap dogs find those beliefs so "extreme"

Link to Arbo, or anyone for that matter, disagreeing?

Arbo
10-31-2013, 09:33 AM
Link to Arbo, or anyone for that matter, disagreeing?

What? You want him to prove something he has said? Now I think you have cross the line! ;)

I believe this is the same moron that has continually refused to provide any evidence of his 'lap dog' nonsense. But that one is just more and more entertaining as it doesn't make sense to start with. Was he the self claimed artist that draws up political cartoons as well? :laugh:

red states rule
10-31-2013, 04:16 PM
It is amazing how Arbo did indeed call the above mentioned principals "brain dead" in the thread FU himself was whining to Jim about (in the cage) this morning

Then demand proof of what Arbo said

Oh well, like his boy Obama, FU has his head shoved so far up Arbo's ass he can check for polyps

Arbo
10-31-2013, 04:47 PM
It is amazing how Arbo did indeed call the above mentioned principals "brain dead" in the thread FU himself was whining to Jim about (in the cage) this morning

Then demand proof of what Arbo said

Oh well, like his boy Obama, FU has his head shoved so far up Arbo's ass he can check for polyps

No, I never addressed any of your 'principals'. Hell, I never read them. I never get much past the first few words you type as it's too difficult to continue down the road of reading the mindless partisan crap you have been fed your entire life and are just now reguratating.

fj1200
10-31-2013, 09:50 PM
It is amazing...

So... no link then? You're right, truly amazing. Run along little girl.

red states rule
11-01-2013, 03:38 AM
I am wondering if FU really has a mental disorder. Even after his butt buddy Arbo admits in the previous post he ignored my core principals and yet called them brain dead anyway - FU still demands proof

As far as Arbo - that is typical of liberals. It is the same as libs ranting how hate filled Rush Limbaugh program is yet they never listen to it

As far as FU, well if intelligence was sunshine FU would be the total eclipse of the sun

fj1200
11-01-2013, 08:00 AM
I am wondering...

Still ignoring like a middle school girl I see. You clearly don't understand the difference in YOU being brain dead and being a mere parrot versus what you try to claim as "brain dead beliefs."

Arbo
11-01-2013, 09:26 AM
Still ignoring like a middle school girl I see. You clearly don't understand the difference in YOU being brain dead and being a mere parrot versus what you try to claim as "brain dead beliefs."

Spot on. His lack of reading comprehension skills have lead him down this path, as I clearly said HE was brain dead, sever times in fact. I never discussed anything beyond his own inability to think for himself. But on he marches like the good little girl. In a way it is tiresome, but it is also entertaining as he shows the world with each post he is an empty shell.

Missileman
11-01-2013, 10:37 AM
Spot on. His lack of reading comprehension skills have lead him down this path, as I clearly said HE was brain dead, sever times in fact. I never discussed anything beyond his own inability to think for himself. But on he marches like the good little girl. In a way it is tiresome, but it is also entertaining as he shows the world with each post he is an empty shell.

Did you mean shill? :laugh:

Arbo
11-01-2013, 10:53 AM
Did you mean shill? :laugh:

That as well.

Hanging Judge
11-07-2013, 12:11 AM
Sadly Obama will reek damage on us for the rest of his stay in the WH. We can't even get a gov elected in Virginia, so how do you plan to get rid of this worthless POS in the WH?

logroller
11-07-2013, 01:30 AM
Sadly Obama will reek damage on us for the rest of his stay in the WH. We can't even get a gov elected in Virginia, so how do you plan to get rid of this worthless POS in the WH?
Perhaps (more) infighting will.

Welcome aboard btw.

red states rule
11-07-2013, 04:15 AM
Sadly Obama will reek damage on us for the rest of his stay in the WH. We can't even get a gov elected in Virginia, so how do you plan to get rid of this worthless POS in the WH?

Now you will incur the wrath of the Obama lovers for making such a true and accurate statement. The knives will come out for you HJ

Arbo
11-07-2013, 09:01 AM
Now you will incur the wrath of the Obama lovers

There would have to be more than one for the word to be plural. So far the one one I recall is Gabby. Just correcting you yet again.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
11-12-2013, 05:23 PM
Sadly Obama will reek damage on us for the rest of his stay in the WH. We can't even get a gov elected in Virginia, so how do you plan to get rid of this worthless POS in the WH? The bamtraitor will not be ejected before his term ends its duly scheduled course. They didn't spend a billion dollars getting him in for a second destructive term only to have him forced out by impeachment. Any meaningful impeachment trial and verdict would be rejected by he and his corrupt admin with Civil War being the only alternative remaining. That being the case is his insurance against being impeached IMHO.
ONLY THOSE WILLING TO WAGE WAR TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC WILL SERIOUSLY GO FOR HIS WELL DESREVED IMPEACHMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL REMOVAL. He and his handlers know it will take more than they dish out piecemeal OVER 8 LONG YEARS to trigger such a campaign... In fact , they bank on it.. Sad to have to say they are almost certainly correct on that.. --Tyr

aboutime
11-12-2013, 08:59 PM
The bamtraitor will not be ejected before his term ends its duly scheduled course. They didn't spend a billion dollars getting him in for a second destructive term only to have him forced out by impeachment. Any meaningful impeachment trial and verdict would be rejected by he and his corrupt admin with Civil War being the only alternative remaining. That being the case is his insurance against being impeached IMHO.
ONLY THOSE WILLING TO WAGE WAR TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC WILL SERIOUSLY GO FOR HIS WELL DESREVED IMPEACHMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL REMOVAL. He and his handlers know it will take more than they dish out piecemeal OVER 8 LONG YEARS to trigger such a campaign... In fact , they bank on it.. Sad to have to say they are almost certainly correct on that.. --Tyr


Sadly. As much as many of us would absolutely, positively hope, and wish for the Impeachment, and removal of Obama. He has an ACE in the hole...he probably laughs at. Namely...Joe (FootinMouth) Biden.
Granted. Obama needs to be removed, and the sooner the better. But...once again.
We must remember WHO we get if Obama gets kicked back to CAPONE-ACORN-LAND.

What we should all do while the Obamidiot remains in office is...CHEER for his FAILED Legacy. Remind everyone who ever thought about voting for him, and those who foolishly did TWICE, how they...THEY....are responsible for everything that is wrong with our nation today.
If they disagree. Nobody really cares.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-22-2014, 09:40 AM
Its high time impeachment becomes a daily subject IMHO. WHO CAN TRULY THINK THAT OBAMA HAS DONE NOTHING TO GET IMPEACHED FOR? Who still thinks that he does not break his oath of office often?--Tyr

aboutime
01-22-2014, 03:00 PM
Its high time impeachment becomes a daily subject IMHO. WHO CAN TRULY THINK THAT OBAMA HAS DONE NOTHING TO GET IMPEACHED FOR? Who still thinks that he does not break his oath of office often?--Tyr


TYR. MOST ALL OF US TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS!

Problem is. CONGRESS stands in the way. Especially before a MID-TERM election. And, especially when we have so many WORN-OUT, WUSSIES, and RINO's in the U.S. Senate...from BOTH SIDES of the political aisle.

If there was some MAGIC switch we could push to make IMPEACHMENT a reality. I'm sure....we would have had that Button pushed....right after Obama was elected the first time.
But. Reality is. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE DEMAND IT.
YOU, and I, the millions of Uneducated Americans out there who do not care...like we do. Will never get that WISH to come true until WE VOTE OUT all of the DEAD WOOD in both houses of Congress.
That's the Reality. Sad to say.

logroller
01-31-2014, 07:04 AM
TYR. MOST ALL OF US TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS!

Problem is. CONGRESS stands in the way.

Especially before a MID-TERM election. And, especially when we have so many WORN-OUT, WUSSIES, and RINO's in the U.S. Senate...from BOTH SIDES of the political aisle.

If there was some MAGIC switch we could push to make IMPEACHMENT a reality. I'm sure....we would have had that Button pushed....right after Obama was elected the first time.
But. Reality is. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE DEMAND IT.
YOU, and I, the millions of Uneducated Americans out there who do not care...like we do. Will never get that WISH to come true until WE VOTE OUT all of the DEAD WOOD in both houses of Congress.
That's the Reality. Sad to say.
Its truly ironic that those who call for the impeachment of Obama, allegedly for violating his oath to defend the constitution, see the constitutional design as the 'problem'.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-31-2014, 09:31 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/why_obama_should_be_impeached_but_wont.html November 24, 2013
Why Obama Should Be Impeached, but Won't
By Richard Winchester
Barack Obama should be impeached and convicted. Alas, he probably won't be.

Other than electoral defeat, the U.S. has two peaceful procedures for removing a head of government. Some state constitutions provide for recall election to remove an errant governor. (Two governors have been recalled, the most recent being "Gray" Davis [CA] in 2003.)


At the national level, the only legal, peaceful means to remove a president -- other than voting the individual out -- is by impeachment and conviction.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states that, "[t]he President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (my italics).

Alexander Hamilton's The Federalist #65 specifies the kinds of offenses for which impeachment would be appropriate: "those offenses which proceed from ... the abuse or violation of some public trust" (my italics).

Both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court's Chief Justice are involved in the impeachment process. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 5 grants "the sole Power of Impeachment" to the House of Representatives. (This is akin to a legal accusation. A simple majority vote suffices.) Articlethirds of the Senators who are present must vote for conviction.) Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6 limits the penalty for conviction to removal from office and disqualification for holding any position "of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law."
Article III, section 3, paragraph 1 defines treason as "levying War against ... [the United States], or ... adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Bribery's meaning needs no definition.

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors'" meaning is less obvious. The Constitutional Convention, however, adopted the phrase without much debate. Most of the Framers were familiar with the phrase, which had been used to remove English officials since 1386. The term "high" signified a very serious crime. The phrase boils down to abuses of power and misconduct in office.

Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliot have written a new book exploring Obama's Impeachable Offenses. Their catalogue of impeachable offenses is extensive, including "Operation Fast and Furious," Obamacare, drone attacks that murdered American citizens abroad, and the Benghazi fiasco and its aftermath, just to list four. Other impeachable offenses -- such as the IRS targeting of conservatives, DOJ spying on reporters, etc. -- were revealed after Klein and Elliott had completed the book.

The American Thinker's readers probably have reasons for impeaching and convicting Obama. Very likely among them are revelations that Obama delayed for one year Obamacare's mandate that large businesses provide healthcare insurance for employees, demanded that insurance companies rescind cancellation of pre-Obamacare health insurance policies, and lied about citizens keeping their health insurance plans and doctors once Obamacare took effect.

Unless Obama drastically changes his MO, by the time his second term expires there will be additional evidence buttressing Klein and Elliott's contention that "Barack Obama has ... fundamentally abused the powers of his office" (my italics).

I restrict my contention that Obama should be impeached and convicted to what can be certified as "abuse of power." Specifically, I focus on Obama's violation of the Constitution's stipulation (Article II, section 3) that a president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...."

Never mind that he lied when he said that citizens could keep their health insurance policiespoint to justify Obama's lies.

There were Kool-Aid drinkers during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998; there are Kool-Aid drinkers today. As long as the mainstream media buttress today's Kool-Aid drinkers, the claim that Obama lied has little chance.

When it comes to taking care that "the Laws be faithfully executed," however, Obama is liable. The Constitution does not permit a president (single-handedly) to change a law's provision.

Like it or not, Obamacare is the law.

Therefore, Obama's decision to postpone Obamacare's mandate that large businesses pay for employees' healthcare violates the Constitution. Since that decision contravenes the Constitution's requirement that a president take care that "the Laws be faithfully executed," Obama should be impeached, and convicted of the "high crime" of abuse of power.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/why_obama_should_be_impeached_but_wont.html#ixzz2r zBqprnn ^^^^^ Post for those that declare he has done nothing that warrants impeachment. To me those people are like this. "So Jeffry Dahmer ate a few people. Don't you eat when you are hungry"? While they can not see the forest for the trees! While they dismiss as nothing the many scandals and his constant actions he justifies by saying Congress will not act. And that in itself presents the fact that he himself considers its their duty to act thus its not legal for him to assume their duties! What he says is they will not pass a law/bill to address this so I will just Executive Order it be done. The Constitution clearly states the President can not do that.--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-31-2014, 09:42 AM
http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/liberal-law-professor-obama-is-the-danger/
Liberal law professor: Obama is the danger

Warns against 'concentration of power' in Oval Office

Published: 12/05/2013 at 11:28 AM
A noted liberal Georgetown University law professor who represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases says Barack Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

The comments from Jonathan Turley came during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday.

Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/liberal-law-professor-obama-is-the-danger/#QzWTMdPehtl8Q1jX.99 Now after belittling my contention that Obama has engaged in unconstitutional actions what say yee geniuses to this Constitutional scholar's words citing he has?? And he is not a CONSERVATIVE nor a man without knowledge of the subject. HE STATED THIS UNDER OATH... -Tyr

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

aboutime
01-31-2014, 02:46 PM
Its truly ironic that those who call for the impeachment of Obama, allegedly for violating his oath to defend the constitution, see the constitutional design as the 'problem'.


No log. YOU, and people like YOU are the problem.

logroller
01-31-2014, 04:33 PM
No log. YOU, and people like YOU are the problem.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44765-Logroller-s-responses-to-aboutime&p=681923#post681923

aboutime
01-31-2014, 04:46 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44765-Logroller-s-responses-to-aboutime&p=681923#post681923


So, you back it up by posting a link that proves YOU are the problem?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
01-31-2014, 06:57 PM
Now after belittling my contention that Obama has engaged in unconstitutional actions what say yee geniuses to this Constitutional scholar's words citing he has?? And he is not a CONSERVATIVE nor a man without knowledge of the subject. HE STATED THIS UNDER OATH... -Tyr
So I present the accusation made by a noted Constitutional expert and nobody in the bampunk "did nothing impeachable crew" replies to it or even attempts to call the man a dumbass . :laugh:--Tyr

gabosaurus
02-01-2014, 01:07 AM
Not gonna happen. End of story.

fj1200
02-01-2014, 07:04 AM
So I present the accusation made by a noted Constitutional expert and nobody in the bampunk "did nothing impeachable crew" replies to it or even attempts to call the man a dumbass . :laugh:--Tyr

And if Congress cared about itself as an institution and it's necessary role then they would do something about it. It shouldn't be a shock when a unitary executive acts in a unitary manner.