100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A Case For Impeachment | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Except that isn't accurate though...right? I mean you do know that what you just said isn't accurate...????? Seriously, to be able to determine that a definition of accurate would need to be provided, and if then the answer would revert to moral relativism, in other words not know until told by some source that can deem what is right and wrong.  Moral relativism has nothing to do with whether or not President Obama violated a federal law that he himself signed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From CNN: Under the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by Obama late last year, the administration gained some added flexibility in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, but was required to notify Congress 30 days in advance... ... CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin disagreed, saying Obama "clearly broke the law" even if he can provide a legal justification for what he did. The bottom line, to Toobin, was that the law calls for 30 days' notice and Obama didn't do it." Wow, so CNN told you what to believe, and a legal analyst, probably a lawyer that believes in slavery. Authority, an illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters, slavery. The belief in the legitimacy of "authority" is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery. Ultimately, "authority" is the idea that man can become God and through "jurisdiction" dictate the law. The one true divide that separates humanity into two distinct types of individuals. The criterion for the divide is whether or not an individual believes in "authority" and therefore believes that there is legitimacy to slavery. Sort of goes back to that moral relativism thing, not knowing the difference between right and wrong, so looks for some authority to dictate man's version of right and wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time to get out the popcorn.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except that isn't accurate though...right? I mean you do know that what you just said isn't accurate...????? Seriously, to be able to determine that a definition of accurate would need to be provided, and if then the answer would revert to moral relativism, in other words not know until told by some source that can deem what is right and wrong. Moral relativism has nothing to do with whether or not President Obama violated a federal law that he himself signed. Sure it does and you are the case in point, first in thinking there is such a thing as federal law, defending the "right" of authority, the legacy of slavery, moral relativism, the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily "create" or "decide" right and wrong for themselves. Laws based on location based on the whim of legislators, or laws that change in time, based on the whim of legislators, acts of moral relativist. An illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters, slavery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure it does and you are the case in point, first in thinking there is such a thing as federal law, defending the "right" of authority, the legacy of slavery, moral relativism, the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily "create" or "decide" right and wrong for themselves. Laws based on location based on the whim of legislators, or laws that change in time, based on the whim of legislators, acts of moral relativist. An illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters, slavery. This is as funny as watching Comedy Central. You Humans never cease to amuse me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, you are the one who is overlooking the second part of that statement, "and Conviction of". Removal from office requires impeachment and conviction, not just impeachment. First I'm not your "dude" and never will be. Second, haven't overlooked it at all, it is you that keeps taking it out of context, still having problem with comprehension. "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That word for is there for a purpose, to make idiots of those that try and ignore it, you know ignore: idiot, practitioner of ignoring. So you can keep twisting, turning and spinning, but truth is eternal and immutable. Perhaps you should stick to CNN, the moral relativism would be more your style. They're probably screaming for Odumbo's impeachment right now.  Your comments are hilarious. Anyway, I can't stay for the rest of the show. I have things to do in the real world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL I just had to come and get a look at the craziness that ensues each time the president does anything... It is quite amusing. Now Bush did this same thing and released like 500 detainees. And he did the signing thing 150 times in his presidency. But I know none of that matters because he wasn't a black man doing it. Carry on with the futile craziness...LOL 500 BS detainees who where little to no risk. He didn't release TOP Taliban Commanders or Al-Qaeda members and he didn't do it behind Congresses back. Seems everything Obama does he keeps from Congress. There is a reason why, they wouldn't approve of this BS. Even the Democrats are pissed at him. Senator Feinstein is LIVID on this issue and Pelosi got booed off stage at a Liberal event  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. If President Obama openly violated a federal law that he himself signed, then I am in favor of him being impeached by the House. Yet, if he were impeached by the House, he would still remain in office unless a majority of the Senate were to vote to remove him from office. The is what happened to President Clinton. He was impeached, but he was not convicted. It still tarnished him and his legacy. He also lost his license to practice law for a certain amount of years and can never practice in front of the Supreme Court. I am guessing the same would happen to Barry (all though it's not like he ever used his law license anyways). We are in agreement. Cheers!  Lol for once! Even when we don't agree we don't go to the name calling and rudeness like some people do.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL I just had to come and get a look at the craziness that ensues each time the president does anything... It is quite amusing. Now Bush did this same thing and released like 500 detainees. And he did the signing thing 150 times in his presidency. But I know none of that matters because he wasn't a black man doing it. Carry on with the futile craziness...LOL You are the only one who brings up race in these forums. I don't care if he's white, black, pink, yellow, green whatever, he is breaking laws left and right, even laws HE signed. You need to stop with the race baiting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL I just had to come and get a look at the craziness that ensues each time the president does anything... It is quite amusing. Now Bush did this same thing and released like 500 detainees. And he did the signing thing 150 times in his presidency. But I know none of that matters because he wasn't a black man doing it. Carry on with the futile craziness...LOL We are talking about the violation of a federal law that was enacted after Obama became POTUS. Plus, this talk about impeachment has nothing to do with Obama's race/ethnicity/skin color. If a Republican POTUS were to do the same thing - that is, openly violate a federal law that he himself signed - then I would still say the same thing about impeachment. If any President or elected official violated the law Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent etc. They should be held accountable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any impeachment would be futile, because impeachment by itself does not result in the removal of a person from public office. An impeachment results in a trial taking place in the U.S. Senate, and a simple majority of Senators is needed for a conviction. That isn't going to happen with the Senate Democrats being in the majority. No, but being impeached by Congress is a big embarrassment, I believe it has only happened two or three times in history. After 2014 elections we might have enough in the Senate to vote for impeachment. Also there are quite a few Dems who are not happy with Obama over this as well. Either they are trying to save their own a$$e$ in 2014 or they are truly pissed, they might get enough. It should be tried. that;s what I was thinking. He may have finally created an issue to garner bipartisan success....with this latest in a long string of offenses You know it's bad when one of the most Liberal Senators Feinstein speaks out against the Liberal Messiah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what? Not debatable at all, about as weak as the argument on impeachment, both based on a reading comprehension issue. 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. [/quotes] Even standard dictionaries got that one right: mis�de�mean�or, n. 1. A misdeed. 2. Law A criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and generally punishable by a fine, a jail term of up to a year, or both. So just what would your debate position be? Would you debate be beyond a single word? Duh! You realize Clinton WAS convicted of perjury. He lost his law license for a certain amount of time and can NEVER practice law in front of the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what? It determines on how the person who's drafting the impeachment looks at the issue. Personally with the number of things he has done that have been clear violations of the law over the years I think there is a good case for it. I mean, were not talking about a first time screw up here. I love how he sends Susan Rice out on the talk shows once again the day of the swap to make the rounds on the news outlets once again spewing BS saying this traitor soldier served with honor. You know when she hit's the air waves something fishy is going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited for targeting members rather than the Topic.
soufie Site Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what? He signed the NDAA 2013 expansion. In it is a clause that states anyone knowing or willfully offering aid or comfort to the enemy can be charged, held, even taken out with a drone.... without trial or privilege! If returning 5 bloodthirsty, America hating, leaders of the Taliban isn't offering aid or comfort to the enemy......what is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what? It determines on how the person who's drafting the impeachment looks at the issue. Personally with the number of things he has done that have been clear violations of the law over the years I think there is a good case for it. I mean, were not talking about a first time screw up here. I love how he sends Susan Rice out on the talk shows once again the day of the swap to make the rounds on the news outlets once again spewing BS saying this traitor soldier served with honor. You know when she hit's the air waves something fishy is going on. wonder if he'll send him back to his Unit? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what? It determines on how the person who's drafting the impeachment looks at the issue. Personally with the number of things he has done that have been clear violations of the law over the years I think there is a good case for it. I mean, were not talking about a first time screw up here. I love how he sends Susan Rice out on the talk shows once again the day of the swap to make the rounds on the news outlets once again spewing BS saying this traitor soldier served with honor. You know when she hit's the air waves something fishy is going on. wonder if he'll send him back to his Unit? Only after a big ceremony honoring his outstanding service, give him his back pay and 2 rank increases and praising Allah with him |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what? It determines on how the person who's drafting the impeachment looks at the issue. Personally with the number of things he has done that have been clear violations of the law over the years I think there is a good case for it. I mean, were not talking about a first time screw up here. I love how he sends Susan Rice out on the talk shows once again the day of the swap to make the rounds on the news outlets once again spewing BS saying this traitor soldier served with honor. You know when she hit's the air waves something fishy is going on. wonder if he'll send him back to his Unit? Only after a big ceremony honoring his outstanding service, give him his back pay and 2 rank increases and praising Allah with him How about handing out some Handgrenades? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 06/05/14 01:03 PM
|
|
Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what? It determines on how the person who's drafting the impeachment looks at the issue. Personally with the number of things he has done that have been clear violations of the law over the years I think there is a good case for it. I mean, were not talking about a first time screw up here. I love how he sends Susan Rice out on the talk shows once again the day of the swap to make the rounds on the news outlets once again spewing BS saying this traitor soldier served with honor. You know when she hit's the air waves something fishy is going on. wonder if he'll send him back to his Unit? Only after a big ceremony honoring his outstanding service, give him his back pay and 2 rank increases and praising Allah with him How about handing out some Handgrenades? He gave all those to the mexican cartels, swat, Al Qaeda and his public service agencies already as a bonus for the rocket launchers, fighter jets, drones, armored vehicles, and anti-tank weapons they purchased from Holder and Clinton/Kerry |
|
|
|
|
