100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
mods,, is this getting personal yet,,,?
just asking,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe he probably is a 'good' man
Im from the Anne Frank school of belief that MOST people actually are 'good' but even good people can be dead wrong,,,,,and even good people can be mistaken, and even good people dont know everything about everything and even less about many things |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bet your son is lovely,,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/10/12 11:35 AM
|
|
its interesting stuff,, for certain
makes me think of how employers have these long lists of ambiguous requirements that they can impose and implement at will giving them much more ROOM to discriminate behind the scenes while putting forth 'legitimate' reasons on the front ,,,,the ambiguous language of the political and legal world seems to be not much different,,, we dont mind your affairs,, its LYING about them thats impeachable... we dont mind about intervention thats needed, its not having EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT from us thats impeachable ,,,the circus continues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get it. He is a hard working man, a longtime politician, and a former vet (of four years) but I cant find what his NON POLITICAL background is,,,,,in terms of the constitution or the law (Education, experience,,,etc,,) Always shooting the messenger. :O I never said he "had one". I just gave you the link to his biography. :P In fact, I barely read it myself. xD I wasnt shooting at you hon, I was asking a genuine question concerning whether there is ANY background that would imply this particular politician had a superior knowledge of law or the constitution to validate the belief that he must have a solid case,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Jones didn't think he had a strong case, I don't believe he would have filed impeachment proceedings. Maybe a lawyer here on ming2 has a professional opinion? what is Jones' legal background people bring forth futile cases in the judicial system all the time, why would impeachment cases be different? http://jones.house.gov/Biography/ Just for you Harmony. :) He's presently ranked #17 out of 535 Congressman as the hardest working. :D I get it. He is a hard working man, a longtime politician, and a former vet (of four years) but I cant find what his NON POLITICAL background is,,,,,in terms of the constitution or the law (Education, experience,,,etc,,) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats a popular opinion, apparently I disagree as do many others but it will be up to 'professionals' to disect Id like to note though, that our military was ALREADY involved in delivering aide to Libya, which was being obstructed by Qhaddaffi forces,, so it wasnt exactly an 'unprovoked' occurrence ,,,but on with the show,,, ..but was the USA in that event, the aggressor or the defender? If the US openly sought out said engagement; it is an act of "war". If they defended themselves, then the act of war was done against us. After all, it's not officially "war" until it is "declared". according to military officials and commanders (who may or may not be revered depending upon whether they support the presidents decision,,lol) there were FIRST aide to Libyans there was SECOND non military actions through sanctions with the UN resolution (1970) there was THIRD, a no fly zone imposed to protect civilians in Libya which Qhaddaffi forces violated ..in my opinion,, we never went to 'War' with the country of Libya, but were in fact trying to help Libyan civilians we fired upon Qhaddaffi forces who were violating sanctions, obstructing us operations already in progress to aide civilians, and violating a no fly zone ordinance,,, A no fly zone is against ordinance, however, unless a direct aggressive act took place; there was no "act of war". A missile dropped, they opened fired <-- Acts. As dumb as it sounds, which I know it does and I don't entirely agree. Said occurrence is to be examined thoroughly as to the "nature" of violation. In which stupid irrelevant questions like: 1. Were these pilots rogue? 2. Or were they acting under direct government (leader) directives? 3. Why were they in said violation of respected air territory? Etc. As the military forces; just like local law enforcement; unless you are actively engaged, you have NO AUTHORITY to fire first. This, especially in foreign territories, in deemed an "Act of War". Retaliation, in itself, is not because you are then defending yourself FROM an act of war. Putting it more simply.. Lower the value, keep the concept. The Court of Law. "Innocent until proven guilty." Are they guilty of disturbing the "no fly zone"? Yes. Are they guilty of causing an "Act of War"? No. (If they didn't fire." "Punishment befitting the crime." In retrospect: If the US fired on said violator, and said violators made no aggressive actions; whoever gave the "order" to initiate said "firing" is the sole purpose responsible for aid "act of war". The first to fire - the aggressor. Look at robbery for a final example. If the police surround a thief that had broken into a store and he's brandishing a machine gun but the thief was caught outside the premises and nothing was stolen. He isn't charged with "Theft" he's just charged with "Breaking and Entering" possibly trespassing and the holding of illegal firearms, but w/e. Regardless, the police are NOT permitted to just OPEN fire once they see the culprit, correct? Now if he fire first; now it's a whole new ballgame, because he is now the aggressor. Forgot to add: If there was no war act on behalf of the planes, then someone gave the commander of US forces in Libya the "OK" to open fire. This is deemed an "Act of War". There's no way said act was pushed through Congress that swiftly, so, someone somewhere made a "judgement" call. That, in itself, is the criminal/crime. and what level of proof will be needed / required to ***** the standard "If the US fired on said violator, and said violators made no aggressive actions; whoever gave the "order" to initiate said "firing" is the sole purpose responsible for aid "act of war". is it likely, we had troops protecting a no fly zone who werent fired on at all but just began firing at others indiscriminately? wihtout provocation? and what is provocation? if a police officer has a car coming toward him, he can usually shoot the driver if I am in a no fly zone as a pilot and another pilot is heading directly at me,,,,, do I have a reasonable expectation of harm to protect myself? ,,,,,If it werent so sad, imagining the circus involved in trying to prove this case,,and the further vacation congress will get from actually ACCOMPLISHING anything, ID be laughing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Jones didn't think he had a strong case, I don't believe he would have filed impeachment proceedings. Maybe a lawyer here on ming2 has a professional opinion? what is Jones' legal background people bring forth futile cases in the judicial system all the time, why would impeachment cases be different? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats a popular opinion, apparently I disagree as do many others but it will be up to 'professionals' to disect Id like to note though, that our military was ALREADY involved in delivering aide to Libya, which was being obstructed by Qhaddaffi forces,, so it wasnt exactly an 'unprovoked' occurrence ,,,but on with the show,,, ..but was the USA in that event, the aggressor or the defender? If the US openly sought out said engagement; it is an act of "war". If they defended themselves, then the act of war was done against us. After all, it's not officially "war" until it is "declared". according to military officials and commanders (who may or may not be revered depending upon whether they support the presidents decision,,lol) there were FIRST aide to Libyans there was SECOND non military actions through sanctions with the UN resolution (1970) there was THIRD, a no fly zone imposed to protect civilians in Libya which Qhaddaffi forces violated ..in my opinion,, we never went to 'War' with the country of Libya, but were in fact trying to help Libyan civilians we fired upon Qhaddaffi forces who were violating sanctions, obstructing us operations already in progress to aide civilians, and violating a no fly zone ordinance,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah well That is better then helping Ppl with no jobs or Helping the Human rights of the ppl of pine ridge but Hey let's get paid To impeach a prez... problem is, no war was declared, and article four doesnt DEFINE what a high crime or misdemeanor is,,,,, another problem is that army nor navy was used (nor 'states militia'), which under the constitution are the two branches he is EXPLICITLY commmander in chief of it mentions nothing of the AIR FORCES which accompanied other UN forces,,,,, Actually, as commander in cheif all he can do without the approval of congress is position and move the military. He cannot open fire on another country......he can return fire if fired upon but not give the okay to fire or make war upon another..... who did he 'make war' on,,,? dont military commanders give 'orders' to fire,,,,? They do but only with congressional approval to give the order to fire upon another......they need approval to give those orders.... is that in the constitution? I remember that a president cant 'declare war' without approval I dont remember any of these other things though,,,,, Firing on another or a country is considered an "Act Of War", firing in defense of being fired is not an Act of War under the articles of the military and hence what constitutes an Act of War...... according to what OFFICIAL document is that considered an act of war is an act of war the same as DECLARATION of war because I can cite many examples of such an 'act of war' that wont be on the list of countries we have gone to war with,,,,, Well our military engaged in war without the United States declaring war.........which means that Obama openly engaged in war without consent or declaring which must be done by congress to engage in war.........and this was open war...... thats a popular opinion, apparently I disagree as do many others but it will be up to 'professionals' to disect Id like to note though, that our military was ALREADY involved in delivering aide to Libya, which was being obstructed by Qhaddaffi forces,, so it wasnt exactly an 'unprovoked' occurrence ,,,but on with the show,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah well That is better then helping Ppl with no jobs or Helping the Human rights of the ppl of pine ridge but Hey let's get paid To impeach a prez... problem is, no war was declared, and article four doesnt DEFINE what a high crime or misdemeanor is,,,,, another problem is that army nor navy was used (nor 'states militia'), which under the constitution are the two branches he is EXPLICITLY commmander in chief of it mentions nothing of the AIR FORCES which accompanied other UN forces,,,,, Actually, as commander in cheif all he can do without the approval of congress is position and move the military. He cannot open fire on another country......he can return fire if fired upon but not give the okay to fire or make war upon another..... who did he 'make war' on,,,? dont military commanders give 'orders' to fire,,,,? They do but only with congressional approval to give the order to fire upon another......they need approval to give those orders.... is that in the constitution? I remember that a president cant 'declare war' without approval I dont remember any of these other things though,,,,, Firing on another or a country is considered an "Act Of War", firing in defense of being fired is not an Act of War under the articles of the military and hence what constitutes an Act of War...... according to what OFFICIAL document is that considered an act of war is an act of war the same as DECLARATION of war because I can cite many examples of such an 'act of war' that wont be on the list of countries we have gone to war with,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is that in the constitution? I remember that a president cant 'declare war' without approval I dont remember any of these other things though,,,,, Harmony, you never watched war movies? Top Gun even? Even Pilots aren't allowed to engage an enemy plane without giving them a warning while contacting and going through the proper channels. Only time this differentiates is when, said plane, comes under attack and has received no response; this is then deemed "self defense" and is pre-OKAY'd. Not sure about "constitution" but that's how it is in the military. Even during war. A commander will receive orders from a higher up, who received his orders from a higher up. Someone at the highest level gives out an "objective". That "objective" is handed down through the channels. Eventually it reaches the "on site" commander. He devises the plan/strategy to seek this "objective". Anything that derives and/or is marked as "extra" from this original objective, is called in. Ex. Objective - Take this location from enemy A. Plan A - Goes into action. Extra - Enemy B shows up. Request - Engage, Disengage, Ignore. New Objective - Alteration/addition to plan A. Plan A - Now becomes plan B. etc. I get that its not 'movie like', IM asking where it is 'unconstitutional' though,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah well That is better then helping Ppl with no jobs or Helping the Human rights of the ppl of pine ridge but Hey let's get paid To impeach a prez... problem is, no war was declared, and article four doesnt DEFINE what a high crime or misdemeanor is,,,,, another problem is that army nor navy was used (nor 'states militia'), which under the constitution are the two branches he is EXPLICITLY commmander in chief of it mentions nothing of the AIR FORCES which accompanied other UN forces,,,,, Actually, as commander in cheif all he can do without the approval of congress is position and move the military. He cannot open fire on another country......he can return fire if fired upon but not give the okay to fire or make war upon another..... who did he 'make war' on,,,? dont military commanders give 'orders' to fire,,,,? They do but only with congressional approval to give the order to fire upon another......they need approval to give those orders.... is that in the constitution? I remember that a president cant 'declare war' without approval I dont remember any of these other things though,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah well That is better then helping Ppl with no jobs or Helping the Human rights of the ppl of pine ridge but Hey let's get paid To impeach a prez... problem is, no war was declared, and article four doesnt DEFINE what a high crime or misdemeanor is,,,,, another problem is that army nor navy was used (nor 'states militia'), which under the constitution are the two branches he is EXPLICITLY commmander in chief of it mentions nothing of the AIR FORCES which accompanied other UN forces,,,,, Actually, as commander in cheif all he can do without the approval of congress is position and move the military. He cannot open fire on another country......he can return fire if fired upon but not give the okay to fire or make war upon another..... who did he 'make war' on,,,? dont military commanders give 'orders' to fire,,,,? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol,,,well they did it over their 'obamacare' disapproval,,,didnt they?
people have to get active, use the power of their pocketbook and their voices to get things done ,, instead of continuing to let others be made into patsies,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
problem is, no war was declared, and article four doesnt DEFINE what a high crime or misdemeanor is,,,,, Article 4 doesn't.. But Congress has. And to sum it up, the best way possible. Rewind. 1970. A then Congressman, Gerald Ford said: "..an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." This comment was in regards to the "unconfirmed" analysis of what constituted a "high crime and misdemeanor". Somewhat relevant to his case. Andrew Johnson's impeachment. Further note. During Nixon's impeachment, let it be known that they did NOT cite him for tax evasion. Why? Because as they put it.. "This committee does not believe that is an impeachable offense." well, I guess they will stop at nothing' its still just as futile as the attempt to 'prove' he isnt american born or christian I doubt most americans will support it, and Im twice as doubtful the Senate would get a two third majority needed to 'convict' I also doubt whatever 'offense' they come up with would have a legal precedent as a high crime when committed by any other president in history ,,,,but whatever floats their desperate little boats,, for there to be so much HATRED of this President that they go to such EXTREMES,,,,history continues to be written and its amazing to be a part of it OBAMA 2012! No offense to your Bama-psyche.. I honestly hope he doesn't get re-elected. Not cause I have a vendetta or ill-feeling towards the guy. But if he is re-elected, it will be more of the same from his surrounding political congress douches. Meaning: They'll be focusing more of arguing him whether his cause is good or not and be far more focused on removing him from office. The other reason is: Biden, or whatever that VP's name is. He's a coward, an ***hole, and totally unfitting for his position let alone the presidency. They impeach Obama, he becomes president.. ..then we're really setting up to fail. So many things do these congressmen need to actually focus on, but most of their attention just seems to be ticking of Obama anyway they possibly can. Whether impeach or argue. It's getting redundant and annoying. so get rid of the Congressmen who are not doing their job there are many opportunities to do so,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah well That is better then helping Ppl with no jobs or Helping the Human rights of the ppl of pine ridge but Hey let's get paid To impeach a prez... Your examples given are some of the very reasons this is looooooong overdue. Then add the destruction of the constitution and bill of rights, claiming dictatorial power over the lives and freedom of American citizens, bowing to his king in Egypt, unconstitutional and treasonist position on UN concil.... need I go on? The abuses and criminal acts are many.... my question would be "why has it taken so long for anyone to care?" I keep hearing this claim. How has THIS PRESIDENT specifically destroyed the Constitution or bill of rights? How has this president specifically 'claimed' dictatorial power over american citizens? (If mentioning the NDAA, why wasnt the INITIATOR of said power George Bush endited, when he originally imparted that same power to the presidential office with the AUMF?) Since when is a bow a HIGH OFFENSE (If mentioning Egypt, why would congress consider it a high offense when congress approves Egypts status as an MNNA to receive american military and financial benefit?) What part of the constitution denies a President any part of the UN council? ,,,if the question is why has it taken so long for congress to be offended by such (longstanding) presidential powers,,,,,,, I think I know the answer,,,,,, on with making their 'example' of this President,,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/10/12 09:35 AM
|
|
problem is, no war was declared, and article four doesnt DEFINE what a high crime or misdemeanor is,,,,, Article 4 doesn't.. But Congress has. And to sum it up, the best way possible. Rewind. 1970. A then Congressman, Gerald Ford said: "..an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." This comment was in regards to the "unconfirmed" analysis of what constituted a "high crime and misdemeanor". Somewhat relevant to his case. Andrew Johnson's impeachment. Further note. During Nixon's impeachment, let it be known that they did NOT cite him for tax evasion. Why? Because as they put it.. "This committee does not believe that is an impeachable offense." well, I guess they will stop at nothing' its still just as futile as the attempt to 'prove' he isnt american born or christian I doubt most americans will support it, and Im twice as doubtful the Senate would get a two third majority needed to 'convict' I also doubt whatever 'offense' they come up with would have a legal precedent as a high crime when committed by any other president in history ,,,,but whatever floats their desperate little boats,, for there to be so much HATRED of this President that they go to such EXTREMES,,,,history continues to be written and its amazing to be a part of it OBAMA 2012! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
online stuff
|
|
it depends, my last marriage began as 'online stuff' if it is a starting point, there are ways to tell, and I would take it seriously if it is just a mutual hobby, a time passer, there are ways to tell that too and I wouldnt take it too seriously so I imagine we have to assess each one of our online men individually on that "reality scale" I guess I would take it more seriously if "he" had a notion to meet... hey you met your spouse online seriously? that's a statement right there yeah, its really just a first step, like meeting in a bar it still requires follow up and we have to be able to tell those planning to follow up from those not planning to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
online stuff
|
|
it depends, my last marriage began as 'online stuff'
if it is a starting point, there are ways to tell, and I would take it seriously if it is just a mutual hobby, a time passer, there are ways to tell that too and I wouldnt take it too seriously |
|
|
|
|
Previous
