RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why?

RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 11:59:37 AM)
He has not violated any constitution nor the war powers act. you might read them before you make such untutored announcements.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 12:13:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Bush got away with. Your boy can still find himself in some deep doo-doo. I wonder ... How many Republican Presidents have been impeached? None you say? That's because the Democrats respect the rule of law while the Republicans have twice attempted coup d'etats by means of impeachment.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 12:17:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Unfortunately, there is no answer. That the current president has violated the constitution and the war powers act (put there to allow more leeway to the C-I-C so that he need not "telegraph his punch" to enemies) is fact. There's no disputing it. I'll dispute your nonsense. There is not a single word in the Constitution limiting the President's use of the military. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, Congress does not have the power to limit the President in that way. Therefore the President cannot violate a law that has no effect.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 12:22:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Bush got away with. Your boy can still find himself in some deep doo-doo. I wonder ... How many Republican Presidents have been impeached? None you say? That's because the Democrats respect the rule of law while the Republicans have twice attempted coup d'etats by means of impeachment. A successful impeachment and conviction (the latter having never happened in so much as removal from office) wouldn't really be a "coup d'ètat" anymore because POTUS and VPOTUS come from the same party. Having said that, the only time anything near an attempted coup as you reference came close to happening was when congress tried to rush proceedings through on Tricky Dicky after VP Agnew had resigned. The removal of the president (when they first tried to push it through) would have resulted in the democratic SoH moving into the presidential spot. I think his name was Abrams or Abrahms (ETA: It was Albert; Carl Albert) but, I'm not sure. That's the closest we've ever come to a coup of that nature. No, this is about inconsistency based upon "party loyalty" and an abject failure of our leaders to follow through on the oaths that they swore. Peace and comfort, Michael

hlen5 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 12:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: propertyseeker82 Its funny....you all argue about the same things...but really whats the difference? Obama got us into wars too. What you have to do is look at the bigger picture. They work for a lot of the same people. And it aint we the people either one of them are working for. All their bickering is a big game. Its like a tv movie, except it only ends when people wake up and say fuck em both and switch to a third party...which probably wont happen. so until then, banks, unions, cartels, and oilmen own america. And not many of them are even americans. Nice post!! ETA: Welcome to the forums!

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 1:15:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Unfortunately, there is no answer. That the current president has violated the constitution and the war powers act (put there to allow more leeway to the C-I-C so that he need not "telegraph his punch" to enemies) is fact. There's no disputing it. What's puzzling is the way a person can be so passionate about a given issue (in this case; defending the constitution by putting forth a false accusation from a president that he doesn't like) but remains so silent when a president he "likes" (ostensibly) actually *does* violate the constitution and the WPA. I would think that the Oath Of Office for VPOTUS plainly spells out that he is oath-bound (if nothing else like "duty" or "honor") to take some kind of action in the face of these developments. Peace and comfort, Michael ETA: Actually, now that I think about it, his inaction could fit into the definition of "dereliction of duty" which is also an impeachable offense. So what you`re saying is.......the GOP controlled congress.....is to spineless,to shrimp-like,to cowardly....to do anything about it...... This is their pervue .....isn`t it?

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 1:27:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Bush got away with. Your boy can still find himself in some deep doo-doo. I wonder ... How many Republican Presidents have been impeached? None you say? That's because the Democrats respect the rule of law while the Republicans have twice attempted coup d'etats by means of impeachment. A successful impeachment and conviction (the latter having never happened in so much as removal from office) wouldn't really be a "coup d'ètat" anymore because POTUS and VPOTUS come from the same party. Having said that, the only time anything near an attempted coup as you reference came close to happening was when congress tried to rush proceedings through on Tricky Dicky after VP Agnew had resigned. The removal of the president (when they first tried to push it through) would have resulted in the democratic SoH moving into the presidential spot. I think his name was Abrams or Abrahms (ETA: It was Albert; Carl Albert) but, I'm not sure. That's the closest we've ever come to a coup of that nature. No, this is about inconsistency based upon "party loyalty" and an abject failure of our leaders to follow through on the oaths that they swore. Peace and comfort, Michael Do you know absolutely nothing about the Johnson impeachment?

jlf1961 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 1:38:04 PM)
How many Republican Presidents RESIGNED due to a scandal involving erased tapes, a break in and a coverup? How many Presidents were pardoned to keep them from being prosecuted?

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 1:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Unfortunately, there is no answer. That the current president has violated the constitution and the war powers act (put there to allow more leeway to the C-I-C so that he need not "telegraph his punch" to enemies) is fact. There's no disputing it. What's puzzling is the way a person can be so passionate about a given issue (in this case; defending the constitution by putting forth a false accusation from a president that he doesn't like) but remains so silent when a president he "likes" (ostensibly) actually *does* violate the constitution and the WPA. I would think that the Oath Of Office for VPOTUS plainly spells out that he is oath-bound (if nothing else like "duty" or "honor") to take some kind of action in the face of these developments. Peace and comfort, Michael ETA: Actually, now that I think about it, his inaction could fit into the definition of "dereliction of duty" which is also an impeachable offense. When we prosecute Reagan posthumously and Bush I for treason in the Iran-Contra affair, I'll listen to this.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 3:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Bush got away with. Your boy can still find himself in some deep doo-doo. I wonder ... How many Republican Presidents have been impeached? None you say? That's because the Democrats respect the rule of law while the Republicans have twice attempted coup d'etats by means of impeachment. A successful impeachment and conviction (the latter having never happened in so much as removal from office) wouldn't really be a "coup d'ètat" anymore because POTUS and VPOTUS come from the same party. Having said that, the only time anything near an attempted coup as you reference came close to happening was when congress tried to rush proceedings through on Tricky Dicky after VP Agnew had resigned. The removal of the president (when they first tried to push it through) would have resulted in the democratic SoH moving into the presidential spot. I think his name was Abrams or Abrahms (ETA: It was Albert; Carl Albert) but, I'm not sure. That's the closest we've ever come to a coup of that nature. No, this is about inconsistency based upon "party loyalty" and an abject failure of our leaders to follow through on the oaths that they swore. Peace and comfort, Michael Do you know absolutely nothing about the Johnson impeachment? Johnson was censured (I think); not removed from office. Peace and comfort, Michael

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 4:02:02 PM)
NM

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 5:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Bush got away with. Your boy can still find himself in some deep doo-doo. I wonder ... How many Republican Presidents have been impeached? None you say? That's because the Democrats respect the rule of law while the Republicans have twice attempted coup d'etats by means of impeachment. A successful impeachment and conviction (the latter having never happened in so much as removal from office) wouldn't really be a "coup d'ètat" anymore because POTUS and VPOTUS come from the same party. Having said that, the only time anything near an attempted coup as you reference came close to happening was when congress tried to rush proceedings through on Tricky Dicky after VP Agnew had resigned. The removal of the president (when they first tried to push it through) would have resulted in the democratic SoH moving into the presidential spot. I think his name was Abrams or Abrahms (ETA: It was Albert; Carl Albert) but, I'm not sure. That's the closest we've ever come to a coup of that nature. No, this is about inconsistency based upon "party loyalty" and an abject failure of our leaders to follow through on the oaths that they swore. Peace and comfort, Michael The impeachment was not successful. The Senate killed it. The only success newty and the republicans achieved was aiding and abetting bin-laden.........during their final preparations for the 9/11 attacks. Misery accomplished.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 5:44:35 PM)
Sorry. Impeachment means the charges. The charges were brought. The impeachment was "successful". There was no conviction. In that, you're correct. Peace and comfort, Michael

Winterapple -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 6:13:41 PM)
Impeachment means being formally accused of wrongdoing. Then a process rolls out and the person is tried and then convicted or acquitted. If the person is acquitted it means the charges didn't stick. Both Johnson and Clinton were acquitted and neither was removed from office. Nixon had he not quit before he was fired would have been removed from office. Read the articles of impeachment against Nixon and why they were brought about. There was no attempted coup against Nixon. He and his henchmen brought about his downfall. He was lucky Ford decided it was in the best interest of the country to pardon. There is also increasing evidence of Nixon's mental unfitness for office. In the second term he drank heavily and used sleeping pills. The joint chiefs were worried about national security if something occurred while he was zonked out. If your behaviour is weirding out Kissinger and Haig it's probably a good idea to leave office.

slvemike4u -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 6:35:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: failure-in-chief Oh good grief. Well, seems like he changed his view. Noticed that. But he's good at lecturing about hypocrisy. Feels he holds some sort of moral high ground while going about it too,quite pathetic actually [8\|]

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 8:13:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Bush got away with. Your boy can still find himself in some deep doo-doo. I wonder ... How many Republican Presidents have been impeached? None you say? That's because the Democrats respect the rule of law while the Republicans have twice attempted coup d'etats by means of impeachment. A successful impeachment and conviction (the latter having never happened in so much as removal from office) wouldn't really be a "coup d'ètat" anymore because POTUS and VPOTUS come from the same party. Having said that, the only time anything near an attempted coup as you reference came close to happening was when congress tried to rush proceedings through on Tricky Dicky after VP Agnew had resigned. The removal of the president (when they first tried to push it through) would have resulted in the democratic SoH moving into the presidential spot. I think his name was Abrams or Abrahms (ETA: It was Albert; Carl Albert) but, I'm not sure. That's the closest we've ever come to a coup of that nature. No, this is about inconsistency based upon "party loyalty" and an abject failure of our leaders to follow through on the oaths that they swore. Peace and comfort, Michael Do you know absolutely nothing about the Johnson impeachment? Johnson was censured (I think); not removed from office. Johnson was not censured. The impeachment trial failed by one vote to remove him from office. Now go find out who was poised to become POTUS if that senator had not voted his conscience. Then apologize for making up an outrageous claim against the Democratic Party.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 8:27:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Unfortunately, there is no answer. That the current president has violated the constitution and the war powers act (put there to allow more leeway to the C-I-C so that he need not "telegraph his punch" to enemies) is fact. There's no disputing it. I'll dispute your nonsense. There is not a single word in the Constitution limiting the President's use of the military. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, Congress does not have the power to limit the President in that way. Therefore the President cannot violate a law that has no effect. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm Quite an amazing read, actually. even though this is in response to actions in Afghanistan, it is informative in that pretty much all the power given to the CIC in the Constitution is to be used to protect American Citizens or American land. So, which was Obama doing in Libya or Uganda?

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 8:33:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Unfortunately, there is no answer. That the current president has violated the constitution and the war powers act (put there to allow more leeway to the C-I-C so that he need not "telegraph his punch" to enemies) is fact. There's no disputing it. I'll dispute your nonsense. There is not a single word in the Constitution limiting the President's use of the military. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, Congress does not have the power to limit the President in that way. Therefore the President cannot violate a law that has no effect. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm Quite an amazing read, actually. even though this is in response to actions in Afghanistan, it is informative in that pretty much all the power given to the CIC in the Constitution is to be used to protect American Citizens or American land. So, which was Obama doing in Libya or Uganda? Helping people who need/needed help.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 8:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, Congress does not have the power to limit the President in that way. Therefore the President cannot violate a law that has no effect. And yet we go through the rituals of it. Bush II took the time and effort to secure the blessing and endorsement of Congress before Iraq, President Obama had the lawyers craft him a "remote-control" exemption when he decided that Libya should be squarely on his head, and for the announcement of the the Ugandan activities, said he was acting in accordance with the law. I'm sorry, I just can't get interested in Biden's hypocrisy as the topic here. Even the old video of then Senator Obama, speaking as a scholar and professor of Constitutional law, stating that the President did not have the legal authority to do pretty much exactly what President Obama did with Libya doesn't surprise me. It's what I expect. So, Ken, as you try to shift the focal bar with your limited statement above, what is unconstitutional is for the President to make the declaration of war, by formal note, or by remote control deed, and advise Congress about having done it. That's what Obama's Secretary of Defense is saying this administration has the authority to do. That doesn't work for me.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/19/2012 8:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Helping people who need/needed help. By what authority vested in him by the Constitution of these United States?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375