Its Okay, He's A Democrat

Its Okay, He's A Democrat (Full Version)

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

Message

Sanity -> Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/21/2014 7:42:56 PM)
Our little big-eared "constitutional scholar' got schooled yet again quote: Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday. “[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.” The general rule is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, unless you are a Democrat. In that case, one is simply above the law.

Musicmystery -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/21/2014 9:22:11 PM)
Or a Republican committing treason in Iran-Contra.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 1:13:01 AM)
But then, seeing that the US is effectively a failed state with no functioning government, one can understand Obama having to resort to extraordinary measures to protect a US serviceman. [sm=dunno.gif]

DomKen -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 2:51:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Our little big-eared "constitutional scholar' got schooled yet again quote: Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday. “[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.” The general rule is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, unless you are a Democrat. In that case, one is simply above the law. Congress has one and only one option if it thinks the President has broken the law. The House is welcome to try.

SadistDave -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 3:38:24 AM)
As usual Ken, you couldn't be more wrong. There is more than one way to skin a Kenyan. Impeachment is not an option. It may become an option after the midterm elections, though. Should Harry Reid be demoted to Senate Minority Leader after the elections, then a whole range of options opens up. Almost all of them include the House and Senate overriding Presidential vetos and passing laws restricting Presidential powers. It's not all that uncommon, and should Barry O find himself without support in the Senate he will be effectively nullified. Considering how hostile the Oblamer Regime has been to the Republicans, it's foolish to expect them to line up to hold his hand through the final years of his Presidency. However, even if the Dems keep the Senate the House still controls the money. 2 more years of alienating the House Republicans will get him 2 more years of Congressional Gridlock. In order for the Bamster to leave office not looking like a complete schmuck, the Democrats need to take the House and hold the Senate. I don't see that happening after the first 2 years of this administration. If they do, then you can just plan on handing everything over to the Republicans in 2016, because 2 more years of Reid and Pelosi tag teaming America into the poorhouse will almost guarantee it. -SD-

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 4:30:39 AM)
Unless the Radicals gain 2/3 of both the House and Senate, veto overrides are no more a possibility than impeachment. As for 'alienating' the Radicals, Obama's skin color alone will take care of that, so why should he bother with them? I fondly imagine that after all the shutdowns and scandals and hysterics of the fanatical Right, dare we hope the Dems might pull off a miracle and regain the House? Sweet. [sm=fingers.gif]

Sanity -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 5:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Or a Republican committing treason in Iran-Contra. Then there were Abraham Lincolns' war crimes, too.

Musicmystery -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 5:48:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking But then, seeing that the US is effectively a failed state with no functioning government, one can understand Obama having to resort to extraordinary measures to protect a US serviceman. [sm=dunno.gif] The government functions well in several areas. It's why we still have services and security and the Internet. Congress, not so much on the legislative side. But even there, hardly "a failed state."

mnottertail -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 7:51:02 AM)
The opinion of the GAO is e pluribus unum. And it is simplistic. Don't know how it could possibly be perceived as authoritative.

MrRodgers -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/22/2014 10:46:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Or a Republican committing treason in Iran-Contra. I think there were 5 secretary level pardons on that one but of course, Reagan was the 'Teflon pres.' and repubs actually violating laws had become SOP for most of their party. I am sure the right will keep the rest of us abreast when there is a single dem pardon if such a hi-ranking official. Didn't Scooter Libby when taking the federal fall for outing a CIA agent, make a bundle off of his book, 'Fucked by Bush & Co.' ?

joether -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/23/2014 1:25:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Our little big-eared "constitutional scholar' got schooled yet again quote: Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday. “[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.” The general rule is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, unless you are a Democrat. In that case, one is simply above the law. Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem? Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest?

Sanity -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/23/2014 6:20:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem? Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest? Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat.

Sanity -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/23/2014 2:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The opinion of the GAO is e pluribus unum. And it is simplistic. Don't know how it could possibly be perceived as authoritative. Well yeah, of course. Barack is a Democrat, therefore it couldn't be any other way.

Musicmystery -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/23/2014 3:35:33 PM)
Of course you're clueless. He's a Democrat. Are the GAO all Democrats now too? Did you check under the bed for monsters?

joether -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/24/2014 11:25:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem? Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest? Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat. In this case it would be reasonable to say he would not be aware of such an abstract law. Given that Republican/Tea Partiers have been trying anything and everything to discredit and remove the President; its not hard to understand the motive for bringing up something this obscure. As I stated before, the Republican/Tea Party automatically take the position that is opposite of the Presidents. Even if its a position that they once held, finding the President agrees with it, and switches position immediately while telling their propaganda machines to 'inform' the public they never held those positions (i.e. much of the Affordable Care Act). Now if your accusing the President of direct knowledge and wrong doing; then you of course have the burden of evidence to bring forth.

Sanity -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/24/2014 11:43:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem? Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest? Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat. In this case it would be reasonable to say he would not be aware of such an abstract law. Given that Republican/Tea Partiers have been trying anything and everything to discredit and remove the President; its not hard to understand the motive for bringing up something this obscure. As I stated before, the Republican/Tea Party automatically take the position that is opposite of the Presidents. Even if its a position that they once held, finding the President agrees with it, and switches position immediately while telling their propaganda machines to 'inform' the public they never held those positions (i.e. much of the Affordable Care Act). Now if your accusing the President of direct knowledge and wrong doing; then you of course have the burden of evidence to bring forth. Barack signed that law. But its okay... Not a problem. He is a Democrat.

joether -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/24/2014 1:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem? Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest? Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat. In this case it would be reasonable to say he would not be aware of such an abstract law. Given that Republican/Tea Partiers have been trying anything and everything to discredit and remove the President; its not hard to understand the motive for bringing up something this obscure. As I stated before, the Republican/Tea Party automatically take the position that is opposite of the Presidents. Even if its a position that they once held, finding the President agrees with it, and switches position immediately while telling their propaganda machines to 'inform' the public they never held those positions (i.e. much of the Affordable Care Act). Now if your accusing the President of direct knowledge and wrong doing; then you of course have the burden of evidence to bring forth. Barack signed that law. But its okay... Not a problem. He is a Democrat. Ok, I'll got much slower in explaining this one to you.... The law was in place and signed by the President (some time after 7/24/2014). But its not the President that made the mistake. Maybe you should try reading the ACTUAL REPORT, from the OP's link of the DOCUMENT CITED. "As explained below, we conclude that DOD violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer." It was the Department of Defense's job to follow through on its duties under the present laws of the land; not the President's in this case. That you are saying its the President's fault simply shows you'll attack him on anything....even if...the evidence doesn't support it. If the DoD failed to notify the correct persons in a timely manner, that's its fault. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, was to help fund the US Military for 2014 for "...Operations and Maintenance...". Here is Section 8111: "Sec. 8111. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government." Where in the action does it state the DoD has to notify Congress on the action(s) it was about to take? In court, it be the prosecution (i.e. the GOP/TOP) that has to explain that the chain of events might have taken place AFTER the bill become law. And the defense has to do is show that 'the ball started rolling' before June of 2014. Of course, this would take place in a closed door session due to the material being presented is of a secret nature. Even if the DoD is found guilty, its....STILL....not the President's fault. Unless the GOP/TP can show a direct line of evidence that specifically links the President. Good Luck....

subrosaDom -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/24/2014 1:54:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Our little big-eared "constitutional scholar' got schooled yet again quote: Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday. “[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.” The general rule is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, unless you are a Democrat. In that case, one is simply above the law. Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem? Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest? With Barack, "The Buck Stops There."

subrosaDom -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/24/2014 1:56:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: joether Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem? Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest? Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat. In this case it would be reasonable to say he would not be aware of such an abstract law. Given that Republican/Tea Partiers have been trying anything and everything to discredit and remove the President; its not hard to understand the motive for bringing up something this obscure. As I stated before, the Republican/Tea Party automatically take the position that is opposite of the Presidents. Even if its a position that they once held, finding the President agrees with it, and switches position immediately while telling their propaganda machines to 'inform' the public they never held those positions (i.e. much of the Affordable Care Act). Now if your accusing the President of direct knowledge and wrong doing; then you of course have the burden of evidence to bring forth. Barack signed that law. But its okay... Not a problem. He is a Democrat. Ok, I'll got much slower in explaining this one to you.... The law was in place and signed by the President (some time after 7/24/2014). But its not the President that made the mistake. Maybe you should try reading the ACTUAL REPORT, from the OP's link of the DOCUMENT CITED. "As explained below, we conclude that DOD violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer." It was the Department of Defense's job to follow through on its duties under the present laws of the land; not the President's in this case. That you are saying its the President's fault simply shows you'll attack him on anything....even if...the evidence doesn't support it. If the DoD failed to notify the correct persons in a timely manner, that's its fault. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, was to help fund the US Military for 2014 for "...Operations and Maintenance...". Here is Section 8111: "Sec. 8111. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government." Where in the action does it state the DoD has to notify Congress on the action(s) it was about to take? In court, it be the prosecution (i.e. the GOP/TOP) that has to explain that the chain of events might have taken place AFTER the bill become law. And the defense has to do is show that 'the ball started rolling' before June of 2014. Of course, this would take place in a closed door session due to the material being presented is of a secret nature. Even if the DoD is found guilty, its....STILL....not the President's fault. Unless the GOP/TP can show a direct line of evidence that specifically links the President. Good Luck.... And Barack didn't know about the 30-day requirement? White House Counsel didn't tell him? DoD counsel didn't tell him? Of course not. Barack was blindsided. To anyone who is a submissive, imagine a Dom like Barack. Nothing is EVER his fault. He never knows about anything. He is always blindsided. And this isn't your dom, but the ostensible leader of the free world. Pathetic.

joether -> RE: Its Okay, He's A Democrat (8/24/2014 2:10:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom And Barack didn't know about the 30-day requirement? White House Counsel didn't tell him? DoD counsel didn't tell him? Of course not. Barack was blindsided. To anyone who is a submissive, imagine a Dom like Barack. Nothing is EVER his fault. He never knows about anything. He is always blindsided. And this isn't your dom, but the ostensible leader of the free world. Pathetic. You cant handle facts of the poster, so you attack the poster directly.... You have to show evidence that the President knew of the 30-day requirement. At current, there is no evidence to be had. The White House Counsel would likely not have to give him this information, because its within the realm of the DoD's duties. It would be the counsel of the DoD giving the DoD information on how the law would be followed. So perhaps the counsel of the DoD should be consulted to determine wrong doing if any. I know this will come as a complete shock to you, but, the President is a rather busy guy (unlike those Republican/Tea Partiers in Congress).

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875