BolshevikHunter
Rookie
- Banned
- #61
100% correct! ~BH
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Impeach obama
- Thread starter bigrebnc1775
- Start date
100% correct! ~BH
BolshevikHunter
Rookie
- Banned
- #63
Silliness. Do I support the actions taken? I haven't formed a strong opinion on that yet. But he has not overstepped any bounds.. And there are certainly no grounds for impeachment.
Oh really? So he bypassed Constitutional law by not bringing the issue before congresss, yet you say that he has not "overstepped any bounds"?
Hell, he is bombing innocent civillians, while supposedly trying to save innocent civillians, from a guy that he and others before him have been arming and paying off in billions for the last 25 years or more? Wake up robot. No offense, but wake yourself up and pay attention to exactly what is going on with these liars on both sides.
~BH
LibocalypseNow
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 12,337
- 1,368
- 48
Lets be careful not to start behaving like hysterical Lefty Wingers. They screeched that stupid shit for years. Yes he should have gone to Congress first but it's not an Impeachable Offense. So lets try to rise above the Lefty Wingers and be better than this. Lets not screech Impeachment when clearly there is no valid argument for Impeachment. Because when you do that you become just like the hysterical Lefty Wingers. I understand the frustration but lets try to rise above stuff like this. Hey this is just my opinion anyway. Have a good night.
3DG4life
I'm New.
- Mar 23, 2011
- 74
- 43
- 6
Silliness. Do I support the actions taken? I haven't formed a strong opinion on that yet. But he has not overstepped any bounds.. And there are certainly no grounds for impeachment.
Oh really? So he bypassed Constitutional law by not bringing the issue before congresss, yet you say that he has not "overstepped any bounds"?
Hell, he is bombing innocent civillians, while supposedly trying to save innocent civillians, from a guy that he and others before him have been arming and paying off in billions for the last 25 years or more? Wake up robot. No offense, but wake yourself up and pay attention to exactly what is going on with these liars on both sides.
All he had to do was write a letter to Congress. That has been done. True story, whether you agree with the actions or not.
- Thread starter
- #66
Nadar and Kucinich supporters are not his "base."
Kucinich isn't a liberal?
No, he is.
Obama's not a liberal.
Who put obama in the white house?
Who put obama in the white house?
Around 69 million Americans.
Silliness. Do I support the actions taken? I haven't formed a strong opinion on that yet. But he has not overstepped any bounds.. And there are certainly no grounds for impeachment.
Oh really? So he bypassed Constitutional law by not bringing the issue before congresss, yet you say that he has not "overstepped any bounds"?
Hell, he is bombing innocent civillians, while supposedly trying to save innocent civillians, from a guy that he and others before him have been arming and paying off in billions for the last 25 years or more? Wake up robot. No offense, but wake yourself up and pay attention to exactly what is going on with these liars on both sides.
All he had to do was write a letter to Congress. That has been done. True story, whether you agree with the actions or not.
According to the law as it is written, yes. The Constitutional argument is far from settled though. War Powers has never been challenged, yet. But it would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional.
But no one wants to upset the status quo.
hipeter924
Not a zombie yet
Well they are both "Liberals". Obama's a center left liberal..like Clinton. Kucinich is a far left liberal like Nader.
I wouldn't vote for either even if I could, Ron Paul is tolerable (meaning I would vote for him grudgingly) but I don't like him much.
Political Spectrum Quiz - Your Political Label
A far-right social libertarian. He is also a foreign policy centrist and culturally liberal. Scores (from 0 to 10):
Economic issues: +8.35 right
Social issues: +9.05 libertarian
Foreign policy: +0.43 neo-con
Cultural identification: +5.08 liberal
Category: political quizzes
I prefer this quiz, to the traditional left-right scale but that's just me.
Last edited:
LibocalypseNow
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 12,337
- 1,368
- 48
Seriously,lets not be like the hysterical Lefty Wingers. Lets not screech Impeachment when clearly there isn't an Impeachable Offense here. What he did was wrong but not worthy of Impeachment. Lets try to be better than the hysterical Lefty Wingers on this. No Impeachment.
- Banned
- #71
If there was a Republican president in the White House, you can be assured that our conservative friends would do a complete reversal. They would be criticizing Obama no matter what position he took.
You mean kind of like the vast Majority of Libs on this Board. Who screamed at us about Illegal Wars, and not using force unless there is an immediate threat to the US. Are now sitting by giving Obama a pass?
The vast majority of Libs on this board are giving Obama a pass on Libya? You sure you want to stand by that?
- Thread starter
- #72
No, he is.
Obama's not a liberal.
Who put obama in the white house?
Around 69 million Americans.
How many on the right or republicans vote for him?
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
If there was a Republican president in the White House, you can be assured that our conservative friends would do a complete reversal. They would be criticizing Obama no matter what position he took.
You mean kind of like the vast Majority of Libs on this Board. Who screamed at us about Illegal Wars, and not using force unless there is an immediate threat to the US. Are now sitting by giving Obama a pass?
The vast majority of Libs on this board are giving Obama a pass on Libya? You sure you want to stand by that?
The number of Libs on this board taking him to task for it. Seems a tad low compared to the number that claimed Iraq was "an illegal" war.
So yeah I do stand by it.
The same is true in the media. Sure some on the far left are mad at him about it, but where are the massive no war for oil protests? For the most part the left is silent on this. Unwilling to attack their Man for the same damn things they love to attack republicans for.
Namely attacking another country with out Congressional approval, and committing US forces to combat with out a clear end game.
Last edited:
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Oh really? So he bypassed Constitutional law by not bringing the issue before congresss, yet you say that he has not "overstepped any bounds"?
Hell, he is bombing innocent civillians, while supposedly trying to save innocent civillians, from a guy that he and others before him have been arming and paying off in billions for the last 25 years or more? Wake up robot. No offense, but wake yourself up and pay attention to exactly what is going on with these liars on both sides.
All he had to do was write a letter to Congress. That has been done. True story, whether you agree with the actions or not.
According to the law as it is written, yes. The Constitutional argument is far from settled though. War Powers has never been challenged, yet. But it would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional.
But no one wants to upset the status quo.
so, did you feel the same way when Bush did it? I am betting you did, because you are usually rather reasonable. But there damn sure are many Libs on this board who would be screaming from the roof tops about illegal war if anyone but Obama was behind this thing we are not suppose to call a war in Libya.
You people have a computer and google, but are you deaf and dumb?
"Jepic; a member of AboveTopSecret.com"
IAW the War Powers Act, the President can use force to enforce a UN resolution.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
The President only needs Congressional approval if he seeks to declare war. Absent seeking that declaration, he can do what he wants and the only thing the Congress can do is withhold funding. This happened in Korea, Vietman, first Gulf War. Happens all the time. Bosnia, Panama, Grenada. Hell, we send our military in far more often absent a declaration of war than we do with one.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
"Jepic; a member of AboveTopSecret.com",
1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
"Jepic; a member of AboveTopSecret.com",
"The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."
Since we follow the laws of the UN, Congress has basically given their permission for any military action deemed necessary by the UN. So, in that way, the War Powers Act is not violated by the President enforcing a no fly zone in Libya or anywhere else as long as it's approved by a UN resolution.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
"Jepic; a member of AboveTopSecret.com"
IAW the War Powers Act, the President can use force to enforce a UN resolution.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
The President only needs Congressional approval if he seeks to declare war. Absent seeking that declaration, he can do what he wants and the only thing the Congress can do is withhold funding. This happened in Korea, Vietman, first Gulf War. Happens all the time. Bosnia, Panama, Grenada. Hell, we send our military in far more often absent a declaration of war than we do with one.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
"Jepic; a member of AboveTopSecret.com",
1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
"Jepic; a member of AboveTopSecret.com",
"The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."
Since we follow the laws of the UN, Congress has basically given their permission for any military action deemed necessary by the UN. So, in that way, the War Powers Act is not violated by the President enforcing a no fly zone in Libya or anywhere else as long as it's approved by a UN resolution.
Doesn't President Obama need approval from congress for the No-Fly Zone?, page 1
LIBYA vs. IRAQ
They spoke loud and clear with their protesting the they needed our help.
Iraqis did not ask for our help. Bush's mission in Iraq was not to stop Saddam from killing his people but about WMDs which he did not have. Otherwise he did not give a damn about the people of Iraq. Saddam had been killing his people for decades. What did Bush do about the genocide in Africa?
Our mission in Iraq changed with the tide. WMDs, genocide, connection with Al Qaeda, Take your pick.
Our mission in Iraq has mutated
By IVAN GOLDMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST
One of the oddest features of our strange, strange war in Iraq is that we're still trying to figure out the mission. Oil? Religious zealotry? Revenge? Glory? What?
Some critics say President Bush has failed to define just what it is we're trying to do there, but he and his handlers have defined it over and over. The trouble is, just about everyone understands by now that they've been lying all along. So media questioners twist themselves into pretzels trying to figure out some polite way of asking them to tell the truth, just once.
Whether he is in the US, Libya or Brazil, Obama can lead. His visit to Brazil was more important then Libya. He took care of Libya before he left for Brazil.
Our mission in Iraq has mutated
They spoke loud and clear with their protesting the they needed our help.
Iraqis did not ask for our help. Bush's mission in Iraq was not to stop Saddam from killing his people but about WMDs which he did not have. Otherwise he did not give a damn about the people of Iraq. Saddam had been killing his people for decades. What did Bush do about the genocide in Africa?
Our mission in Iraq changed with the tide. WMDs, genocide, connection with Al Qaeda, Take your pick.
Our mission in Iraq has mutated
By IVAN GOLDMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST
One of the oddest features of our strange, strange war in Iraq is that we're still trying to figure out the mission. Oil? Religious zealotry? Revenge? Glory? What?
Some critics say President Bush has failed to define just what it is we're trying to do there, but he and his handlers have defined it over and over. The trouble is, just about everyone understands by now that they've been lying all along. So media questioners twist themselves into pretzels trying to figure out some polite way of asking them to tell the truth, just once.
Whether he is in the US, Libya or Brazil, Obama can lead. His visit to Brazil was more important then Libya. He took care of Libya before he left for Brazil.
Our mission in Iraq has mutated
Defense Secretary: US Expects to Hand Over the Lead of Libya Mission in 'Days' Sunday, March 20, 2011
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
Onboard a US Military Aircraft (AP) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition – probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO – "in a matter of days."
Defense Secretary: US Expects to Hand Over the Lead of Libya Mission in 'Days' | CNSnews.com
Sound like a planned mission to me.
--------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
Onboard a US Military Aircraft (AP) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition – probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO – "in a matter of days."
Defense Secretary: US Expects to Hand Over the Lead of Libya Mission in 'Days' | CNSnews.com
Sound like a planned mission to me.
--------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
- Thread starter
- #78
LIBYA vs. IRAQ
They spoke loud and clear with their protesting the they needed our help.
Iraqis did not ask for our help. Bush's mission in Iraq was not to stop Saddam from killing his people but about WMDs which he did not have. Otherwise he did not give a damn about the people of Iraq. Saddam had been killing his people for decades. What did Bush do about the genocide in Africa?
Our mission in Iraq changed with the tide. WMDs, genocide, connection with Al Qaeda, Take your pick.
Our mission in Iraq has mutated
By IVAN GOLDMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST
One of the oddest features of our strange, strange war in Iraq is that we're still trying to figure out the mission. Oil? Religious zealotry? Revenge? Glory? What?
Some critics say President Bush has failed to define just what it is we're trying to do there, but he and his handlers have defined it over and over. The trouble is, just about everyone understands by now that they've been lying all along. So media questioners twist themselves into pretzels trying to figure out some polite way of asking them to tell the truth, just once.
Whether he is in the US, Libya or Brazil, Obama can lead. His visit to Brazil was more important then Libya. He took care of Libya before he left for Brazil.
Our mission in Iraq has mutated
Obama can lead
obama couldn't lead a turds out of his asshole if he didn't have a telepromter instructing him how to do it.
No one has declared war on Libya, We along with 128 nations are on a multilaterally humanitarian mission led by UN and NATO. France and Britian taking the lead. And today Saudi Arabia agreed to sent in troops. Do that sound like an inpeachable offense by Obama who got the go ahead by the UN and did inform Congress via a letter to Boehner and Boehner responded as if he was deaf and dumb.
As Fighting continues in Libya; Boehner Demands Answers from Obama | C-SPAN
As Fighting continues in Libya; Boehner Demands Answers from Obama | C-SPAN
washamericom
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2010
- 13,703
- 1,904
- 245
- Banned
- #80
he should be tried for war crimes, starting an illegal war and lying to the public. i hope biden does what he says he will. it would be the first honest democrat move since truman
Similar threads
- Replies
- 350
- Views
- 5K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 148
- Views
- 471
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 194
- Replies
- 182
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 91
- Views
- 643
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-