The Problem with Barack Obama... to me...

[mudwhistle]

Hillary was reviled more. The change didn't take place until after Obama won the Presidency. Hillary is/was basically out of the picture for the time being. If Hillary should run again, Obama will be considered a saint again compared to the "she-devil".



Damn! I thought I was the only person that realize that we really cannot win this war... the War on Terrorism. Militarily we are likely to win every battle (WTC was no battle, it was slaughter) but in the long run our "goals" cannot be met.



Impeachment is the proceeding that leads the a Presidential trial which did happen to him. It lead to his trial and to his acquittal... but hey, sometimes even the most guilty beat the rap.

But, now to the comment I really wanted to make, presumed innocent is a fantasy. The accused is never presumed innocent by the prosecutors... usually not even after acquittal.

Immie

like I said, never convicted of any felony, or even charged with one.

and like it or not, one of the foundations of our system of justice is the presumed innocence of accused.

deal with it.

Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury.

and Bush get's the same quarter from the left????? He hasn't EVER been charged with any felonies yet the left wing loon bozo's say he's guilty of everything from drug trafficking to murder.

Well he lied and people died!!!!


Obama just didn't do anything for 3 months and 115 people died.

 

[G.T.]

Well he lied and people died!!!!


Obama just didn't do anything for 3 months and 115 people died.

Well if you think about it, that's an unfair criticism.

Like this: If pre-emptive fighting (fighting Terror over there, to avoid it HERE, in the future) causes US deaths, but those deaths are justified by the future lives it will save...............then such is the same with using your brain and contemplating the most comprehensive strategy possible. 115 have died, but putting many man-hours of critical thinking into a comprehensive strategy instead of going half-assed may have saved many, many more.

 

[JW Frogen]

No, he just jerked off on her dress and crammed a cigar case up her ass.

Yes, but he did not smoke it.

I hope.

 

[Immanuel]

And I can only imagine the criticism SHE would be taking on her every move. Hillary was as much reviled by the rabid right as Obama during the campaign. Remember the website STOP HER NOW! ?? Ha...be careful what you wish for cons.

Hillary was reviled more. The change didn't take place until after Obama won the Presidency. Hillary is/was basically out of the picture for the time being. If Hillary should run again, Obama will be considered a saint again compared to the "she-devil".



Damn! I thought I was the only person that realize that we really cannot win this war... the War on Terrorism. Militarily we are likely to win every battle (WTC was no battle, it was slaughter) but in the long run our "goals" cannot be met.

never once convicted or even charged with a felony....

and presumed innocent until proven guilty of any felony...right?

Impeachment is the proceeding that leads the a Presidential trial which did happen to him. It lead to his trial and to his acquittal... but hey, sometimes even the most guilty beat the rap.

But, now to the comment I really wanted to make, presumed innocent is a fantasy. The accused is never presumed innocent by the prosecutors... usually not even after acquittal.

Immie

like I said, never convicted of any felony, or even charged with one.

and like it or not, one of the foundations of our system of justice is the presumed innocence of accused.

deal with it.

Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury.

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, because I am not arguing with you, but I think the impeachment (and he was impeached) was the charge, so he was charged. He was not convicted. What I am trying to say is that he was impeached, but he was found "not guilty" and was therefore not removed from office. I may be wrong on this, but that was my understanding when these precedures were undertaken.

You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. Read what I said. I'm not except in the statement where you state he was not charged, the impeachment was the charge. A person can be charged with a crime... that doesn't make him guilty. If I recall correctly, the charge was perjury and to my knowledge perjury is a felony. So, by being impeached (charged) for perjury, your statement is technically wrong. He was NOT, however, convicted of the crime.

The one other issue I disagree with you is that as one who was falsely accused of a crime that despite the fact that one of the foundations of our system of justice is purported to be "presumed innocent" it is not really the case. Anyone accused of a crime knows that they are never presumed innocent. Not by the prosecution... not by the media... and most likely not by the jury of their peers. They have to prove their innocence because no one else will.

Immie

 

[maineman]

Hillary was reviled more. The change didn't take place until after Obama won the Presidency. Hillary is/was basically out of the picture for the time being. If Hillary should run again, Obama will be considered a saint again compared to the "she-devil".



Damn! I thought I was the only person that realize that we really cannot win this war... the War on Terrorism. Militarily we are likely to win every battle (WTC was no battle, it was slaughter) but in the long run our "goals" cannot be met.



Impeachment is the proceeding that leads the a Presidential trial which did happen to him. It lead to his trial and to his acquittal... but hey, sometimes even the most guilty beat the rap.

But, now to the comment I really wanted to make, presumed innocent is a fantasy. The accused is never presumed innocent by the prosecutors... usually not even after acquittal.

Immie

like I said, never convicted of any felony, or even charged with one.

and like it or not, one of the foundations of our system of justice is the presumed innocence of accused.

deal with it.

Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury.

and Bush get's the same quarter from the left????? He hasn't EVER been charged with any felonies yet the left wing loon bozo's say he's guilty of everything from drug trafficking to murder.

bullshit. The only thing I hold against Bush was taking his eye off the ball at Tora Bora and for lying about the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and using that lie to rush us into a war that was unnecessary and counterproductive.

The FACT is: righties on here who say that Clinton was guilty of the crime of perjury are wrong.

 

[maineman]

Hillary was reviled more. The change didn't take place until after Obama won the Presidency. Hillary is/was basically out of the picture for the time being. If Hillary should run again, Obama will be considered a saint again compared to the "she-devil".



Damn! I thought I was the only person that realize that we really cannot win this war... the War on Terrorism. Militarily we are likely to win every battle (WTC was no battle, it was slaughter) but in the long run our "goals" cannot be met.



Impeachment is the proceeding that leads the a Presidential trial which did happen to him. It lead to his trial and to his acquittal... but hey, sometimes even the most guilty beat the rap.

But, now to the comment I really wanted to make, presumed innocent is a fantasy. The accused is never presumed innocent by the prosecutors... usually not even after acquittal.

Immie

like I said, never convicted of any felony, or even charged with one.

and like it or not, one of the foundations of our system of justice is the presumed innocence of accused.

deal with it.

Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury.

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, because I am not arguing with you, but I think the impeachment (and he was impeached) was the charge, so he was charged. He was not convicted. What I am trying to say is that he was impeached, but he was found "not guilty" and was therefore not removed from office. I may be wrong on this, but that was my understanding when these precedures were undertaken.

You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. Read what I said. I'm not except in the statement where you state he was not charged, the impeachment was the charge. A person can be charged with a crime... that doesn't make him guilty. If I recall correctly, the charge was perjury and to my knowledge perjury is a felony. So, by being impeached (charged) for perjury, your statement is technically wrong. He was NOT, however, convicted of the crime.

The one other issue I disagree with you is that as one who was falsely accused of a crime that despite the fact that one of the foundations of our system of justice is purported to be "presumed innocent" it is not really the case. Anyone accused of a crime knows that they are never presumed innocent. Not by the prosecution... not by the media... and most likely not by the jury of their peers. They have to prove their innocence because no one else will.

Immie

I said he was not charged with a felony... and that is a fact. Being charged with a felony is something that happens in criminal court. being charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" is something that happens in the halls of congress.

 

[Immanuel]

Here is what I remember and am attempting to say Maineman:

Impeachment Resources: A Look at the Impeachment Process (Resources, ABA Division for Public Education)

Q. What is the basic impeachment process?
A. The basic impeachment process is spelled out in the Constitution. In essence, the House of Representatives functions something like a grand jury, in that it weighs the evidence and determines whether it is sufficient to justify articles of impeachment (similar to an indictment) and a trial to determine whether the charged official is guilty or not guilty. This trial is held in the Senate, with the Senators serving as jurors. The basic process, then, is in broad outline similar to the process for bringing criminal charges against an individual through the judicial system. If impeachment proceedings are brought against the President, the Chief Justice presides, adding a "judicial" aspect.

However, principal actors in the process are not ordinary citizens acting as grand jurors and trial jurors, but rather political figures--elected officials who serve by virtue of their position, and not because they have been selected by the courts to serve in judgment. That inevitably introduces a "political" element not directly present in judicial trials.

So, where I understand you to be incorrect with your statement is only in the part where you say that he was not charged. An indictment is a charge. It does not mean that he is guilty. It only means that he was charged with the crime.

That is all I am saying.

I AM NOT SAYING HE WAS GUILTY OF ANYTHING.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

like I said, never convicted of any felony, or even charged with one.

and like it or not, one of the foundations of our system of justice is the presumed innocence of accused.

deal with it.

Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury.

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, because I am not arguing with you, but I think the impeachment (and he was impeached) was the charge, so he was charged. He was not convicted. What I am trying to say is that he was impeached, but he was found "not guilty" and was therefore not removed from office. I may be wrong on this, but that was my understanding when these precedures were undertaken.

You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. Read what I said. I'm not except in the statement where you state he was not charged, the impeachment was the charge. A person can be charged with a crime... that doesn't make him guilty. If I recall correctly, the charge was perjury and to my knowledge perjury is a felony. So, by being impeached (charged) for perjury, your statement is technically wrong. He was NOT, however, convicted of the crime.

The one other issue I disagree with you is that as one who was falsely accused of a crime that despite the fact that one of the foundations of our system of justice is purported to be "presumed innocent" it is not really the case. Anyone accused of a crime knows that they are never presumed innocent. Not by the prosecution... not by the media... and most likely not by the jury of their peers. They have to prove their innocence because no one else will.

Immie

I said he was not charged with a felony... and that is a fact. Being charged with a felony is something that happens in criminal court. being charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" is something that happens in the halls of congress.

Is Perjury a felony?

Was not the indictment for Perjury?

Maybe that is where I am mistaken?

Where the trial takes place is irrelevant.

Edit:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/indictment

Law A written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury.

I suppose that the one place you can contend with my remarks is that the ABA link states (similar to an indictment) but then I would say you are just nitpicking.

Immie

 

[maineman]

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, because I am not arguing with you, but I think the impeachment (and he was impeached) was the charge, so he was charged. He was not convicted. What I am trying to say is that he was impeached, but he was found "not guilty" and was therefore not removed from office. I may be wrong on this, but that was my understanding when these precedures were undertaken.

You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. Read what I said. I'm not except in the statement where you state he was not charged, the impeachment was the charge. A person can be charged with a crime... that doesn't make him guilty. If I recall correctly, the charge was perjury and to my knowledge perjury is a felony. So, by being impeached (charged) for perjury, your statement is technically wrong. He was NOT, however, convicted of the crime.

The one other issue I disagree with you is that as one who was falsely accused of a crime that despite the fact that one of the foundations of our system of justice is purported to be "presumed innocent" it is not really the case. Anyone accused of a crime knows that they are never presumed innocent. Not by the prosecution... not by the media... and most likely not by the jury of their peers. They have to prove their innocence because no one else will.

Immie

I said he was not charged with a felony... and that is a fact. Being charged with a felony is something that happens in criminal court. being charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" is something that happens in the halls of congress.

Is Perjury a felony?

Was not the indictment for Perjury?

Maybe that is where I am mistaken?

Where the trial takes place is irrelevant.

Edit:

indictment - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

Law A written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury.

I suppose that the one place you can contend with my remarks is that the ABA link states (similar to an indictment) but then I would say you are just nitpicking.

Immie

nitpicking? when other people say that Clinton was guilty of the crime of perjury, I merely point out that they are lying sacks of shit.... hardly nitpicking.... merely fact.

 

[Immanuel]

I said he was not charged with a felony... and that is a fact. Being charged with a felony is something that happens in criminal court. being charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" is something that happens in the halls of congress.

Is Perjury a felony?

Was not the indictment for Perjury?

Maybe that is where I am mistaken?

Where the trial takes place is irrelevant.

Edit:

indictment - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

Law A written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury.

I suppose that the one place you can contend with my remarks is that the ABA link states (similar to an indictment) but then I would say you are just nitpicking.

Immie

nitpicking? when other people say that Clinton was guilty of the crime of perjury, I merely point out that they are lying sacks of shit.... hardly nitpicking.... merely fact.

Ah excuse me?

I would love to see where I stated that President Clinton was guilty of anything?

Please quote me or take back your accusation that I am a lying sack of shit.

Immie

 

[maineman]

Is Perjury a felony?

Was not the indictment for Perjury?

Maybe that is where I am mistaken?

Where the trial takes place is irrelevant.

Edit:

indictment - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education



I suppose that the one place you can contend with my remarks is that the ABA link states (similar to an indictment) but then I would say you are just nitpicking.

Immie

nitpicking? when other people say that Clinton was guilty of the crime of perjury, I merely point out that they are lying sacks of shit.... hardly nitpicking.... merely fact.

Ah excuse me?

I would love to see where I stated that President Clinton was guilty of anything?

Please quote me or take back your accusation that I am a lying sack of shit.

Immie

I never said that YOU were, so there is nothing to take back, old friend!

 

[Immanuel]

nitpicking? when other people say that Clinton was guilty of the crime of perjury, I merely point out that they are lying sacks of shit.... hardly nitpicking.... merely fact.

Ah excuse me?

I would love to see where I stated that President Clinton was guilty of anything?

Please quote me or take back your accusation that I am a lying sack of shit.

Immie

I never said that YOU were, so there is nothing to take back, old friend!

I misunderstood you then. Maybe it is because I was not following your prior conversation with others.

It seemed to me that you had read my points as if I were saying he was guilty and that I was lying.

The way I read this whole thing is that he was charged with Perjury and that Perjury is a felony. He was found NOT Guilty... end of story. I don't see any difference between the idea of impeachment and trial by a jury of his peers (Senators) and being charged in a criminal court.

His status at the time was the reason for the Jurisdiction belonging to the House of Reps rather than the criminal courts but the results are the same: charged with a crime (perjury in this case), trial and then either acquittal or conviction.

Immie

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Ah excuse me?

I would love to see where I stated that President Clinton was guilty of anything?

Please quote me or take back your accusation that I am a lying sack of shit.

Immie

I never said that YOU were, so there is nothing to take back, old friend!

I misunderstood you then. Maybe it is because I was not following your prior conversation with others.

It seemed to me that you had read my points as if I were saying he was guilty and that I was lying.

The way I read this whole thing is that he was charged with Perjury and that Perjury is a felony. He was found NOT Guilty... end of story. I don't see any difference between the idea of impeachment and trial by a jury of his peers (Senators) and being charged in a criminal court.

His status at the time was the reason for the Jurisdiction belonging to the House of Reps rather than the criminal courts but the results are the same: charged with a crime (perjury in this case), trial and then either acquittal or conviction.

Immie

This is correct...and Clinton was disbarred for it.
Bill Clinton the lawyer? Ban ending - Politics- msnbc.com

 

[Immanuel]

I never said that YOU were, so there is nothing to take back, old friend!

I misunderstood you then. Maybe it is because I was not following your prior conversation with others.

It seemed to me that you had read my points as if I were saying he was guilty and that I was lying.

The way I read this whole thing is that he was charged with Perjury and that Perjury is a felony. He was found NOT Guilty... end of story. I don't see any difference between the idea of impeachment and trial by a jury of his peers (Senators) and being charged in a criminal court.

His status at the time was the reason for the Jurisdiction belonging to the House of Reps rather than the criminal courts but the results are the same: charged with a crime (perjury in this case), trial and then either acquittal or conviction.

Immie

This is correct...and Clinton was disbarred for it.
Bill Clinton the lawyer? Ban ending - Politics- msnbc.com

Even that though does not mean that he was guilty of the crime.

The standards to which attorneys are held by the states for the right to practice in the state are different than that of a court of law. Supposedly attorneys are held to higher standards... but then you look at all the attorneys in Congress and that idea is simply shattered!

Immie

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I misunderstood you then. Maybe it is because I was not following your prior conversation with others.

It seemed to me that you had read my points as if I were saying he was guilty and that I was lying.

The way I read this whole thing is that he was charged with Perjury and that Perjury is a felony. He was found NOT Guilty... end of story. I don't see any difference between the idea of impeachment and trial by a jury of his peers (Senators) and being charged in a criminal court.

His status at the time was the reason for the Jurisdiction belonging to the House of Reps rather than the criminal courts but the results are the same: charged with a crime (perjury in this case), trial and then either acquittal or conviction.

Immie

This is correct...and Clinton was disbarred for it.
Bill Clinton the lawyer? Ban ending - Politics- msnbc.com

Even that though does not mean that he was guilty of the crime.

The standards to which attorneys are held by the states for the right to practice in the state are different than that of a court of law. Supposedly attorneys are held to higher standards... but then you look at all the attorneys in Congress and that idea is simply shattered!

Immie

Absolutely correct. He was aquitted in the Senate but one cannot have "stains" on their record and practice law before the Supreme Court.

 

[Immanuel]

This is correct...and Clinton was disbarred for it.
Bill Clinton the lawyer? Ban ending - Politics- msnbc.com

Even that though does not mean that he was guilty of the crime.

The standards to which attorneys are held by the states for the right to practice in the state are different than that of a court of law. Supposedly attorneys are held to higher standards... but then you look at all the attorneys in Congress and that idea is simply shattered!

Immie

Absolutely correct. He was aquitted in the Senate but one cannot have "stains" on their record and practice law before the Supreme Court.

My understanding is that his record is not the only place he left stains.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

The best part about President Obama is that he is enraging the Conservatives. He wouldn't be doing what we elected him to do if the Conservatives were happy

As leader of his county, he should be building bridges, not burning them. Great Presidents are a unifying force, not a dividing one.

If only words translated into action, eh? How many roadblocks has this president met? And by the way, a president has no power of the purse to even put into action proposed policy. So he can talk about building bridges 'til pigs fly, but if there's no money to build them, it's a lost cause.

Part of the problem with the stimulus money is that not enough has yet been earmarked for infrastructure projects, but directed more toward propping up the states so that they don't fall into an abyss. I'm glad that only 40% of it has been spent, and I hope the rest of it really does go to building and repairing bridges, etc., all over the country.

 

[MaggieMae]

The best part about President Obama is that he is enraging the Conservatives. He wouldn't be doing what we elected him to do if the Conservatives were happy

From the looks of things, he is enraging the liberals too which makes it even funnier!

But then wouldn't that mean he's grown a pair? Which, without going back and checking, was one of the points here early on? The uber liberals want the troops to come home NOW. They are the same ones who wanted the troops to come home from Iraq NOW. So Obama has risked his liberal base by saying that ain't gonna happen.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obamanation, Messiah, etc - all of which insult the idiots who blindly follow the man, not the man himself. Idiot.

"Idiot" --> explain to me how...............in the english language, calling Obama "Obamanation" does not insult him?

Then, I'll concede the "idiot" label. Otherwise, I'm guessing you might need to take the 3-second rule before you post.

Obama nation. Those who follow Obama - Obamanation. Clear enough for you? I apologize if I'm too ******* clever for you.

Ah, clever indeed. I always thought it was crass-speak for "abomination." It's really a double entendre. Nice going.

 

[MaggieMae]

Clearly you know this was a term often used in conjunction with abomination, I mean I "assumed" that you knew that since you obviously follow political messageboards and what-not.

My bad if I assumed that others would get what I mean. It's has, to me, never been an insult to the man.... always an insult at the borg-like followers.

Of course trying to write off anyone who agrees with something Obama does as a "borg" is an incredibly childish, ad hom attack. I can only assume it means the name-caller doesn't have the capacity to actually debate the pros and cons of issues and lacking THAT ability they must resort to silliness.

btw - it's no different than liberals claiming conservatives are all in-bred ditto heads.

It just reflects the degeneration of political discourse and it's not just an insult to your ideological opponents, it's a roadblock to good government.

Ah I've stopped defending all these silly nicknames. Let them have their fun. After all, Bush had several too. I used to refer to him as The Bushwacker.

Edit here -- I meant "The Bushwackie." (There's a hair salon in town called The Bushwacker, which is what popped from mind to fingers.)