Page 39 of 51 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 501

Thread: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense' [W:406]

  1. #381
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Let's see what happens in court on that one.
    wonder why you don't hear your GOP threatening to go to court ?
    That one won't have to go to court. Even Obama knows that won't fly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #382
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Exactly--Democrats and Tip O'Neill cut Reagan a huge amount of slack with Iran/Contra don't you think?
    Just as Obama did with Cheney on Iraq-2!
    And what thanks did Obama get--Fast and Furious shoved up his ass as fast and furiously as GOPs could !
    If you are trying to make a point, I don't know what it is.

  3. #383
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Let's see what happens in court on that one.
    wonder why you don't hear your GOP threatening to go to court ?
    Please explain what ordinary courts have to do with impeachment.

  4. #384
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Just how Leftist are you? Nore than you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I said I believe you are more left that you believe you are or you claim to be. How does one prove that? Do I go find every utterance you have ever made and run a statistical analysis of the leftist phrases among them and compare them with the neutral and rightist phrases? Or do I go with my intuition?
    Well you could easily prove that if you found comments made by me supporting most of Obama's policies as well as the Dems. Too bad there doesn't exist any because I never voted for the guy in 2012 or supported most of his policies. That is why your comments are proven lies, because you can't back anything up with them.

    Bashing dems is like destroying ISIS by occasionally killing a fighter or two. It is ineffective. I think you know it. You are still more left than you claim.
    According to you I was an Obama supporter. Hmmm, I am FOR 2A rights, against the ACA, against his foreign policy, against most of his economics policies. Sounds like your comments again are proven lies.

    Nor will I. It is a fools errand which you are better suited to do. Let's take just the first one to see how much you bash Obama
    Of course you won't because you can't back up your comments with actual facts and instead have to resort to using lying comments as a basis for your ideology. A dishonest Con, go figure.

    Right that is real powerful bashing. LOL. I see no reason to go any further given that you chose this to prove how hard you are on Obama. You cannot see just how leftist you are. Peas in a pod...
    Again, that was a simple search and that was what I came up with in 5 min. In that same time you have provided ZERO proof and ZERO quotes from me supporting your claims. Your comments are lies and everyone can see what dishonest comments you make. I am not trying to convince you of anything more so proving to everyone how dishonest your posts really are. It shows you have ZERO credibility now as you cannot back up ANYTHING you say with actual facts and instead resort to lying comments.

    I have proved my point about your dishonest comments and everyone can now see that.

  5. #385
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I was an intelligence officer for most of my 20 year career...
    Sure you were. I was a Heisman trophy winner back in college. This is before I became a Nuclear Physicists.

  6. #386
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Reagan got Grubered by the usual suspects in the Democratic party
    You admit then that Reagan was a simpleton. I've always known Reagan was a piece of ****, but it's refreshing to see you admit it.

  7. #387
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Adding a statute of limitations to law is changing that law. To say that X is still a crime but that those committing X before 2007 are no longer subject to being charged with X now is illegal. That creates future immunity rather than merely granting amnesty for past acts.
    If you're still hung up on the actions the Obama Administration took on implementing or removing certain aspects of the PPACA, all I can say is "get over it". If Congress really believed the President acted in ways that were not in the best interest of the people or the country in his capacity as the Chief Executive in "faithfully executing laws", they would have brought about impeachment proceedings immediately as it happened. They didn't. So, clearly it's all just a whole lot of blustering by the GOP to make this President seem like a tyrant when, in fact, he hasn't done anything outside of his legal authority as the nation's Chief Executive that any other president before him hasn't done. With that, let's get the nuts and bolts of what the video in the OP is really about (assuming that no one else has since I haven't taken the time to read through the thread in its entirety): Immigration!

    Clearly, the concept the GOP is trying to convey to the American people is "President Obama isn't adhering to constitutional or Congressional procedure, towit, allowing Congress to write laws that are "necessary and proper". Specifically, writing the rules on immigration and nationalization per Art I, Sect. 8, clause 4:

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...
    Thing is, Congress has failed to act since 1986 when our current Immigration and Naturalization Act was enacted. Since then, at least four different U.S. Presidents have tried to change INA law; Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 42 and Obama. Now, here's the irony for the GOP...ready for it? Here it comes!

    According to both historical facts and as outlined in this article (local news source as published by the AP), both Reagan and GHW Bush did more to usher in "amnesty" for illegal Mexican immigrants than President Obama is attempting to do currently. Moreover, neither of the aforementioned Presidents place ANY responsibility on the newly amnestied immigrants when both signed current INA law (Reagan, 1986) or signed EO's that expanded immigration policy (GHW Bush, 1990).

    So, why all the fuss from the GOP over immigration policy now? IMHO, there are three reasons for it:

    1) Saving face! The GOP knows that this immigration mess was started by two of their own in the White House and they don't want to be "remembered" or further blamed for escalating the problem. They claim they want to fix it through increased boarder security (i.e., putting up a fence), but the truth is unless you're willing to build a wall AND patrol it, you're never going to keep illegal Mexicans out. Nonetheless, the truth of the matter here is people are starting to understand that this immigration mess began under not one, but TWO Republican presidents and the GOP knows it.

    2) The Politics of it all. The GOP doesn't want a Democratic President to win the immigration issue for one very important reason: VOTES!!! It is estimated that America will become more Brown (and Black) than White over the next decade or so. Thus, whomever wins this immigration "image" issue (because that's what it boils down to...which Party can do more for immigrants than the other) that's who will win over the "Brown voting block" in future elections.

    3) Labor. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hispanics today are yesterday's slaves. When so many are hiding in the shadows performing arduous labor and being poorly compensated for it, it's almost akin to slavery only illegal immigrants aren't baring the brutality of the lash, yet they are being paid for their labor (though unfairly). So, when you hear GOP pundits make the pay wage argument that "poor Blacks can't find jobs due to illegal Mexicans," understand that this is a fringe issue indented to persuade people from looking at immigration policy and instead shift their focus on economic policy and unemployment issues. Put another way: It's intended to stir folks emotions to anger and why wouldn't it in todays unemployment, low wage, part-time work environment?

    When you peel back the layers on this immigration issue, what you'll find is those who are screaming the loudest about "executive over-reach" and "unfairness" for those who don't get to the back of the line before the "pay taxes", are really terrified of being blamed for exacerbating the problem - a problem they caused in the first place.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  8. #388
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    I came across this article from Fox News explaining how illegal and unconstitutional President Obama's EO on immigration is (considering the man hasn't even outlined what his proposal is, I find it hard to say what's unconstitutional about it) and one thing caught my attention.

    In section 3, 2nd paragraph, the author mentions a 1996 immigration law (or revisions thereto) enacted under former President Clinton. I did some research and found the law here. You'll have to go down to Division C, but it's clear the minors brought to this country by their parents are at no fault for their parent's actions. Moreover, the 1996 makes clear that deportations will only take place in instances where obvious violations of the social disorder takes place.

    Bottom Line: Unless the President authorizes something something outlandish, from my brief reading of INA law as a whole and Division C of the 1996 law, the President would be "faithfully executing the law".
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  9. #389
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,302

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I came across this article from Fox News explaining how illegal and unconstitutional President Obama's EO on immigration is (considering the man hasn't even outlined what his proposal is, I find it hard to say what's unconstitutional about it) and one thing caught my attention.

    In section 3, 2nd paragraph, the author mentions a 1996 immigration law (or revisions thereto) enacted under former President Clinton. I did some research and found the law here. You'll have to go down to Division C, but it's clear the minors brought to this country by their parents are at no fault for their parent's actions. Moreover, the 1996 makes clear that deportations will only take place in instances where obvious violations of the social disorder takes place.

    Bottom Line: Unless the President authorizes something something outlandish, from my brief reading of INA law as a whole and Division C of the 1996 law, the President would be "faithfully executing the law".


    He's been faithfully ignoring our Federal Immigration laws for the last 6 years.

    Our system isn't "broken ", our laws are being ignored.

    NOW he wants to via FIAT to " faithfully execute the laws " he swore to uphold ?

    Bull ****.

  10. #390
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

    "Reagan got Grubered by the usual suspects in the Democratic party"
    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    You admit then that Reagan was a simpleton. I've always known Reagan was a piece of ****, but it's refreshing to see you admit it.
    In a way you are correct. Reagan believed that the democrats were honorable men. He was a simpleton. No one, under any circumstance should ever believe what a liberal, a Progressive, a national socialist, and international socialist or any other Democrat ever says. I believe this is why he moved on to "Trust but verify".

Page 39 of 51 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •