• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Impeach Obama?[W:249]

Impeach Barack Hussein Obama II?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 27.5%

  • No

    Votes: 66 72.5%
  • Total voters
    91
Re: Impeach Obama?

Misterveritis said:
Did you read the analysis? It is an opinion. That does not make it truth. It is a liberal spin. One can go many places to find liberal spin.
Click to expand...

It is not an opinion, it is documented fact. 8 of the 13 cases referenced are from before Obama took office, so they can hardly be called rebukes of Obama.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Redress said:
Why do you keep rooting for dishonesty? All I am doing is putting forth actual facts instead of high rhetoric, low honesty talking points.
Click to expand...
It is a shame your post lacks content. We have a difference of opinion concerning the supreme court's rulings. I grant you that.

However, are you denying that you support Obama and in general the massive regulatory state? If you say that you do not support Obama and his massive regulatory state then I will apologize to you.

What say you Redress?
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Redress said:
It is not an opinion, it is documented fact. 8 of the 13 cases referenced are from before Obama took office, so they can hardly be called rebukes of Obama.
Click to expand...
No. The Obama administration argued and lost. It does not matter that executive over reach began under the previous president. Had Obama won he would have used it as justification for further tyranny. His team argued and lost. It is a rebuke against the president.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Misterveritis said:
It is a shame your post lacks content. We have a difference of opinion concerning the supreme court's rulings. I grant you that.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. I am documenting facts, you are expressing a falsehood.

However, are you denying that you support Obama and in general the massive regulatory state? If you say that you do not support Obama and his massive regulatory state then I will apologize to you.

What say you Redress?
Click to expand...

I support no one but myself. Care to try again?
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

No.

I want to see how far this ****storm goes.

Edit: If it turns out well, all to the good.

If it turns out as badly as some think, it's a good lesson for the future.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Misterveritis said:
No. The Obama administration argued and lost. It does not matter that executive over reach began under the previous president. Had Obama won he would have used it as justification for further tyranny. His team argued and lost. It is a rebuke against the president.
Click to expand...

Except in unusual circumstances, that is how it is done. Bush was arguing cases from the Clinton administration, Clinton from Bush and Reagan. It is rare for it to happen otherwise. Please learn about what you are discussing.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Redress said:
Here is another one, just for ****s and giggles: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case stems from events in 2005. First ruling in the case, 2008. How deep you going to dig that hole Misterveritis?
Click to expand...
It looks like another win for us and a loss for the president. How long are you going to continue to support the tyranny that comes from the abuse of executive powers?

You just cannot help yourself can you? Did the worst administration in living history argue in support of the massive regulatory state (and lose) or did they withdraw their claims? You know the answer. Why do you support the growing tyranny?
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Redress said:
Except in unusual circumstances, that is how it is done. Bush was arguing cases from the Clinton administration, Clinton from Bush and Reagan. It is rare for it to happen otherwise. Please learn about what you are discussing.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. And if he disagreed with the massive increase in executive power Obama could have withdrawn. But he didn't. He was rebuked.

And you will, no doubt, keep looking for a way to turn this growing tyranny into a positive thing. That is why I believe you support the growing tyranny.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Redress said:
Even the NLRB case was not so clear cut as so many want to think, and in two of the three areas argued, Obama actually won. Course he needed 3 of 3 to have it upheld, but there is a reason why there where 2 opinions issued on that case, and his wins in the case where not insignificant.
Click to expand...

With Senator's Reid's use of the nuclear option in a way the case was a moot point. But what it boiled down to was who determined whether the senate was in session, does the senate determine that or does the president determine that. The SCOTUS decided the senate is the best one to decide whether it is in session than the president.

But with Reid's nuclear option the 3 NLRB members have already be re-appointed and confirmed. So you may not see very many companies or whomever challenging the rulings of the NLRB while they were unconstitutionally filling the vacancies as the NLRB can very quickly make the same ruling.

Recess appointments now only become important if the senate is in different hands than the president. If so the pro forma sessions prevents the president from any recess appointment and Reid's nuclear option becomes moot as the party controlling the senate now has at least 51 votes to deny confirmation. Reid's nuclear option applied to all presidential appointments except the SCOTUS and legislation. But the precedence has been set and it is only a matter of time before the nuclear options applies to everything.

I do have a fear once the nuclear option applies to everything you will see very wide swings in legislation and repeal of legislation. All that will be needed is 218 votes in the House, 51 in the senate and a president of the same party. For example thanks to the nuclear option if carried further if somehow the GOP wins the white house in 2016 and the senate to go along with the house, they could repeal the aca with simple majority votes, enact any tax cuts with simple majority votes, slash welfare and programs with simple majority votes, simply repeal all democratic legislation they don't like and then enact their one. Then say in 2020 if the Democrats take back the house, senate and the presidency, they can repeal everything they don't like the republicans just did and enact what ever they want.

It is bound to happen as once a precedence is set, it is free game to one and all.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

"However, are you denying that you support Obama and in general the massive regulatory state? If you say that you do not support Obama and his massive regulatory state then I will apologize to you.

What say you Redress?"
Redress said:
I support no one but myself. Care to try again?
Click to expand...
I knew you could not help yourself. Those who support tyranny become so obvious given enough time. Congratulations. It is obvious where you stand. You are not on the right side of history.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Misterveritis said:
It looks like another win for us and a loss for the president. How long are you going to continue to support the tyranny that comes from the abuse of executive powers?

You just cannot help yourself can you? Did the worst administration in living history argue in support of the massive regulatory state (and lose) or did they withdraw their claims? You know the answer. Why do you support the growing tyranny?
Click to expand...

The president had nothing to do with it.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Perotista said:
With Senator's Reid's use of the nuclear option in a way the case was a moot point. But what it boiled down to was who determined whether the senate was in session, does the senate determine that or does the president determine that. The SCOTUS decided the senate is the best one to decide whether it is in session than the president.

But with Reid's nuclear option the 3 NLRB members have already be re-appointed and confirmed. So you may not see very many companies or whomever challenging the rulings of the NLRB while they were unconstitutionally filling the vacancies as the NLRB can very quickly make the same ruling.

Recess appointments now only become important if the senate is in different hands than the president. If so the pro forma sessions prevents the president from any recess appointment and Reid's nuclear option becomes moot as the party controlling the senate now has at least 51 votes to deny confirmation. Reid's nuclear option applied to all presidential appointments except the SCOTUS and legislation. But the precedence has been set and it is only a matter of time before the nuclear options applies to everything.

I do have a fear once the nuclear option applies to everything you will see very wide swings in legislation and repeal of legislation. All that will be needed is 218 votes in the House, 51 in the senate and a president of the same party. For example thanks to the nuclear option if carried further if somehow the GOP wins the white house in 2016 and the senate to go along with the house, they could repeal the aca with simple majority votes, enact any tax cuts with simple majority votes, slash welfare and programs with simple majority votes, simply repeal all democratic legislation they don't like and then enact their one. Then say in 2020 if the Democrats take back the house, senate and the presidency, they can repeal everything they don't like the republicans just did and enact what ever they want.

It is bound to happen as once a precedence is set, it is free game to one and all.
Click to expand...

Your point is true. I would say that it will come back to haunt democrats at some point, except that in those cases, I still think nominees deserve a straight up vote.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Misterveritis said:
Wrong. Citing a Georgetown professor is not adequate for me. The Obama administration, Obama, argued the cases for executive branch over reach and lost.

You continue to lack honor. I told you I already got that. There is no need to continue to reinforce it day after day.
Click to expand...

Have it your way, you know your wrong when 8 of 13 cases came under Bush. But it is hard to make the blind see. Have a nice night.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Misterveritis said:
"However, are you denying that you support Obama and in general the massive regulatory state? If you say that you do not support Obama and his massive regulatory state then I will apologize to you.

What say you Redress?"

I knew you could not help yourself. Those who support tyranny become so obvious given enough time. Congratulations. It is obvious where you stand. You are not on the right side of history.
Click to expand...

You are making **** up to argue against now. Well done!
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Redress said:
That is not what he said. He referenced facts, and your only comeback was to insult him. How very honorable of you...
Click to expand...
P. did no such thing. P admitted that expediency is more important than honor. Only one who is dishonorable could make such a bold claim.

Members of the House took an oath of office and they are failing to follow it. P and you have no problem with that. It is a dishonorable position for him/her and for you.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

"However, are you denying that you support Obama and in general the massive regulatory state? If you say that you do not support Obama and his massive regulatory state then I will apologize to you.

What say you Redress?"

I knew you could not help yourself. Those who support tyranny become so obvious given enough time. Congratulations. It is obvious where you stand. You are not on the right side of history.
Redress said:
You are making **** up to argue against now. Well done!
Click to expand...
You should have simply posted a "like" and moved on.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Perotista said:
Have it your way, you know your wrong when 8 of 13 cases came under Bush. But it is hard to make the blind see. Have a nice night.
Click to expand...
The Obama regime lawyers argued for the massive increase. Bush has not been president for a very long time. If Obama disagreed with the executive over reach he could have withdrawn from the case.

You are simply wrong. I agree that it is hard to help the blind to see.

This does not help your case. You have argued for expediency over honor. I understand why. Good night.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Misterveritis said:
Do I need to explain the Executive branch to you?
Click to expand...

Since you do not understand how dates work(2008, 2005, they both come before 2009, just to help you out), probably best to not overreach...
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Redress said:
Your point is true. I would say that it will come back to haunt democrats at some point, except that in those cases, I still think nominees deserve a straight up vote.
Click to expand...

I always said let any president have the nominees he wants. If they are good nominees they will help the president be a success, if they are bad nominees, the president will suffer from those choices. But what the filibuster did or even the threat of it usually brought a compromise on some other piece of legislation or at least a vote. But those days are gone, leaders such a Mitchell and Dashle on one side and Lott and Dole on the other, leaders who would work together are no more. We have a couple of partisan hacks who place party way above country, at least in my opinion. One was willing to filibuster everything to prevent anything the Democrats wanted and hence Reid finally doing the nuclear thing. Reid has tabled well over 200 bills passed by the house instead of debating them and voting on them. He says some contain poison pills, but the senate has the power to add anything to those bills, to delete anything, to change anything and to amend them.

Who or which side started all this junk, I don't know. But as of today, Reid has the upper hand. Now he goes back to 60 votes just to introduce legislation and bring a bill to the floor. The Washington scene today is crazy as all get out. Check this out:

Election year a drag on productivity in Senate
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

Too bad Boehner can't be impeached for failing to do his job.
 
Re: Impeach Obama?

apdst said:
How has he failed to do his job?
Click to expand...

He refuses to bring anything to a vote unless he has a majority of republicans which he never does on anything relevant and its resulted in a no compromise, do nothing congress. Remember when they used to be called the 'rubber stamp' congress? lol


People have a lot less faith in congress to do their job than they do Obama....

Obama - 53.4% disapprove

Congress - 77.3% disapprove


RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom