Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 15, 2014 9:31:50 GMT -5
That may be true, but I wonder how much your average John Q voter knows about stuff like this. My guess is not that many.
Though I agree, it's probably not a good idea to have these things going on while we're closing in on an election.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2014 22:53:03 GMT -5
he could still be charged criminally. we should do that. edit: Carter, Clinton and Poppy, too- btw. they are all guilty of high crimes, imo.Agreed... and they should have been impeached and removed from office when they violated the conditions of their office too. Presidents violate the conditions of their office BECAUSE there's not enough impeachment AND removal (historically speaking). If presidents had a "one crime or unconstitutional act... and out" record, There would likely be less presidents violating the rules/conditions of their office. And sorry, but the "well... they didn't get punished" defense doesn't work for me. That's like being pulled over for speeding and saying "But officer, they didn't get a ticket!". Just because some get away with it doesn't mean everyone should get a pass. that is now what i was saying. what i was saying was THIS: if you are going to go after Obama, make it good. the ACA and executive actions really don't cut it for me. they are basically actions that are condoned by congress. no, i would go against him for war crimes. make it stick, and send a message to future presidents: never again.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,807
|
Post by kadee79 on Aug 16, 2014 14:26:30 GMT -5
We all know Republican HoR members and senators never, ever hold town hall meetings or meet with their constituents where the subject of impeachment could and would be raised and discussed. They don't even meet with the general public here...only the clubs that their major contributors belong to...like Rotary or Kiwanis!
Democrats hold their meetings in public places where EVERYONE is welcome...no matter your financial status, places like the city/county Arts Center where there is ample parking also for a large crowd!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 17:53:16 GMT -5
Agreed... and they should have been impeached and removed from office when they violated the conditions of their office too. Presidents violate the conditions of their office BECAUSE there's not enough impeachment AND removal (historically speaking). If presidents had a "one crime or unconstitutional act... and out" record, There would likely be less presidents violating the rules/conditions of their office. And sorry, but the "well... they didn't get punished" defense doesn't work for me. That's like being pulled over for speeding and saying "But officer, they didn't get a ticket!". Just because some get away with it doesn't mean everyone should get a pass. that is now what i was saying. what i was saying was THIS: if you are going to go after Obama, make it good. the ACA and executive actions really don't cut it for me. they are basically actions that are condoned by congress.no, i would go against him for war crimes. make it stick, and send a message to future presidents: never again. Every illegal action that doesn't result in impeachment AND removal from office is "condoned by Congress" in my book. Doesn't matter what that action was.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 16, 2014 20:19:32 GMT -5
that is now what i was saying. what i was saying was THIS: if you are going to go after Obama, make it good. the ACA and executive actions really don't cut it for me. they are basically actions that are condoned by congress.no, i would go against him for war crimes. make it stick, and send a message to future presidents: never again. Every illegal action that doesn't result in impeachment AND removal from office is "condoned by Congress" in my book. Doesn't matter what that action was. this sounds like "all crimes are the same" to me, and i respectfully disagree. some are far worse than others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 20:31:10 GMT -5
Every illegal action that doesn't result in impeachment AND removal from office is "condoned by Congress" in my book. Doesn't matter what that action was. this sounds like "all crimes are the same" to me, and i respectfully disagree. some are far worse than others. That may be what it sounds like to you, but that's not what I actually said. Someone could condone murder and speeding... doesn't mean they are the same... just that they are both condoned.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 16, 2014 21:23:28 GMT -5
this sounds like "all crimes are the same" to me, and i respectfully disagree. some are far worse than others. That may be what it sounds like to you, but that's not what I actually said. Someone could condone murder and speeding... doesn't mean they are the same... just that they are both condoned. i have no real problem with that (prosecuting all crimes), i just want the worst crimes addressed first. so far, nobody is even TALKING about that. that says to me that this is a windowdressing exercise- perhaps not by you, but by congress.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 17, 2014 19:01:43 GMT -5
According to paul' link, 'Big Foot' exists. Numbers don't lie TN. The count isn't opinion.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 17, 2014 19:04:20 GMT -5
Agreed... and they should have been impeached and removed from office when they violated the conditions of their office too. Presidents violate the conditions of their office BECAUSE there's not enough impeachment AND removal (historically speaking). If presidents had a "one crime or unconstitutional act... and out" record, There would likely be less presidents violating the rules/conditions of their office. And sorry, but the "well... they didn't get punished" defense doesn't work for me. That's like being pulled over for speeding and saying "But officer, they didn't get a ticket!". Just because some get away with it doesn't mean everyone should get a pass. that is now what i was saying. what i was saying was THIS: if you are going to go after Obama, make it good. the ACA and executive actions really don't cut it for me. they are basically actions that are condoned by congress. no, i would go against him for war crimes. make it stick, and send a message to future presidents: never again. I don't like Obama one little bit, but war crimes is a pretty serious charge, and I don't think he's guilty of war crimes. You can not like the policy, but you don't get to call it a crime because you disagree with it. And with respect to "executive actions", or any other alleged usurpation of Congress's exclusive legislative power- fight back with the Constitutional power they've got: defund the executive. Down to zero for the whole damn thing if that's what it takes.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 17, 2014 19:05:27 GMT -5
According to paul' link, 'Big Foot' exists. Numbers don't lie TN. The count isn't opinion. Reread Virgil's comment about Big Foot.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2014 1:07:20 GMT -5
that is now what i was saying. what i was saying was THIS: if you are going to go after Obama, make it good. the ACA and executive actions really don't cut it for me. they are basically actions that are condoned by congress. no, i would go against him for war crimes. make it stick, and send a message to future presidents: never again. I don't like Obama one little bit, but war crimes is a pretty serious charge, and I don't think he's guilty of war crimes. of course he is. the worst one there is. the one that was used most in Nuremburg. the one the UN Charter was written around. and the one that every president since WW2 has violated.
|
|