America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by tailgater. 17 replies replies.
Freed Taliban leader tell's relative he'll fight Americans again.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
gryphonms Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 1:16 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
Per nbcnews that is what Noorullah Noori keeps insisting.

Wow, never saw that was coming, how could our president ever know?

Sarcasm

Can we impeach him now or do we have to wait for the attacks?

ram27bat
rfenst Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,366
gryphonms wrote:
Per nbcnews that is what Noorullah Noori keeps insisting.

Wow, never saw that was coming, how could our president ever know?

Sarcasm

Can we impeach him now or do we have to wait for the attacks?

ram27bat



I seriously doubt any attempt at impeachment would go anywhere. It would be a horrible precedent- at the very least.
TMCTLT Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 4:39 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
rfenst wrote:
I seriously doubt any attempt at impeachment would go anywhere. It would be a horrible precedent- at the very least.




Horrible precedent why? This man enjoys not one but two insurance policies to keep this from happening....first he's Black and as silly as it seems skin color DOES matter AND if he were impeached, we get Uncle Joe for the balance.Besides are you willing to watch our country slip into FULL socialism before this Admin. Is done?
cacman Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 4:40 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
rfenst wrote:
I seriously doubt any attempt at impeachment would go anywhere. It would be a horrible precedent- at the very least.

What horrible precedent? Allowing a President to do whatever he wants or punishing the Pres for breaking the law? Sounds like he did more than bug an office, or have a quickie with an intern.
Burner02 Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 5:32 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Stand down!

Obama is a great leader, just ask him!




ram27bat











































Sarcasm
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 6:03 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
A Commander In Chief that values the life of one of HIS soldiers to five of theirs...says it all to me.

He's acting stupidly.

He was NEVER fit for the job and this is what you get when you have someone not ready for primetime in that role.

Face it, he's done NOTHING...NOTHING positive in the years he's had in office. NOTHING!

He's a liar. He promised he was going to be "transparent"...he hasn't.

He promised a host of things that he NEVER was going to deliver. Idiots ushered in this clown because of white guilt and because they thought...thought he was going to be different. Now, the same fools are STILL carrying the water for this assclown. See them for what they are. It's easier this way. When America has it's Bastille Day, we hang them too!
gryphonms Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 6:43 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
I honestly think this is an impeachable act. I am not referring to the actual prisoner exchange per say. I think this falls under high crimes and misdemeanors. My interpretation certainly may be off as I have no legal background but I think part of it's interpretation is that it covers political wrongs that endanger the United States. I think releasing terrorists does endanger the United States.

As to rfenst's contention that this would create a horrible precedent my opinion is different. If the president is not accountable to the judicial branch or the Congressional branch our system of checks and balances is no more. To me this supersedes any precedent. Again, having no legal background I may be way off base on this.
Burner02 Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 7:05 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
DrMaddVibe wrote:
A Commander In Chief that values the life of one of HIS soldiers to five of theirs...says it all to me.

He's acting stupidly.

He was NEVER fit for the job and this is what you get when you have someone not ready for primetime in that role.

Face it, he's done NOTHING...NOTHING positive in the years he's had in office. NOTHING!

He's a liar. He promised he was going to be "transparent"...he hasn't.

He promised a host of things that he NEVER was going to deliver. Idiots ushered in this clown because of white guilt and because they thought...thought he was going to be different. Now, the same fools are STILL carrying the water for this assclown. See them for what they are. It's easier this way. When America has it's Bastille Day, we hang them too!




+1
ZRX1200 Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Jun 6 2014, 7:51 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Robert what is impeachable in your eyes?

Nobody circles the wagons like the demoncats.

Republicants eat their own and are spineless.

Why is it trading terrorists (top ones at that) is ok despite not giving SPECIFIC 30 day notice. But siting on your hands WHILE TERRORISTS ARE KILLING Americans in Benghazi is also ok?
rfenst Offline
#10 Posted: Sat, Jun 7 2014, 7:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,366
ZRX1200 wrote:
Robert what is impeachable in your eyes?



Aside from the obvious we all agree upon, I will know it when I see it.... Merely violating a law is not necessarily a crime. Laws and circumstances vary. Lines separating the three branches are blurry at times. This is one such time. Does the law require legislative consent or just notice?

Here is a great link to the explanation of the terminology, meaning and history of impeachment throughout history:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html/
bs_kwaj Offline
#11 Posted: Sat, Jun 7 2014, 10:07 AM EST
Joined: 02-13-2006
Posts: 5,214
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/06/qatar-may-prove-comfortable-quarters-for-released-gitmo-detainees/

Hmmm... Maybe there's some drone strikes in their future??

It's a crazy, mixed up world, eh?
cacman Offline
#12 Posted: Sat, Jun 7 2014, 10:13 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
rfenst wrote:
Aside from the obvious we all agree upon, I will know it when I see it.... Merely violating a law is not necessarily a crime. Laws and circumstances vary. Lines separating the three branches are blurry at times. This is one such time. Does the law require legislative consent or just notice?

Here is a great link to the explanation of the terminology, meaning and history of impeachment throughout history:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html/

"I am not a crook" said with both hands stretched above his head, each displaying the "peace" sign.

"I never had sexual relations with that girl" said with both hands stretched around the young intern while giving her the business with a cigar because Viagra wasn't available yet.
gryphonms Offline
#13 Posted: Sat, Jun 7 2014, 10:21 AM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
Thanks for the link. After reading that I understand high crimes and misdemeanors much better and would agree that impeachment over the exchange would set a bad precedent.
Gene363 Offline
#14 Posted: Sat, Jun 7 2014, 10:53 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,842

Meanwhile, we have a Marine kidnapped by the Mexican military the POTUS is ignoring. I'll bet he would be free in no time if he converted to islam.
rfenst Offline
#15 Posted: Sat, Jun 7 2014, 7:40 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,366
gryphonms wrote:
Thanks for the link. After reading that I understand high crimes and misdemeanors much better and would agree that impeachment over the exchange would set a bad precedent.


My intention for the link was not to change your mind, but I am glad you did.
Gene363 Offline
#16 Posted: Sun, Jun 8 2014, 11:56 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,842
rfenst wrote:
Aside from the obvious we all agree upon, I will know it when I see it.... Merely violating a law is not necessarily a crime. Laws and circumstances vary. Lines separating the three branches are blurry at times. This is one such time. Does the law require legislative consent or just notice?

Here is a great link to the explanation of the terminology, meaning and history of impeachment throughout history:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html/


I too read the link, thank you very much. Because the Founding Fathers could not agree, they left it murky and used an old English phrase. Too bad voters don't better understand how really how much damage a President can do without suffering impeachment. They might think twice before electing the next President, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

BTW, that 'murky' part is one of many hidden, 'attorney assured employment' clauses found in the Constitution. d'oh!
tailgater Offline
#17 Posted: Sun, Jun 8 2014, 12:21 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rfenst wrote:
I seriously doubt any attempt at impeachment would go anywhere. It would be a horrible precedent- at the very least.


I read your link and found the following ironic:

"...the House Judiciary committee voted three articles of impeachment. One accused ______ of obstruction of justice. Another accused him of abuse of power. The third charged him with contempt of Congress for defying the committee’s requests to produce documents. "


The answer, of course, is Nixon.

But it seems to me that the name Obama would fit perfectly in that blank.
And considering the context, it would be an informed opinion (not a biased one) to suggest that Obama's actions are far worse than anything Nixon was doing.

I think it would be unwise to impeach Obama. But the House Judiciary Committee should make public an honest interest in his behavior, and he should be remembered as the miscreant he is.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top