T1B

poptart wrote:This pathetic cunt again...

Five years later, they still haven't been able to determine if Birdshit was a deserter.

rotf...

Why do you hate due process? Go fuck a kimchi pot you fucking commie.

She said, "We are still trying to determine a fact pattern about what happened, how he ended up in Taliban custody."

The state dept. has been sitting with it's thumb up it's ass for five years?




Yeah, you might be a huge 'tard, Moving Bowel.




Garth belongs assisting students in a "gender studies" class somewhere, and not speaking in any capacity as a representative of the U.S Government.

So not only do you hate due process you don't even know what it is. Nice take you stupid commie fuck.

I didn't say Birdshit doesn't deserve due process, you legal reject.

I said the State Dept. Spokesvestite is completely full of shit.

Again, she said, "We are still trying to determine a fact pattern about what happened, how he ended up in Taliban custody."


They KNOW how he ended up in Taliban custody, and they knew it five years ago.

So your take is due process can be served without ever having to give the accused an opportunity to speak. Nice take there you stupid fucking commie.

It's amazing to see the Barryites spinning and twirling in the wind on this. Not even the Nixon apologists came close to this level of bullshit.

Link me to where I've said Birdshit should be convicted without due process, Bowel.






"We are still trying to determine a
fact pattern about what happened,
how he ended up in Taliban custody"




Blatantly FALSE.

Wolfman wrote:It's amazing to see the Barryites spinning and twirling in the wind on this. Not even the Nixon apologists came close to this level of bullshit.

Hyperventilate much?

Puptent,
Nobody knows what happened until all the facts are in until his version has been heard and investigated. So you can stop with the bullshit about how the state dept should know what happened. Go fuck yourself commie.

The State Dept. knew within hours that it was... "a disgusting Youtube video," didn't they?

Could you please stay on topic? TIA

this is all smoke and mirrors. incompetent/corrupt VA is off the radar. mission accomplished.

"The people are enraged by the VA meltdown, so... let's give 'em something new and MORE outrageous to take their mind off their rage."


That's your take?

I think there is something else going on here.

Of course there is, TFT Puptent.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:You kept supplying Phantom parts to Iran throughout the 80's,

Wrong.

Sudden Sam wrote:This finished that attitude for me. Wasn't a fan before...but now I'm pissed as hell.

You do realize they were going to have to be released soon anyways because they were enemy combatants and the war is almost over right? Did you bitch when we released all those nazis? Hope that helps.

Moving Sale wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:This finished that attitude for me. Wasn't a fan before...but now I'm pissed as hell.

You do realize they were going to have to be released soon anyways because they were enemy combatants and the war is almost over right? Did you bitch when we released all those nazis? Hope that helps.

We aren't leaving until at least 2016, dumbfuck. They will have plenty of opportunity to kill more Americans before we leave.

Except they are stuck in Qatar. Nice try fuckstick.

Moving Sale wrote:Except they are stuck in Qatar. Nice try fuckstick.

Only for a year and it remains to be seen just exactly how "stuck" they will be while they are there. Once they leave they will have more than an entire year to freely kill.

You remain a pitifully stupid shit smear.

Moving Sale wrote: Go fuck yourself commie.

I believe this is the second time you have used this blast in the same thread. You really need to increase and vary your amounts of insults a bit. You could always resort to your oh so tired "black cock" blasts, that is pretty much expected anyway.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Except they are stuck in Qatar. Nice try fuckstick.

Only for a year and it remains to be seen just exactly how "stuck" they will be while they are there. Once they leave they will have more than an entire year to freely kill.

You remain a pitifully stupid shit smear.

So now you have gone from this is impeachable to they got out a yr early and there was a notice requirement missed.

88,
Could he have vetoed it? Sure but it is not very practical to veto the whole bill because one little part is out of wack. Would you kill a plea bargain that was 99% good for your client because one little probation term rubbed you the wrong way? Especially when you don't even know for sure if your client is ever even going to break the probation condition? No. You object to the term like the POTUS did in his signing statement and move on. As for the breaking of the law how is anyone going to get standing to challenge it constitutionality if nobody breaks the law? And who can break the law but the POTUS? As for impeachment this is neither a HC nor a Misdemeanor, it's a notice requirement. How is that impeachable?

Moving Sale wrote:As for impeachment this is neither a HC nor a Misdemeanor, it's a notice requirement. How is that impeachable?

He's a Democrat. And a black cock Democrat, to boot.

Sincerely,

Right wingnut

Moving Sale wrote:As for impeachment this is neither a HC nor a Misdemeanor, it's a notice requirement. How is that impeachable?

If violating your oath of office isn't impeachable, then nothing is, you brainless hack.

Name the last POTUS that wasn't impeachable by your standards.

Stay focused, tardling. Past Presidents aren't currently in office fucking things up.

I'm try to gauge your level of insanity, although I'm pretty sure I know where is falls.

So you going to answer the question?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/04/ma ... liban-swap

Who'da thunk it? Mad Mag gets the first punch in to Obama nutsack in pop culture. That is

Rooster,

Mad Mag is great!

Sin,
When I was 12

Moving Sale wrote:I'm try to gauge your level of insanity,

I see. So when a President fails, on multiple occasions, to “...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” it would be "insane" to be of the opinion that he should be impeached for failing to do his job?

You mentioned one notice qualification now you are assuming facts not in evidence. Care to get back on topic?

Moving Sale wrote:You mentioned one notice qualification now you are assuming facts not in evidence. Care to get back on topic?

1. The failure to comply with the statutorily mandated requirement to notify Congress re prisoner transfers from Gitmo. The reason being that it had come up before and Congress was dead set against it, so he said, "Fuck you" and did it anyway.

2. The hundreds of violations of the revenue code pertaining to 501 c4 organizations.

3. Repeated and unconstitutional changes to the Affordable (I snickered) Care Act.

There. The facts are now in evidence. I have no doubt there are more but three should suffice to establish the pattern.

Appointing total incompetents to positions of authority is also impeachable. Shillary and Eric Holder are prime examples of that particular stripe maladministration.

A notice requirement, a breach of the irs code you didn't even know existed till I told you and tweaks to the first comprehensive health care act in history? Mmmm yea no. Is he a lying douche for his prosecution of my clients on pot charges after he promised he would keep out of medpot? Yes. Did he promise the moon on gitmo and then fold his tent instead of telling congress to fuck off and then just emptying the place? Yes. Impeachment? Not as long as bush et al are walking around without being shot on sight for treason.

88 wrote:Setting aside everyone's personal political view and opinions of Obama and others, do you think it is a good idea for a President of the United States (any one, not just Obama) to disregard laws enacted by Congress? If a president does not like a law presented to him by Congress, he has the power to veto it. If he does veto a law, then Congress has the opportunity to override the veto. But what do you do when a President signs a law and then simply disregards it? Seems like a breakdown in the system has occurred for which there is no remedy, aside from impeachment. Perhaps the President has calculated that Congress doesn't have the stones to do that, and thus the blame for a situation such as this lays at the feet of Congress rather than the President. What a shame. This country is swirling the bowl.

Yeah, and if the U.S. President breaks the law, we the people should at least expect that he wouldn't make a deal that would make Monte Hall snicker.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:As for impeachment this is neither a HC nor a Misdemeanor, it's a notice requirement. How is that impeachable?

You are likely correct. So why should the president ever follow the law? Do we have a king now?

Notice requirement? Is that some special variety of legal requirement that can be discarded at whim?

You are both wrong and would be well advised to look into the meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" before you opine again.

Moving Sale wrote:tweaks to the first comprehensive health care act in history?

Tweaks? Define 'tweaks' and then identify the section of the Constitution which grants the President the authority to "tweak" laws to his personal satisfaction.

TIA

88 wrote:Failing to provide Congress with notice regarding the release of a detainee is in a gray area.

No, it isn't. The law requires him to do so and he did not. He did not bring the case to SCOTUS for a finding. He just went ahead and did it. Is that what any reasonable person would term "faithful execution of his office"?

This is not a pardon, so don't pretend that it is or even anything similar.

What's really scary is wondering what is next. Every week brings a new case of Obama/Soetero fuck up. And each case is up one notch on the fuck up scale.
Once again, thanks to all those "conservatives" who stayed home in 2008 and 2012 rather than vote for a RINO. It does matter. Look what is going on!

88 wrote: And it seems like contract law would be more appropriate here.

It is not against the law to break a K so I think my analogy is better, but lets go with Ks if that make it easier for you.

If I negotiate anything (a settlement, a contract, whatever) and I get to 99.9% agreement, but do not reach 100%, I do not have an agreement. If I told my client: "Go ahead and agree to it, we won't abide by its terms." Then what value is that contract?

I’m shocked that you have never said to a client, “I know you don’t like X but it is a minor part of the contract and you might not ever be in a position to invoke it so I recommend that you sign the K and call me if it goes pear-shaped down the road.” You don’t seem to have ever run into this type of situation that ended with a signed K so I guess that means we are at an impasse with my analogy. Or maybe not. Maybe this last post gives you a better idea of my position.

Why even go through the circle jerk of acting like there is some sort of agreement? Obama signed a bill into law. He could have rejected it, but he swallowed hard and signed it. He cannot then say "Fuck it, I'm not living by the terms of the agreement." Well, he can if he doesn't give a rat's ass about the rule of law (and that is becoming more clear every day, isn't it?).

Again I think he absolutely can, but lets try this. What about a law he didn’t sign, but finds himself in a situation where he feels he needs to break it? Is that different in your mind?

The POTUS has to veto laws he believes are unconstitutional. He cannot sign them into law and then ignore them. What sense does that make?

supra

You are likely correct. So why should the president ever follow the law? Do we have a king now?

You mean de facto? Probably.
I have only voted for one winning POTUS in my life (which was BHO in 2008, slick fucker duped me into Hope and Change, of which I had neither by 2012) because I have seen right though (most) every winning POTUS. They have all been a bunch royal, lawbreaking puppets. Too bad the masses can’t see that and vote for someone who would (at the very least) appoint judges to overturn Wickard and get this boat headed back in the direction the FF set it off on.

If it's much ado about nothing, why did Barry created a Rose Garden news conference about it?

I mean, it is clearly a very big loser of a deal for America.


If it "had" to be done, it should have been done as reluctantly and quietly as possible.


Your man is a top-drawer idiot.