The law that Obama broke

a reply to: Corruption Exposed

I don't know that I'll be able to add anything intelligent, bear with me for while, please.

You people are complaining about 5 terrorists meanwhile about 99.9 percent of your federal government are just as corrupt and the dirt only gets darker the higher you go.

Your government is a terrorist, you are mad about 5...what about the thousands you are funding in Syria and Lybia, and the others you are killing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen...is that enough blood or shall I name every terrorist operation your government has been a part of over the last 80 years, i can go back further even.

Your point here seems to be that there are terrorists in the US government, so it's not a problem that five Muslim terrorists were released. That makes me ask, do you approve of capturing them in the first place? Perhaps we should release them as soon as they surrender? Or, do you think we shouldn't be fighting them at all?

All of those seem to follow from your assertion that, since the US has killed people, we shouldn't object to allowing people intent on killing us to go free.

I'm also a little disturbed by what seems to be your false moral equivalence. The US killed lots of people in WW II, Japanese, Germans, Italians, etc. You seem to be implying that we should have let any prisoners we had taken go free. (Since by bombing towns, railroads, dams, and factories we were being terrorists.)

Why isn't anyone bitching about the laws Bush broke that put Obama in this situation - the next puppet - he was est up and went with it. He is scum for allowing children to get droned in his name, but it's not him making it happen.

This is beyond confusing to me. I'm not aware of any laws he broke, can you give me a link?

As far as Obama's responsibility goes, he's the Commander in Chief after all. Years ago he could have said "This is wrong. Generals, get everybody out as quick as you safely can." Does Obama have no cojones at all? It's been said that he doesn't.

And why,are you so interested in getting off the subject of the Bergdahl trade? Let's assume for a moment that it was a rotten, illegal idea. Do we let that go completely? Or, do we call the President on it? Don't we have a duty to object to bad policies and decisions? I thought "Dissent was the highest form of patriotism." (The best information I have indicates that Democrat Mayor John Lindsay brought it into common usage while objecting to Vietnam.)

But if you don't like that assumption, go ahead and call it a beautiful stroke of a mastermind. I can't believe that anyone would think that Obama is avoiding credit he deserves (See, Osama Bin Laden). He's giving it to Hagel so the Commander in Chief could dodge the blame. (As an aside, Hagel campaigned for Obama. His Republican credentials over the last 6 years are very shaky, at best. Notice how the Republicans filibustered the nomination?)

Your insistence on a controlled opposition is very strange in this case. You claim that it was Bush's fault, he set Obama up. But you also claim that it's a controlled opposition, so it can't really be Obama's fault.

If you'd clear up my confusion on each of these points, I'd be grateful.

a reply to: Wookiep

Hey bro I meant that to a few select people, and it was not you. "You people" Know who they are. Even to them I mean no disrespect, but you people refers to a certain group, you do not seem to be part of it. I Hope you read this before it is deleted lol

originally posted by: beezzer

How is pointing out that Obama broke the law, wrong?

Nothing Beez, that most likely is the whole point. You two are actually arguing the same thing, but at a slightly differently angle.

It's almost a joke these days how puppet politicians can break a law.

It's a matter of semantics when authority figures break the law, because they have plenty of people, on their side to spin a tsunami of BS.

Most common people will eventually give up, and forget it ever happened.

"Do as I say and not as I do"

a reply to: Corruption Exposed

He is scum for allowing children to get droned in his name, but it's not him making it happen

It isn't? He is directly responsible and took part in the decision to use drones as they currently are.

That line is pure BS. It is clear whose water you are carrying...extremely clear. Why don't you just ignore the documented history of Obama and drone usage.

Oh, wait...you did just that.

I ROFL every time Bush get's blamed for Obama's actions and I ROFL a lot. You would think that 6 years later Obama would be able to stand on his own 2 feet.

Oh, wait... a true leader would have done that from the beginning. Bush may have been a lot of things but he blamed zilch on Clinton. Bush = man, Obama = wimp. Hard for me to say that as I am not a Bush man, but damn Obama isn't responsible for anything apparently. Apparently Bush is still running the country and Obama is just a figurehead. Bush must really be da man!! ROFL

Now I need to go wash my mouth out for implying Bush was a great leader

With Eric Cantor losing his primary tonight, and his seat in the house, to tea party newcomer Dave Brat. Talking heads are now saying that we'll be seeing a lot more of Obama pulling out his pen and phone to get his agenda done.

You think this law breaking he did with the Gitmo 5 was horrible. Buckle up kids...it's gonna be wild ride coming up. He'll break any law he thinks is in his way.

Des

originally posted by: Destinyone
With Eric Cantor losing his primary tonight, and his seat in the house, to tea party newcomer Dave Brat. Talking heads are now saying that we'll be seeing a lot more of Obama pulling out his pen and phone to get his agenda done.

You think this law breaking he did with the Gitmo 5 was horrible. Buckle up kids...it's gonna be wild ride coming up. He'll break any law he thinks is in his way.

Des

Senator Imhofe and I might have a different slant on the Gitmo...
and it's quite clear to a lot of the Senate on both sides of the
aisle this last move was more than an eyebrow raiser.
If there's any buckling up to be done, and Title 18 means anything
at all in DC: the whole Senate should be buying 5-ways.

Anybody on the Hill who lets this one slide is going to be on a
do-not-reelect list; and most probably got the clue Barry just
graduated from lame duck to leper.

a reply to: beezzer

The law that Obama broke?

a reply to: Destinyone

I think Obama would be very mistaken to read it as an Anti-Republican backlash. I believe we'll be seeing more than that.

For me personally? If it's incumbent, I'm voting the other guy or gal. I don't give a hoot what their name is. I care even less what their party is. What we have right now is a big fail and I include everyone who us a part of it.

Everyone IN can go OUT and that's that, IMO.

originally posted by: Destinyone
That's now the spin of the day, on all the MSM. Hagel made the judgement call to do the swap....Obama only backed him up.

Remember when we had Presidents like this Democrat?:

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: eriktheawful

"No man left behind." assumes that he didn't want to be where he was......that he was captured while performing his duties like other military personnel.

When you walk from your post, commit desertion, and actively seek out the very people you are suppose to be engaging, and instead, start helping them?

Oh...I wasn't aware that the Military has finished it's investigation? Please send me the link where that report was issued. Until then you are talking crap about a returning prisoner of war....Classy..

I assume you are in the categorically grouped people who are smearing the soldiers whom served with Bergdahl? You know, the ones calling them psychotics and liars?

They didn't desert their posts.

a reply to: xxCRM114xx

You presented an interesting idea in your reddit post. Mind a suggestion? Hang around for a couple more days then start a thread based on the ideas you posted there.

a reply to: beezzer

Well then, it appears we have a few things in common as I have been chased off a couple of sites myself lol

a reply to: BobM88

Yep...now we have this wimp president who cannot seem to take responsibility for anything that happens on his watch. It was all Bush's fault. Or it was some staffers fault, or some cabinet member's fault...but oh! Obama wont even fire them..

He is a gutless wonder. The antithesis of a leader.

Ha! That is probably Bush's fault too!. Bush disrupted his leadership chakra!!

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

So are you saying that the Secretary of Defense went rogue, did the swap, MADE Obama do a press release in the Rose Garden? Oh my goodness!

No.

I'm saying that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense. Obama is not the Secretary of Defense and so he can't break a law that is applied to the Secretary of Defense.

If you want to talk about how the Sec Def broke a law...be my guest. But Obama didn't break any of the laws you highlighted in your thread...in fact Obama can't break any of those laws because he is not the Sec Def.

And the burglars that broke into the watergate offices were guilty of the break in. So why was Nixon impeached for it? The quality of args has diminished so in this generation.

1. Nixon was never impeached, he resigned.
2. Nixon was never charged with a crime.

Try again.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: kruphix

But he can be an accessory after the fact. It depends. We need some truth and reconciliation to be decisive.

But first, Hagel would have to be charged with a crime.

And not only would Obama have to be considered an accessory, but the entire security council that was in support of this trade.

Listening to Hagel trying to defend the breaking of the law by the president now.

It's like hearing someone say, "I failed the test because math is hard!"

Justify it all you want.

The law was broken. The president is in charge.

The president failed to obey the law.

This is a violation of the US Constitution, and a failure to obey a law that Obama signed into effect.

originally posted by: beezzer
Listening to Hagel trying to defend the breaking of the law by the president now.

It's like hearing someone say, "I failed the test because math is hard!"

Justify it all you want.

The law was broken. The president is in charge.

The president failed to obey the law.

This is a violation of the US Constitution, and a failure to obey a law that Obama signed into effect.

I don't hear Hagel saying "Obama forced me to do this" or "Obama wouldn't let me obey the law".

What I hear him saying is "We were all in agreement that this was the right thing to do".

If Hagel was in agreement, then it was HIM that decided not to follow his portion of the law. He hasn't said once that he was requesting to comply with the law that applies to HIM, but that Obama directed him not to.

So again...if anything, Hagel broke a law...not Obama. Which is why Hagel is at this hearing and not Obama.


If you honestly think Obama is the one that broke the law, why isn't he at this hearing?

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

So are you saying that the Secretary of Defense went rogue, did the swap, MADE Obama do a press release in the Rose Garden? Oh my goodness!

No.

I'm saying that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense. Obama is not the Secretary of Defense and so he can't break a law that is applied to the Secretary of Defense.

If you want to talk about how the Sec Def broke a law...be my guest. But Obama didn't break any of the laws you highlighted in your thread...in fact Obama can't break any of those laws because he is not the Sec Def.

And the burglars that broke into the watergate offices were guilty of the break in. So why was Nixon impeached for it? The quality of args has diminished so in this generation.

1. Nixon was never impeached, he resigned.
2. Nixon was never charged with a crime.

Try again.

lol, so you are saying obama should resign then before it gets to impeacment? Mmmmkk. Nixon was innocent, mmmmk.....therefor obama is innocent. Nobody charged with a crime, fall guy in place...move along here, nothing to see...

a reply to: kruphix

You and the other Obama followers are sure quick to throw anyone under the bus just so long as your emperor remains unsullied.

lolz

Obama is in charge.

Obama failed to make sure that the law was followed.

Obama broke the law and violated the US Constitution.