Overthrow the democratically elected president, "how patriotic"

page: 20
49
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





Well, there's 19 pages and I have a life. I think I mentioned I never read back.


Evidently not a very well informed one with the inclination of learning.

I and many other people have pertinent posts on each one of the 19 pages in an ongoing discussion because you are late to showing up for you would love to hamper by having us personally recover ground that's already been covered, simply to indulge your self professed laziness and lack of scholarly inquistiveness while you ramble through your litany of personal talking points?

Arrogance and denial two of my favortie traits in the failing human race.

Thank goodness you showed up to enlighten us all huh?

Please don't let me interupt your dream, roll back over for your Masters now.

You wanted to trivialize the Clinton debate to being about Monica, as I have pointed out it wasn't.

Enough said.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Evidently not a very well informed one with the inclination of learning.


lol, and you decide that by the fact I couldn't be bothered reading a 19 page thread on ATS.


Arrogance and denial two of my favortie traits in the failing human race.

Thank goodness you showed up to enlighten us all huh?


I actually left that to you.


You wanted to trivialize the Clinton debate to being about Monica, as I have pointed out it wasn't.

Enough said.



No, never trivialised it at all. Indeed, the point was that the right-wing smear machine was as active during Clinton's days as it is now. I know it went well beyond Lewinsky. That was the point.

Of course, with your superior learned position you would know that.

And there's an edit for you in the last post. I read your posts and found you actually have beliefs, and even political ones at that. I'm still shocked. To the time-machine!

ABE: repost the edit for you.


ABE: so I quickly skimmed through your posts and I find you actually do have beliefs that might be some form of political ideology. I was shocked, shocked I tell you. I'm sure if Andrew Jackson was running for office you'd probably vote for him, you'd suddenly become an us vs. themer.

Sorry that your ideology is not represented. Hence why the US needs to get out the crappy binary system. Apart from a time-machine, not sure what other solution there is for you.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





lol, and you decide that by the fact I couldn't be bothered reading a 19 page thread on ATS.


It just typifies the very laziness and indifference that has many people unhappy with the political machine and process.

Like say newly elected Presidents who promise that they have a plan that can restore the economy in short order, a better plan than anyone else’s, only to admit later that they weren't actually aware of how bad the economy was and why.

Why? Lack of due diligence, and being more concerned about convincing others than actually knowing anything about what they are seeking to convince others for personal gain.

Discussing Clinton policy might have added to the quality of the debate, trying to trivialize the investigations into Clinton and to try to dismiss it all as 'smears', in an attempt to deflect from the current debate by trying to establish a precedent that all political debates are merely smears and should not be given credible investigation or thought is mere deflection and once again a reason why so many people are dissatisfied with government in general...

That would lead the OP to muse that citizens might take matters into their own hands to do away with it's corruptness through an avenue that has not already been corrupted and denied to them.

There are real issues regarding real policy, and real procedure, and real accountability that need really addressed and your arguments to not do so are simply desperate attempts at deflection, and deliberately failing to first familiarize yourself with the discussion is just a deliberate effort to derail it into the circular rehashing of non-issues, that there is no viable means to address in the here and now other than wasting time in circular arguments.

You are in fact well aware of what you are doing and why, and I have no inclination to pretend otherwise, as you have more or less already admitted and demonstrated what you are doing and why, and done it in a way that typifies why the political debate is a circular waste of time, as those immersed in it have little real concern or inclination regarding policy, procedures and accountability but rather instead lovability and deniability.

The entire government is corrupt to its core and both parties are involved



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It just typifies the very laziness and indifference that has many people unhappy with the political machine and process.


No, it doesn't. It typifies the fact that I'm actually doing things much better than reading 19 page threads on ATS. And after reading your posts, I didn't miss anything of note.

Polls show 77% want a public option. They do. They'd be happy with one. Why don't you help make them happy and get behind such a policy...

Oh yeah, I bet you're not one of 'them'.


Discussing Clinton policy might have added to the quality of the debate, trying to trivialize the investigations into Clinton and to try to dismiss it all as 'smears', in an attempt to deflect from the current debate by trying to establish a precedent that all political debates are merely smears and should not be given credible investigation or thought is mere deflection and once again a reason why so many people are dissatisfied with government in general...


Yes, it was generally right-wing smearing. Scattergun BS hoping for something to stick. An individual involved in spreading the smears has admitted it. They did the same to Kerry.

And there's no need for the pathetic strawman. Not all political debates are smears, and I never came anywhere close to suggesting that.

So far you're strawmanning and misrepresenting my posts. Well done. There could be a job in politics for you somewhere.


You are in fact well aware of what you are doing and why, and I have no inclination to pretend otherwise, as you have more or less already admitted and demonstrated what you are doing and why, and done it in a way that typifies why the political debate is a circular waste of time, as those immersed in it have little real concern or inclination regarding policy, procedures and accountability but rather instead lovability and deniability.


What I was doing, which I thought was fairly clear, was showing that the political smears and paranoid delusions that are being expressed by some on the right at the moment were just as evident during Clinton's years. For someone so very learned, you're off base quite a lot.

That was it. Nothing more, nothing less.


The entire government is corrupt to its core and both parties are involved


Aye, we need to roll back to 19th century. That'll sort it. Again, I'm sorry that your sociopolitical ideology is dated and out of fashion - like a Victorian bustle. I'm sure the marxists feel similarly isolated.

Get a party going. You can be one of 'them'. Alternatively, you could just gripe from the sidelines, misrepresent people on ATS, and foster anti-democratic feelings in the pursuit of some 19th century ideology.

ABE: You're actually as ideological as anyone out there, and your veneer of 'fowggedabowt us vs. them' doesn't fly with me. Your real problem is that politics is all 'them' to you. Oh well.

Anyway, I nailed my position early on - there's little point carrying on, you'll just keep on misrepresenting me.

Ta'ra chuck.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   


Are you conscience?

What form of dictate have you seen practiced by OBAMA?

Cause as far as I can tell he just gave plenty of ground in the healthcare debate, NOT universal healthcare, not even close...

Dictator my foot - the stars above your post speak to pandemic of this insanity, you guys have abandoned reality for emotion driven rage.

American recovery and reinivestment act was intoduced to the house on Janurary 26, 2009. Signed into law February 17, 2009
If I remember correctly, Obamanation said right after he took office that this is what "he was going to do", get this recovery plan in action right away.
I would call less than a month right away, I wouldn't think there was much time for debating this issue. What do you think?

Personally I did Not like the Bail out of Failing Banks without oversight of where the money went or how it was spent. They got to that After the Fact, because of the abuses that were discovered. If one or more of the banks were failing they should have Failed.

Also the Bailout of GM, that was absolutely the final straw for Me. My Government has No place Or Right to spend My hard earned TAX Dollars on Bailing out a BANKRUPT Company!
Obama said in December that He felt it was necessary Because He thought it would give an "unfair Advantage to FORD" WTF? GM Should have been left to File Bankruptcy.( a real one that is) just like any other business that has FAILED. And the FACT that Our Tax dollars have been "repaid by GM" in the form of WORTHLESS Stock is ludicrous!

The only Jobs that I have seen "created" by this recovery act, is the road workers all over the place. But my question is How Long can they work on the roads? What then?
More and more small businesses Have and Are going under but I don't see much going on on that front.
So Now we have Government Owned Banks, Government Owned Industry and Now He wants Government owned Health Care. Nope not in My world!

Obamanation wanted the Congress to pass this legislation "Before" they went into recess, thank God they didn't, (I believe that the reason is because of the lack of time they were allowed to debate and amend the Recovery and Reinvestment act) the origional bill would now be Law and we would be at the Governments Mercy for our Very Lives.
I am very happy that the Congress has had the opportunity to debate and amend the origional bill.
I have been watching the News today and they are talking about the newest amendment that is either comming out or is out today.
Sounds more like what We The People have been asking for, BUT I hope Everyone Realizes that this is just ONE amendment and that is has Little to No bearing on the Final bill.
All of the Bills will be dabated and then go to Committee for the final agreement. My greatest hope at this time is that We the People have a chance to actually see this Bill BEFORE it is voted on!

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!] Sorry I don't know why the quote didn't work. and now I don't remember who I was quoting.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Oreyeon
 


So the will of the people means nothing to you? Ofcourse the number crunching from the rightwing blogosphere regarding the DC protests are irrelevant as well Im guessing? You are following the typical process of the others here. Deny deny deny. If you would have further quoted my OP you have seeing that I also stated he was chosen by the electors in conjunction to the popular vote, which by all means follows the constitutional guidelines. The fact you only referenced the democratic part of my OP, not the constitutional part tells me you either didnt bother to read it further or you like the rest here choose to ignore the constitutional guidelines followed in the elections.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Once again maybe you should look at the rules of expulsion. We as the people can petition our own representatives to vote for an expulsion of a senator or representative. I have done my research and know what can be done, I cannot help you if you are ignorant to that.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I just watched your posted utube, and I am shocked. I did a lot of research on Vince Foster, and the White Water scam, and I didn't realize that it was all made up! All the facts say it was true, but hey, some terrorist Communist/Democrats say it was all made up, so these left wing lunatics must be right. They have never told the truth before, but things are different now. I, for one, am not a Rebumblican/Socialist, nor a Demoncrat. They are both overboard on corruption and sleaze. And now we have an illegal alien pulling the greatest scam on ole whitey ever. My congrats to the guy. He goes down in history for the biggest scam ever. And after he is exposed, and he will be, that is what the history books will say.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Stylez
 


Once again maybe you should look at the rules of expulsion. We as the people can petition our own representatives to vote for an expulsion of a senator or representative. I have done my research and know what can be done, I cannot help you if you are ignorant to that.


I have already spoke of expulsion on ats to irish mick and expulsion is not the same thing as recall. If you had paid attention in the start of this thread I mentioned two ways to get the president removed. One faster than impeachment. I believe I may have been talking to you in fact.

To continue, NO, recall is an entirely different animal and if you had read anything at all about expulsion, then why don't you just admit you are wrong, because I have not seen anything said about expulsion that didn't mention they are NOT the same. In fact Ill bet you found out about expulsion looking for another way to remove a sitting president AFTER you discovered recall don't cut it.

So again you're dead wrong, YOU know it and I know it



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Would you PLEASE read my post again. I am talking about SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

Edit: And what I know is what I said, in regards to senators and rep's. Do not call me ignorant and state I don't know what I'm talking about when it's apparent you are not reading my posts correctly.

And in this case SIR, you are the one that is dead wrong. Senators and Rep's can be expelled/recalled whatever you like to call it.
[edit on 15-9-2009 by bigshow]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by bigshow]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
No Stylez, it wasnt 15 minutes. It has been 7 months since the bills introduction. This is about throwing whatever you can get. Instead of addressing the bill, your complaining about petty things around it. The weakest form of argument.


You are about the dirtiest debate I have ever seen, ANYONE else notice you making things up people never said? You do it so much you have GOT to have been warned about it. Shall I point out how many you have done it to in here and where?

Is this the only way you can win an argument southern? Demanding this and that making off topic remarks and the moment someone responds to them you scream OFF TOPIC or "Don't change the subject" When they didn't YOU DID!

You keep talking about the health bill taking 7 months. I am saying he has shoved bills through 3500 pages thick and all you can do is say it's been 7 months. YEAH ON THE HEALTH BILL!

OBVIOUSLY NOT ON THE ONE I AM REFRRING TOO!!!!

Don't even give me your sniveling anger about this being about another bill when I only used it in a comparison YOU insisted I elaborate on, REMEMBER! DOH!

Then when I do, YOU assume or insist I am talking about the healthcare bill, when obviously I am not because that one is not signed yet and it took longer to write the post than the bill I mentioned they didn't have time to read. Don't even BOTHER bitching about it not having anything to do with this topic because what YOU asked was for speculation on what RON PAUL would do about the economic crisis! The healthcare Bill isn't about the GSE's but the one I was talking about that he shoved through so fast WAS!!!!!!

Now if you are going to cut and paste words I may have posted, don't do it as someone would use cut out pieces of magazine print to spell out a ransom note.

Either keep it in context or shut up. No one but NO ONE likes that crap you do and you have done it through this entire thread. You are boorish and belligerent to everyone in this thread, you have labeled us birthers nut jobs whack jobs and assumed we are all republicans and all voted for Bush when That Pisses people off too!



When did Obama say that?


Quit changing the subject!

There how you like it!


Here is another example of SG debate tactic of butchering a persons post making it look like I said I don't know, as if in a real-time conversation





Well I don't know - - Styles ( keep in mind, I never said I don't know to any of the things SG uses to insult me with right after this dis honest BS tactic he used)


No, you don’t know. You dont care to know about the bill. All you care about is "hate". Its rather sad. - SG



No I don't know what? SG. I don't care about the bill? hehe Funny, I could have sworn we were discussing RON PAUL! And NOT THE BILL!



All you care about is "hate". Its rather sad. - SG


Oh no NOT the hate and bigotry play again pffft



This issue isn’t about the length of the bill stylez, so move along.


It isn't about the BILL at aLL!! SG you wanted to ask me what I thought RON PAUL would DO!!! So get off my neck about what you fail to keep up with SG. You are the one moving the goal posts smart guy HERE ILL SHOW YOU!


When I said "

so presumptuous
"

You used that quote in an entirely different context and crafted it in a way to show you as some fast talking sharpie who thinks he has a clever comeback for comments about issues that were never made by me! You answered


What’s presumptuous about it? Your accusing the bill without reading it.


WHAT!!! First IT IS presumptuous because you don't know WHAT I’ve actually read but more than that, is it wasn't what I was referring to!

Here is another statement where you got your mind made up about people you haven't even known but for a few posts about recall and you got me all figured out! You got me carrying confederate flags singing the praises of the white nationalist sponsored by the Republican Party for god sake and then tell me you take it for what it is.

WHAT, WHAT IS SG!!You don't know what party I belong to and I don't have an "effing" confederate flag either but does that matter to you!! NOOOO You go right on talking like some clairvoyant know-it-all whose in with Sylvia brown making profiles on all of us.

When I mentioned this, you go right ahead and PROVED MY POINT!




I don’t have to second guess. If your cheering on a marching parade filled with folks carrying confederate flags, white nationalist signs sponsored by the republican party, lead on by republican speakers who happen to be the very politicians the movement claims to oppose, I don’t have to "guess" anything. You know of whom and what you support, and likewise I take it exactly for what it is.







Nevermind the "length", merely by you labeling it without reading it yourself says plenty to me.s


Really, then ya want to tell me what I labeled it smart guy? I don't think you read it either SG but Ill bet I have read more of it then you have! Hell you can't read a damn POST without butchering it up and showing us all how little of it you actually understood!

Your entire strategy is Butcher the post, re-post as something else the person said, then you criticize it as if they actually said it. I see this going on everyday here and its really getting annoying!


When I said :

How the hell do YOU know


I said that in response to your claim, auditing the fed would have done nothing to help the economy. You used it, quoting me as if it was in this context for the following answer which has NOTHING to do with why I said “How the hell do you know”

This was your answer:

I know that the policies implemented to save the economy at the beginning of the year is something I fully support.


SO WHAT! THAT isn't what I asked is it!

Then if that wasn't outrageous enough you pull THIS BULL**** on me .
See Below:


I know that you are obviously derailing a question specifically addressed to you to avoid having your do-nothing leader exposed.


YOU didn't ask the question, I DID, REMEMBER!

I asked and I quote “HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW!" Can you stick with the central message here for a time so I can show what your next trick was.

Now rather then answer my question, you gave an answer to one I never asked and it was, in fact YOU that was derailing!

I gave my answer and your reply was that it wouldn't work it wouldn't have made a difference. Well last I checked NO ONE has ever audited the fed so my question STILL STANDS! You don't know what it would expose until we DO IT!

GOT IT FORTUNE TELLER!



Ron Paul is a joke, and likewise I laugh whenever RP supporters go on about how this financial crisis hasn’t "turned around" in a matter of months under this administration. As if Ron Paul himself and his "do nothing" attitude to the crises was going to do something.


I don't know SG, because he isn't the President, but I can tell you this much, if he was, he would do SOMETHING! And NOT NOTHING as you imply.




I’m glad that mans well into his 70's and has a lower chance of running next time round'. He can go with the rest of the outdated policies. I’ve always given this to him; at least he can say what he thinks out loud. Something many "libertarians" and "conservatives" on here prefer not to.


You are a supporter of socialism correct?


How am I putting words in your mouth again?


The same way you did again, by mis-quoting, assuming questions you never asked of me were answered the wrong way and by butchering two or three words from one quote and pasting them as an answer to a comment or remark never really made.

How anyone can stand your BS tactics for winning an argument makes patent the axiom "you're a legend in your own mind" but all you are in the minds of others is dishonest and deceitful.




I asked you specifically what was Ron Paul’s solution to the crises if he had anything. All you responded to me was:

He would have the lobbyist kicked out (which is something I’m suppose to take yours and his word for).



If you are expecting someone to give you the Ron Paul administrations playbook as if he just for the hell of it wrote some manuscript of all the things HE would do if he were President, You would be asking a loaded question that could only be answered if at all, using pure speculation.

So when no-body produces the elusive "Paul doctrine" you must know it is because,

It DOESN'T exist!

But what do YOU do! You claim victory saying, "See I told ya Ron Paul is a do nothing!" as if it was Ron Paul’s responsibility to write all this stuff. Hey if you want him to do that, then VOTE FOR HIM DAMN IT. Don't accuse him of not doing as good a job as Obama when it isn't Ron Paul’s JOB it is OBAMA'S!

When you asked me What proof do I have About Obama’s contribution to the housing crisis I said and I quote “

Umm gee SG wasn't Barack Obama SECOND in line at the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac


What do you do after I gave my answer to your question,

YOU ACCUSED ME OF CHANGING THE SUBJECT!

Don’t ask to have the subject changed then but if I didn’t answer, I am sure you’re next stunt would be to point out I have no answers as you have done with others in here.

You know what is so pathetic, is that you actually believe this gets past people, but it doesn’t. I am sure I am not the first to explain this to you and even THAT I think is silly because I think you know exactly what you’re doing.

EXAMPLE: I answered and you said:


Why are you changing the subject again? What is Ron Paul’s solution?


Then when I proved Obama got in the way by opposing McCain’s bill in 2005 to restrain the GSE’s you said the following:



I'll happily answer your McCain bill question but of course the original argument here was regarding Ron Paul and his solution. Stop Derailing and address my question first.


I was addressing you’re question but you never DID address mine about Obama opposing McCains bill then when I did you’ll notice again you say “stop derailing the thread”



Now, your most welcome to run away from me like some others on this forum or you can address me again and actually answer next time round'.


Ill bet they do avoid you but it sure isn't for the reasons YOU think. I'd tell you what they are but I don't think their is any way to describe you without putting oneself in jeopardy with the T&C's as it would require so many expletives just to establish your character. So like them, I too will leave you to your delusions, and you can bastardize someone else’s posts reading their minds and all the other clever and devious BS you have done to every poster in this thread. I don't think their is a person alive that wouldn't find it so aggravating that it would piss anyone off enough as much as you do it, they couldn't leave a thread without telling you where to stick it.

But ill let them be the judge of that, and you don't even want to know what I'd say.

Have a nice life SG; I won't be seeing you on here again.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez
You are about the dirtiest debate


How were they only given 15 minutes? Where can you provide evidence to back up your claim?


ANYONE else notice you making things up people never said?


So you didnt say the politicians were only given 15 minutes?
So you did provide me Ron Pauls solution to the financial crises? Or did you merely tell me what he was going to take off?


Is this the only way you can win an argument


I asked you what Ron Pauls solution was to sort out the financial crises you and your fellows here blame Obama for not changing. You then go ahead and tell me what government agencies this man was going to move, not necessarily a solution to curbing the crises at hand.

Your refusing to cite me Ron Pauls solutions. Wheres his 9 month financial solution?


You keep talking about the health bill taking 7 months. I am saying he has shoved bills through 3500 pages


Shoved? Seems to me as though people had a choice to read the bill for themselves. But I'd suppose timing is everything right? You'll be needing atleast until after 2010? Enough time was given, however theres just never enough time for stalling this bill right?


Then when I do, YOU assume or insist


Whats there to insist regarding what you said? You and I both know that you have not properly addressed my questions. Where is it that these politicians were given 15 minutes, and whats Ron Pauls solution to fixing the economy up in 9 months? Theres no need to insist when you continue to run away from tough questions.

So whats Ron Pauls solution? Wheres his plan to fix the worst economic crises since the great depression in under a year?




Quit changing the subject!


Did I claim Obama made that statement or was it you? Who brought that subject up? It certainly wasnt me. So where did Obama make that remark? Do you care to back your claims up?


Here is another example of SG debate tactic of butchering a persons post making it look


The mere fact you continue to run away when I ask you Ron Pauls plan to fix the economy up in 9 months, or evidence to back up your other claims shows that there is no need for me to try anything. Im not dodging what I stated myself.




I could have sworn we were discussing RON PAUL! And NOT THE BILL!


Wasnt it you that went on complaing about the healthcare bill when I asked you about Ron Pauls 9 month solution to the financial crises? Your accusing me of bring topics up you yourself did.



Oh no NOT the hate and bigotry


Hate comes in many forms. I never restricted it to those reasons.



It isn't about the BILL at aLL


Then why did you bring up the healthcare bill upon my questioning about Ron Pauls solution?


You used that quote in an entirely different context


So now its out of context?


You got me carrying confederate flags singing the praises of the white nationalist sponsored by the Republican Party


This thread is in part regarding the DC protests. A thread in which you decided to address and likewise the reasoning behind the protests you so readily share. As far as I can see it, you support these rallies. I say it like it is.


WHAT, WHAT IS SG!!You don't know what party I belong to


Alot of folks at that rally claim "not to be from any party" while cheering on their favourite Republican speaker. So no, I dont know what party you claim to be for, I know what party you choose to walk with nevertheless.


You are a supporter of socialism correct?


Depends as to what you define socialism. To me, socialism is any form of cooperative distribution of wealth. Something every modern government in US and western history has associated itself with in one way or another.

Now, Im waiting for Ron Pauls 9 month economic solution, Im waiting for where Obama accused republicans of rushing through bills and Im waiting for how Obama was unconstitutionally elected president, as addressed in my OP.

SG

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Stylez
 


Would you PLEASE read my post again. I am talking about SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

Edit: And what I know is what I said, in regards to senators and rep's. Do not call me ignorant and state I don't know what I'm talking about when it's apparent you are not reading my posts correctly.

And in this case SIR, you are the one that is dead wrong. Senators and Rep's can be expelled/recalled whatever you like to call it.
[edit on 15-9-2009 by bigshow]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by bigshow]


It Doesn't MATTER! They are all F-E-D-E-R-A-L elected officials. Has it ever occured to you that if Re-call was the same thing as "expulsion" they wouldn't have to make the damn distinction!

If they wetre the same damn thing then the recall petition that was brought to unseat George W. Bush, would have defintaley got traction because they had four times the signatures they needed to unseat the man! Expusion is a method of removing at the federal level, RECALL is at the state and local level!


Now, ask yourself, if expulsion and recall are the same, then why is it they have different spelling?

Ya think they may have two entirely different legal definitions??

Why do you think expulsion can remove members at the federal level but recall can not?

Could it be that YOU are WRONG!

They are NOT the same! and this is the last time I am going to tell you because if you don't get it now, then you are either so stubborn to admit you're wrong or too ignorant to know the difference and would rather stay that way than say, " Gee I'm sorry stylez" " I stand corrected"

READ IT AND WEAP!




Who can be Recalled
The statutes define two categories of elected officials that can be recalled: State Officers and Local Officers. National officeholders and judicial officers are not subject to recall.

State Officers are defined as persons holding these offices: Governor,
State Representative, State Board of Education Member, and those elected on a statewide basis – Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, and Insurance Commissioner.

officers are different from those for local officers, and are handled at the state level. Local Officers are defined as any elected official other than state officers or those not subject to recall.



Political Dictionary: recall
Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Political Dictionary

Process whereby an elected official may be subject to an election which can lead to loss of office before his or her term of office has expired if a specified number or percentage of electors sign a petition calling for such an election. The recall device is widely available at state and local level in the United States, but is rarely used successfully.

— Wyn Grant
www.answers.com...




Expulsion and Censure




Expulsion (see below for Censure cases)

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership. Of that number, fourteen were charged with support of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion proceedings but either found the member not guilty or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint.

In the entire course of the Senate's history, only four members have been convicted of crimes. They were: Joseph R. Burton (1905), John Hipple Mitchell (1905), Truman H. Newberry (1920), and Harrison Williams (1981). Newberry's conviction was later overturned. Mitchell died. Burton, Newberry, and Williams resigned before the Senate could act on their expulsion
www.senate.gov...




[edit on 15-9-2009 by Stylez]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Stylez
 


Once again maybe you should look at the rules of expulsion. We as the people can petition our own representatives to vote for an expulsion of a senator or representative. I have done my research and know what can be done, I cannot help you if you are ignorant to that.


OmG did you learn this from souther Guardian?

HERE, Let me help you THIS is what YOU said:



You are incorrect, there is a recall process for all elected officials in the house and the senate, which I believe we should recall every single one of them. Once that is done and "Good" people are put into office that will actually represent the PEOPLE as they are supposed to, I believe the president would find himself in a very hard spot to have his "will" done in anyway in our house and senate. Maybe at that time, the people along with our elected representatives will get it straight that they work for us, not the other way around. I believe part of my paycheck goes to employing them, along with anyone else who receives a paycheck. Therefore logically we employ them, and at least in my state, employment is at will.



Then I said: Quote



Their is no such thing as a recall for public officials on the federal level.

There are only two means of removing them from office. One is fast but you better damn sure be correct that all your "i's dotted and all your "t's" crossed. The other would take so long and is unlikely to get any traction with so many democrats in control.


Now I was the one that told you expulsion was the only kind that would do it and that you couldn't do it in a recall.

Try to follow what people actually say. I see Souther Guardians last post is saturated again with things I never said, things he says i said but leaves out the copy pasted quotes, and a hell of a lot of questions he has asked and I have answered that I won't answer twice. As for Ron Paul, that was the most asinine constructed means to prove Ron Paul would do worse than Obama I have ever seen. Where he gets the idea Ron Paul has been working in a shadow administration writing nine months of crisis legislation is more of his delusion.

Like you coming in here as if you have been using the word expulsion all along when you haven't. I was right about what you did, you found out recall was wrong and expulsion was right and now I guess you're hoping, I'd just forget how this whole argument got started and talk like we will all assume you were talking about expulsion all along.

Sorry dude, you were wrong then and you're wrong now

Just like souther guardian




[edit on 15-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Once again Stylez you may want to do some flipping research. You answered my arguement yourself and am supporting my answer. I said there is a recall/ expulsion that can be done to ANY rep or senator. The constitution provides this. I'm not sure what you aren't getting through your thick head... maybe we should meet up and I'll smack you real hard with a book. Maybe at that point you'll see the light and that I have supported my arguement. At no point will I bring myself to feel obliged to apologize to you for anything as there is nothing to apologize for. And I find it rather humorous of your "tough" guy attitude behind a screen and keyboard.

Read this for another piece of fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh another kicker, our rep's represent US THE PEOPLE. We tell them what to do, if the people in a majority petition a rep to introduce this, then that is the will of the people.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
Once again Stylez you may want to do some flipping research. You answered my arguement yourself and am supporting my answer. I said there is a recall/ expulsion that can be done to ANY rep or senator. The constitution provides this. I'm not sure what you aren't getting through your thick head... maybe we should meet up and I'll smack you real hard with a book.



Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of the respective body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each House has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.



As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.


Now why do you suppose they give two different explanations smart guy?

Did YOU or DID you NOT say they are the same "Recall" sans the "/ expulsion"

YES OR NO???

Did you or did you not understand that Recall and expulsion can not do what the other does



Maybe at that point you'll see the light and that I have supported my arguement. At no point will I bring myself to feel obliged to apologize to you for anything as there is nothing to apologize for. And I find it rather humorous of your "tough" guy attitude behind a screen and keyboard.


What is tough, is that you lost the argument and now wish to humiliate yourself. Yeah you were wrong and that's tough it isn't like i didn't offer a way for you to save face. Next time you want to call someone a tough guy, don't do it while you are threatening to hit them over the head with a book because it makes everything you said you think I think I am, what YOU actually think YOU are.

If most people back down from your inability to argue and win by using facts and logic, but rather threats and intimidation, guess you're wrong about that too. You don't scare me pal and being tough in a debate is what ATS is all about.

I TOLD YOU, EXPULSION = YOU OK WIT DAT


RECALL = DAT NOT OTAY

www.senate.gov...'0E%2C*PL%5B%3A%230%20%20%0A


For a recall provision to be enforceable against a Member of Congress, it would appear that a constitutional amendment would need to be adopted by the requisite number of states authorizing such a recall procedure in the United States Constitution. Although there has been some call for a constitutional amendment authorizing national “referenda” or “initiatives,” there has not been significant movement for a national recall provision.

Bigshow VS Stylez



Sounds like your sol on the recall word eh chum?

I am glad you finally understand you can not recall on the federal level and getting a bunch of signatures to have them removed in the way you described is a recall not an expulsion. They don't have to censure anyone just because you say so and an expulsion is something they should have done to Cheney, and Bush with more than ample reason to justify it but like I said, you got no traction.

Oh and you're welcome




[edit on 15-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!




American recovery and reinivestment act was intoduced to the house on Janurary 26, 2009. Signed into law February 17, 2009
If I remember correctly, Obamanation said right after he took office that this is what "he was going to do", get this recovery plan in action right away.
I would call less than a month right away, I wouldn't think there was much time for debating this issue. What do you think?

Personally I did Not like the Bail out of Failing Banks without oversight of where the money went or how it was spent. They got to that After the Fact, because of the abuses that were discovered. If one or more of the banks were failing they should have Failed.

Also the Bailout of GM, that was absolutely the final straw for Me. My Government has No place Or Right to spend My hard earned TAX Dollars on Bailing out a BANKRUPT Company!
Obama said in December that He felt it was necessary Because He thought it would give an "unfair Advantage to FORD" WTF? GM Should have been left to File Bankruptcy.( a real one that is) just like any other business that has FAILED. And the FACT that Our Tax dollars have been "repaid by GM" in the form of WORTHLESS Stock is ludicrous!

The only Jobs that I have seen "created" by this recovery act, is the road workers all over the place. But my question is How Long can they work on the roads? What then?
More and more small businesses Have and Are going under but I don't see much going on on that front.
So Now we have Government Owned Banks, Government Owned Industry and Now He wants Government owned Health Care. Nope not in My world!

Obamanation wanted the Congress to pass this legislation "Before" they went into recess, thank God they didn't, (I believe that the reason is because of the lack of time they were allowed to debate and amend the Recovery and Reinvestment act) the origional bill would now be Law and we would be at the Governments Mercy for our Very Lives.
I am very happy that the Congress has had the opportunity to debate and amend the origional bill.
I have been watching the News today and they are talking about the newest amendment that is either comming out or is out today.
Sounds more like what We The People have been asking for, BUT I hope Everyone Realizes that this is just ONE amendment and that is has Little to No bearing on the Final bill.
All of the Bills will be dabated and then go to Committee for the final agreement. My greatest hope at this time is that We the People have a chance to actually see this Bill BEFORE it is voted on!


[edit on 15-9-2009 by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!] Sorry I don't know why the quote didn't work. and now I don't remember who I was quoting.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!]

ME...



2009 Grades
Aviation D
Bridges C
Dams D
Drinking Water D-
Energy D+
Hazardous Waste D
Inland Waterways D-
Levees D-
Public Parks and Recreation C-
Rail C-
Roads D-
Schools D
Solid Waste C+
Transit D
Wastewater D-
America's Infrastructure GPA: D


www.infrastructurereportcard.org...

This is the worst our infastructure has gotten in modern history...


My opinion from an earlier post


Investing in infrastructure does not generate wealth? I'll be damned, cause I thought
the contractors and workers might use the money to pay bills, put food on the table
or save it to invest it in a new venture.

But it does not count if it does not expand GDP, miraculously that money it is NOT sent off to bill collectors, it does not go to the retention of employees and it will not be accepted at the local grocery store. Rather, these pay checks dissolve the moment they are placed in the back pocket, which might explain how a 100 year old bridge will re bolt itself when its good and ready
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are spending NOW to offset unemployment in an attempt to slow the systemic crash
of the entire economic model Hoover - retraction and expansion are antonyms.


The mulitple airline bailouts of 2002

Where were all the socialism cries form the "conservatives"????

www.cbsnews.com...

2003

thetravelinsider.info...

PRIVATE INDUSTRY - bailed out

Recovery act




The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector.


We tend to forget about the $275 BILLION in tax CUTS that is counted in that $787
figure...



Taxes ($275 billion)
New tax credit
House— About $145 billion for $500 per-worker, $1,000 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. For the last half of 2009, workers could expect to see about $20 a week less withheld from their paychecks starting around June. Millions of Americans who don’t make enough money to pay federal income taxes could file returns next year and receive checks. Individuals making more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 would receive reduced amounts.
Senate — The credit would phase out at incomes of $70,000 for individuals and couples making more than $140,000 and phase out more quickly, reducing the cost to $140 billion.
Conference- Tax Credit reduced to $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010 and phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. Note retirees with no wages get nothing.[26]
Alternative minimum tax
House — No provision.
Senate — About $70 billion to prevent 24 million taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax in 2009. The tax was designed to make sure wealthy taxpayers can’t use credits and deductions to avoid paying any taxes or paying at a far lower rate than would otherwise be possible. But it was never indexed to inflation, so critics now contend it taxes people it was not intended to. Congress addresses it each year, usually in the fall.
Conference - Includes a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[26]
Expanded child credit
House — $18.3 billion to give greater access to the $1,000 per-child tax credit for low income workers in 2009 and 2010. Under current law, workers must make at least $12,550 to receive any portion of the credit. The change eliminates the floor, meaning more workers who pay no federal income taxes could receive checks.
Senate — Sets a new income threshold of $8,100 to receive any portion of the credit, reducing the cost to $7.5 billion.
Conference - The income floor for refunds was set at $3,000 for 2009 & 2010.[27]
Expanded earned income tax credit
House — $4.7 billion to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
Senate — Same.
Expanded college credit
House — $13.7 billion to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
Senate — Reduces the amount that can be refunded to low-income families that pay no income taxes, lowering the cost to $13 billion.
Homebuyer credit
House — $2.6 billion to repeal a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time for homes purchased from Jan. 1 to July 1, unless the home is sold within three years. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $150,000.
Senate — Doubles the credit to $15,000 for homes purchased for a year after the bill takes effect, increasing the cost to $35.5 billion.
Conference - $8,000 credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years.[27]
Home energy credit
House — $4.3 billion to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
Senate — Same.
Conference - Same;
Unemployment
House — No similar provision.
Senate — $4.7 billion to exclude from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
Conference—Same as Senate...................


en.wikipedia.org...

HOW about the $144 BILLION going to state and "local" fiscal relief????

Anyhow if you have already drank the milkshake I'm not gonna stick my finger down your throat...

Tax CUTS = socialisms and Making up for state budget shortfalls and unemployment which people pay for on each paycheck

The SOCIALISM, HITLER thing is retarded - check the links look at the numbers

would you rather people working to fix our f -up roads and bridges or sit on a couch collecting money feeling sorry?






[edit on 15-9-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I dont know what party you claim to be for, I know what party you choose to walk with nevertheless.


Does he tell us? No Does he make sense? NO.

Why Not? Because the sentence states he acknowldges the fact he doesn't know what party I claim to be for, ( as if I a lying) but more proof SG is a mind reader, he says he knows what party I "walk with " (assuming that one is the one I am "really for")

Now what has he proven?

Not damn thing.



This thread is in part regarding the DC protests. A thread in which you decided to address and likewise the reasoning behind the protests you so readily share. As far as I can see it, you support these rallies. I say it like it is.


So that is what makes meconfederate flag carrying nutjob singing the praises of the white nationalist sponsored by the Republican Party? I mean that is how you call it like you see it? That is what you said?



So now its out of context?


Of those you didn't totally make up yeah, they be out o context.



You don't mind if I save your posts as a text book example of ATS Circumlocution and what it looks like? I you can't debate like a pro you sure can BS like one.

Now this one I am alerting for because you are busted SG, I hope they start looking into this type of instigating tom foolery for the huge waste of time you cause people, the total lack of intent to even try to be above board and honest. In fact Ill show you have been nothing short of deceitful dis honest and the worst kind of liar.

Here we see SG's tactic in full swing after he does this with about three our four long posts. It leaves the respondent spinning in disbelief and looking for things the ymay or may not be able to put their finger on regarding discrepancies about what is being quoted and what is actually being said and about what.

Example. SG, quotes me as saying:


Then when I do, YOU assume or insist:


Now unless I do a search of all my posts thus far, I am completely lost trying to remember what the hell I was telling him he insisted and here is why:




What we see here is one of the cheapest low down and classless tactics of debate bar none. Doesn't really have anything to do with his answer OR the topic OR his matched response other than to cut up bits and pieces of someone post and take the parts that fit his argument. so it looks like this:




Notice: The thin white square where it says "whats their to insist ""Regarding what you said" " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why he HAD to say "regardig what I said" because this response is totally BS and since it is a hack of three or more words taken so totally out of context with the the large paragraph the words actually came from, he leaves ME up to the task of having to guess again what the hell he is talking about, regarding what I said. At this point most people are so lost in the piles of these he keeps laying on in addition to other less clever but equally devious and deceitful tactics to get the other poster playing catch up with constantly having to correct him.

You may have read where i gave him a taste of his own medicine using his own example to show I was on to him. I said "Don't change the subject". Then he comes back with a plethora of crazymakers see below:



what the hell are you talking about when you say:


Did I claim Obama made that statement or was it you?


What are you talking about?


Who brought that subject up?


what subject did you think it was about?


It certainly wasnt me. So where did Obama make that remark?


aah I see,, really is sort of like the TV show "Seinfeld" only with you it is Southern Guardian, a post about nothing.

Like the lil crazy maker at the end where ya say:


Do you care to back your claims up?


So I think most can say and agree, you're just playing games now.

You see, their really was no confusion about the subject, I was only showing him that everytime he asked a question and he didn't like the answer he got, he would snap "Don't change the subject". Now what he has done is attempt to get me lost and confused but whether one gets lost or not, it's a real pain in the ass having to deal with this immature and very aggravating tactic. See Below"




It raises the temperature while he begins his little revisionist crap claiming he has the readers respect and claims victory.

This guy couldn't win an argument on any level above playing dirty.

I am in the process of making some illustrations of some even more devious tactics he has played on jenna and several others. I have seen this tactic used a lot lately but nothing to the extreme Southern Guardian depends on it to keep a real debate fro ever getting off the starting block and notice the constant dig dig dig for pressuring the now inundated with BS quotes, the opposing poster is pressured more and more to answer SG's question and what about your answer and I guess you can't answer. When you do, he accuses you of derailing or changing the subject by taking only bits and small pieces of your answer and butchering it up so you haven't really given one. At least that is what he thinks it will accomplish.

I don't know is this kind of thing is a TC Violation but it sure as hell ought to be



[edit on 16-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Why do you continue to run away from backing up your claims? I asked you what Ron Pauls solutions were to the financial crises in a matter of 9 months, you come back to me tell me what agencies and officials "he going to supposedly throw away" and then you on about healthcare bill and how its too long. I then address your "too long" concern and ask you to once again tell me Ron Pauls actual economic solution to the crises and you once again continue to dodge and attack. So really, in addition to your continued refusal to tell me Ron Pauls 9 month financial solution you go off topic bashing Obama and likewise myself. I mean, I know you dont like the man and the healthcare plan but I recall my original question was "what and how Ronnie was going to solve the financial crises and turn it around in a matter of months".

Now, I will ask you again to back up your statements previously.

When did Obama make that statement? Links?
Where did Obama say the politicans only had 15 minutes to read the bill?
What was Ron Pauls 9 month plan to turn around the worst financial crises in decades?

Cut the dodging and address the original argument.

SG


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Declaration of Independence





top topics
 
49
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join