It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Impeachment Charges

page: 7
81
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I totally agree with this post, and also agree that Bush should have been impeached and was lucky he wasn't. The whole system is a joke and a failure.

Obama, while he may not have DIRECTLY ordered some of the events that took place, they did occur under his watch and with his approval and oversight. They couldn't have happened any other way; he is responsible for his cabinet. Granted, there is going to be some degree of plausible deniability, but that is not protection from the law, as I will cover below. He is the Executive Officer of the Federal Gov't, so all things must pass by him at some point. To say that he was not aware of the offer being made to Sestak for a different position (that likely paid more) to change his stance is complete ignorance of the facts. Rahm Emanual to Clinton is still under Obama. To also not consider it a form of bribery is also ignorance and those who do not understand the law need to go read it before commenting here.


Bribery:
Bribery is the offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. Bribes can take the form of gifts or payments of money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the person accepting can be charged with bribery.

The act of bribery is the payment of something of value to a person in a position of power or trust in order to influence that person's behavior.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" does not mean "more serious", it refers to those who hold high positions or high persons, specifically, public officials who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary people are not, and which could not be applied or punished if committed by ordinary people.

TRANSLATION: If you are a public official, you are held accountable to your obligations as a representative of the public and can be charged with crimes that normal people would not normally be charged with.

EXAMPLE: If I were to lie on this post, nobody can prosecute me unless I cause harm to them in some way. If a public official lies, he can be charged for it. If I bribe my friend to come work at my place of employment (and he is not under contract) since I get a referral fee, I can not be charged with a crime. If a public official is bribed by anyone, both parties can be charged.

The military (that Obama is in charge of) recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath".

We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.

periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.

iurator, oris, m., a swearer.

iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.

ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.

per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president's oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and is not specifically necessary to deceive an enemy.

When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury, or lying to the public, is a high crime.

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability".

He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

I hope this clarifies things for "some" who don't "get it".


~Namaste




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Then quit crying and go refute everything in my reply where I directly addressed each of your so called "offensese".

I'm begging people to do this and no one has.

Stop spouting rhetoric and debate...you can start with my reply...get to it.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


Nothing was offered or promised. Options were discussed...one of those options would of required him to drop out of the race.

Oh...and did Obama make that offer?


Do you have proof of such? Allegations were made, and they should be looked into. This would happen in an impeachment hearing.




I already discussed the Blago link...the article ONLY talks about the mis-characterization of contacts of peopel in Obama's administration...nothing about Obama at all.


I intended to show that Obama had a hand in the Blago saga, whether directly or indirectly.




Your other link about ACORN is so LOL. Obama reprsented ACORN with a team of lawyers ONE TIME...is that all you got???


Wrong. Obama has more ties to Acron than one case





So he made a naive statement in 2007 and found out that in the real world you sometimes have to play the game within the system that it is set up in.


Nothing illegal about changing your mind...and no abuse of power either. Keep trying though.


Or he could be the one to change the system . . . but he did not, and it is still an abuse of power.





This is the best and funniest one yet.


I am glad that you hold oaths to be funny.



Obama targetted a "hit" on a citizen...or a terrorists...but you fail to mention that this "citizen" is planning on killing Americans.


If said terrorist is a citizen, he has Constitutional rights. Period.


An enemy is an enemy...regardless of their citizenship.


Indeed, but if he is a citizen, he is still afforded his Constitutional rights.


I seem to remember something about protectin from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Again...you got nothing...nothing at all.







1)Bailouts
...
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.


Well it is a good thing congress passed both the bailouts and the stimulus...huh???


2)Supreme Court

President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court nominees embrace “empathy” in their decisions and opinions.


Oh no...he wants to appoint someone who has feelings...such a crime. No...it's not.


3) The Czars


LOL...you let Glenn Beck lead you on this one. Tell me...is Obama the only President to ever have "Czars"????


4) Government ownership in private business

The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more.


How is Amtrak doing??? Didn't seem illegal then...did it?


5) Redistribution of Wealth


Ummmm???? Adjusting the tax code is quite legal and often done. Nothing illegal here...just more crazy ranting.


6) Health Care


Was passed legally...like it or not.


7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document


Because it is.




You have proved NOTHING...it is just your OPINION.


Someone did not read the article, as the article gives the reasons why each in unconstitutional.


[edit on 6/3/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 



"We" as in the 26% that you are a part of?


Why won't you admit that the number you provide is just wrong.


No it isn't. It is right there in the link.


Why only quote ONE poll and only use the Strongly Agree number??? Is it because it paints the picture you want it to???


Because I did not check the rest of the information. I did not know there was a "kind of approve" option.

I apologize for not doing my due diligence.


Let's look at the average of all polls...even includes your beloved Rasmussen poll.

RCP Average



President Obama Job Approval
Poll:RCP Average
Date:5/15 - 6/2
Approve: 48.0
Disapprove: 45.8
Spread: +2.2


48% does not equal 26% in any math I know of...care to explain how you falsely claim that is his approval rating???


Again, I did not know that they use five different numbers (exaggeration on my part). 48% is still a far cry from the all-inclusive "WE."


For someone who likes to call out fallacies on everyones post...it seems quite easy for you to outright LIE.


Yes, I lied . . . the link proves that there is no 26%



But hey...let's look at your beloved Rasmussen report from the same site when it doesn't look at only the strongly approve/dissaprove numbers.



Poll:Rasmussen Reports
Date:5/31 - 6/2
Sample: 1500 LV
Approve: 48
Disapprove: 52
Spread: -4


Uh oh...looks like even your Rasmussen poll shows a 48% approval rate...it sucks to be caught in lies...doesn't it???


Indeed. I would hate to be caught in a lie. Which is Why I do not lie. It is too stressful.


And btw...Rasmussen is, always has been, and always will be biased against Obama. They are consistently the fringe on the approval ratings...which is why you use THAT POLL and ignore all others. Go ahead...look at the link I posted.

Can you admit you are being biased and lying to try to paint the picture you want???


. . . and . . . back to the fallacies . . .




[edit on 6/3/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It's apparent that Lemon.Fresh can spell the word fact, he just doesn't know the meaning of it.


It is also apparent that you have nothing to contribute to the debate, except fallacies. Enjoy your day



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 

very good thread
and very thorough
nice work
star for you

and for Lemon Fresh



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I think that that was covered here



[edit on 6/3/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 



Do you have proof of such? Allegations were made, and they should be looked into. This would happen in an impeachment hearing.


I have the information that is available...and that is what is being told right now by both sides. If anyone looks bad in this deal it is Sestak for making it out to be more than it was.

I don't make up facts like some people do, OP, I am using the information that is available...not making up "what if"s and "could be"s.



I intended to show that Obama had a hand in the Blago saga, whether directly or indirectly.


Well you failed on both accounts. The most Obama is attached to this is that it was his Senate seat being talked about.

You really have nothing else...and you know it.


Wrong. Obama has more ties to Acron than one case


And all of them legit...are you still trying to push the guilty by association? Tell me...what did Obama do ILLEGALLY with ACORN???

You can't...because he didn't.


Or he could be the one to change the system . . . but he did not, and it is still an abuse of power.


Is it illegal to continue the system that is in place???


I am glad that you hold oaths to be funny.


I find silly arguements to be funny...that's all.


If said terrorist is a citizen, he has Constitutional rights. Period.


Right...so does a bank robber holding a gun to a tellers head...doesn't mean a cop can't shoot him.

If a "citizen" is plotting to kill other Americans...it is his duty to stop them...period.


Someone did not read the article, as the article gives the reasons why each in unconstitutional.


Oh I read the "article"...or should I say "blog" written by "Maggie" from "Maggies Noteboke" blog on blogspot.

I'm glad you trust valid sources for you information.

This is one ladies...the mysterious "Maggie"...opinion. And none of it is correct at all.

Instead of dodging...why don't you go through list and show me how I'm wrong.


You haven't showed me I'm wrong in any of the points I made...you have never shown ANY ONE of those are cause for impeachment. All you have is that you hate Obama...and that isn't going to cut it.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
as expected the trolls enter from stage left
and give every possible reason why folks
who think critically are wrong.

I was a member of the sheeple for so long
and have awakened to see it for what it is.

And once again, this thread is NOT about Bush,
it is about Obama. Please stay on topic.

I have seen some weak arguments before
but some of you people are just downright
living in a fantasy world called Obama-Nation.

He HAS committed crimes.

He HAS lied to the American public.

He HAS covered it up.

He HAS used his official powers to circumvent law.

He HAS NOT enforced laws already on the books.

He HAS failed to set us on the right path.

and

He HAS to go !!!!!


Very dramatic.

Yet myopic.

I counter with...

"He HAS to stay!"

That was easy.

You see baby Bush drove us so far off the path and into a ditch so deep that we are lucky to still be alive. If the air bags had not deployed we would of flown out the window headlong into a tree. Now I understand that Bush has run away from the scene leaving the rest of us bruised and muddy but it's no reason to take out all our anger on the tow truck driver. Lets get out of the mud, fix the car and then put out a APB on the driver.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 



Debate....

I just love the pseudo intellectual tack! It's so cute!

The whole impeachment thing is stupid, just like the rerepeated posting of birth certificate garbage and the othe 1000 anti Obama accusations, the SAME STUFF OVER AND OVER!!.
Sir!
I love the pseudo Gentlemanly "I'm a logical debating guy! Pip pip!"
baloney.
Ya know what, stop taking yourself and you fringe ideas so seriously.
And don't take ATS so seriously.

Mods! Do what thou wilt!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I love your number five. We better impeach the guy for staying in the war that he did not start, that he did not lie about as his predecessor did, and that he CANNOT just cut and run from.

Now thats logic at its finest.

Get over it. He will not be impeached.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


If Bush wasn't impeached fore wiretapping, invading two countries, advocating torture, firing federal prosecutors, letting 9/11 take place, bringing in the Patriot Act, and totally f'n up Katrina...I'd say you have a pretty bad shot at getting Obama (who's a saint compared to W) thrown out of office just because he does things a politician does.

It seems right wingers go completely senile when a Democrat is in office. Clinton gets a you know what in office and you want him thrown out. Obama ...well, doesn't do much and yet, you're just so very upset at the fact you have a black Democrat running your country.

Enjoy it. He's the best we're going to get for a while.



[edit on 3-6-2010 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I love your number five. We better impeach the guy for staying in the war that he did not start, that he did not lie about as his predecessor did, and that he CANNOT just cut and run from.

Now thats logic at its finest.

Get over it. He will not be impeached.


Yup, sounds like Neo-Conservative vomit in my opinion. Be proud you guys Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh love you for allowing them to brain wash you!

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Procession101]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Oh...the inevitable vague, yet 'cutting' ad homs? (ouch)


as expected the trolls enter from stage left...


Ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe this sort of unsubstantiated rhetoric is yet its own form of 'trolling'?



And once again, this thread is NOT about Bush,
it is about Obama. Please stay on topic.


Well...ya can't have that "laser-like" sort of focus, in a discussion of this nature. Comparisons have to be made, in order to vet the accuracy of the OP's claims RE: Pres. Obama.

Analogies and allusions to other cases (past Presidents, for instance) help to cut through the hyperbole, hopefully. I mean...ever seen how many law courts decide how to rule, sometimes? Precedent, based on cases from the past....

IF ONLY people had been this rabidly focused on BUSH back in 2001...or 2005! (Even worse...we have the Diebold thing, there too).

Oh, not off-topic, but illustrative, I think. You see, even with the Diebold shenanigans, Bush's hands were 'clean', as he was insulated. I think you'll find the same thing with this situation, IE Obama. HE (unlike, for example, NIXON!) isn't directly involved of any of the OP's allegations. Culpability, that's the key.

SO, you may think him as Machiavellian, if you wish...but I don't think he's all that calculating, to be honest. It is what people around him do, and he can't control everyone else's actions...no one can.

I believe the terms I'm searching for is "trumped up"?? Or, "circumstantial" evidence???



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


I have the information that is available...and that is what is being told right now by both sides. If anyone looks bad in this deal it is Sestak for making it out to be more than it was.

I don't make up facts like some people do, OP, I am using the information that is available...not making up "what if"s and "could be"s.


Those are the facts that are available, and based on those facts, an impeachment hearing should be started to learn the whole truth.





Well you failed on both accounts. The most Obama is attached to this is that it was his Senate seat being talked about.

You really have nothing else...and you know it.


Once again, it is all based on facts and an impeachment hearing should be started to learn the full truth.





And all of them legit...are you still trying to push the guilty by association? Tell me...what did Obama do ILLEGALLY with ACORN???

You can't...because he didn't.


Acorn campaigns for Obama . . . Obama approves their funding.

President Obama has quietly moved behind the scenes to restore full funding to the radical group ACORN, which was his former employer and legal client.

In a move ignored by the media, OMB director Peter Orszag circulated a directive to federal agencies ordering them to begin funding ACORN again. ACORN is the hyperpartisan lead group in the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) coalition and has long supported a government takeover of the U.S. health care system.

The fiscal floodgates will soon re-open for ACORN despite a congressional ban on funding the activist group that has long been a practitioner of election fraud.




Is it illegal to continue the system that is in place???


If the system is operating illegally, most definitely.




If said terrorist is a citizen, he has Constitutional rights. Period.


Right...so does a bank robber holding a gun to a tellers head...doesn't mean a cop can't shoot him.

Apples and oranges. An armed robbery is an immediate life and death situation, and the criminal is attempted to be talked down before the escalation of force to lethal.


If a "citizen" is plotting to kill other Americans...it is his duty to stop them...period.


If the danger is not imminent, there is no need to go to those lengths.


Someone did not read the article, as the article gives the reasons why each in unconstitutional.



Oh I read the "article"...or should I say "blog" written by "Maggie" from "Maggies Noteboke" blog on blogspot.

I'm glad you trust valid sources for you information.

This is one ladies...the mysterious "Maggie"...opinion. And none of it is correct at all.

Instead of dodging...why don't you go through list and show me how I'm wrong.


You haven't showed me I'm wrong in any of the points I made...you have never shown ANY ONE of those are cause for impeachment. All you have is that you hate Obama...and that isn't going to cut it.


Please debate the points she gives, not the source. Thanks


[edit on 6/3/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 



Those are the facts that are available, and based on those facts, an impeachment hearing should be started to learn the whole truth

Once again, it is all based on facts and an impeachment hearing should be started to learn the full truth.
.


No...you don't use an impeachment trial to attempt to dig for information that is unknown...and that is what you are suggesting.

You use an impeachment trial when there is already known criminal activity.

You can't use impeachment as a witch hunt and start one for ever stupid rumor that is floating out there.

Tell me you don't honestly believe that this is how impeachment should be used.


Acorn campaigns for Obama . . . Obama approves their funding.


Congress approves their funding...get it straight.

They Acorn thing died a long time ago...you need to get off that boat...and stay up with the current false anti-Obama rhetoric. You are making your group look bad by grasping to old debunked rhetoric.


Apples and oranges. An armed robbery is an immediate life and death situation, and the criminal is attempted to be talked down before the escalation of force to lethal.


So you suggest we wait for an attack to happen...and then take action??? Oh yeah...I bet you wouldn't be on Obama for not acting sooner...right???

You guys are so predictable...nothing he does is right...he either does too much or not enough.


Please debate the points she gives, not the source. Thanks


Well I tried..and you ignored every single point I made...and you have a second time. All that says to me is that you have nothing to say to the points I made.

And yes...I will attack a "source" when it is a blog and you are trying to pass it off as undeniable proof. If you don't want me to attack your sources of "Maggie"...then get some credible sources.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Thank you sir. S&F for you by the way.

It is apparent to me that a lot of people who are posting on here have no idea what it is like to be a leader and be accountable for the actions of those under you. They set aside the normal hierarchy of power and due process to suit Obama, or Bush, or anyone else they see fit and disregard responsibility and accountability for subordinates and their actions.

If someone I manage for a project, goes off and mangles everything that we've been working toward, it may be his fault, but ultimately, I'm going to be asked "why weren't you aware of that?" or "how come you didn't stop this?" or "how did this go un-noticed?". If I dare say "I didn't know" or "I was not aware", I can take odds that the follow-up will be "You're f*ing FIRED!" Taking the "innocent bystander" position with public policy and representation is a ruse for those who don't respect the law and will bend it consistently to favor their outcome. If I get a speeding ticket, and I tell the police officer that I "didn't know the limit was 65" - I can take it all the way to court, and I will continue to hear the same thing - "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for not abiding by it". This is no different for anyone in a position such as the POTUS or anyone under him who has taken an oath.

If I were Obama, and wanted to do the right thing as well as avoid possible impeachment, I would come out and acknowledge that I was aware of the offer to Sestak, and FIRE Rahm Emanual and anyone else involved. I would also fire or impeach anyone else complicit in the Sestak offer or the Nelson bribe for health care, or the Stupak bribe. I would also acknowledge that by abusing the POTUS power to write executive orders to create a law that was not based on national security and did not follow the normal channels of being voted on, and was done explicitly to BRIBE Stupak into changing his behavior, that I was wrong for doing so and therefore, the health care bill should be repealed and re-examined to make sure it follows the proper due process that was afforded us by the previous generations that died to protect it.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Its kind of hard to wan to impeach Obama after being in office for about 1 1/2 years for doing what?! I think most of you are still bitter that he actually won. you guys need to get a life and get over it! Guess what?! Obama WILL be POTUS until 2012 and then will probably be elected for a second term. If you loved the USA with so much fervor then where were you when we were entering two ILLEGAL WARS and in case you forgot, it was Bush that gave the banks their 1st bailout not Obama!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by RedmoonMWC

What is needed is a complete overhaul of the system starting with all incumbents being voted out. This does not mean we vote in other professional politicians; we need new blood, new ideas, or people without connections. We need to draw from a 3rd party or even those not affiliated with a party.
Spot on! That plus Lobbyists have to go.


Originally posted by Erica1631
He will be a lame duck president. .

Didn’t we all think this of the last potus? We really need to pay attention to the next election, (Wait I said that about the one before that too!)


Originally posted by badfish86
Now think logically about this.

I am sorry for being so rude. I am disgusted in myself for saying all this, But you the American people should be disgusted with your selfs as well, With your country and what YOU'VE allowed it to become.

You don't make change by talking, you make change by walking. FILL your street's if you don't like what's going on not a forum.


(Your post was condensed for ease of dissection)
OK thinking logically! Got it.
Agreed I am disgusted but it was more than I that made this great nation into what it has become, but I am hoping for a good change.
Are you suggesting riot, upheaval, REVOLUTION? With guns and fists and bombs?
No sir We follow laws here this is not some 2nd or 3rd world country yet. We file petitions and try to change laws and win wars with the stroke of a pen not a blade. Plus to take to the streets and riot would mean I might strike a fellow American, a Countryman, a Patriot such as myself and that I cannot permit. I may not like some of their views but I support them in voicing them until the last option has passed, and only then do we do the unthinkable. That is a bad day for all.


Originally posted by Paradigm2012

You and I agree that Obama is doing a good job


Wrong again, as I am not part of the 26%.



Here is another fact correction for you

READ IT AND WEAP,
Obama has a 47% approval rating
Numbers numbers!
I can make a poll too. Anyone who has ever taken a poll knows that numbers can be skewed or fixed. The only true poll is a fight and whoever is standing in the end must be the clear victor, and it seems that may not be right huh?


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I love your number five. We better impeach the guy for staying in the war that he did not start, that he did not lie about as his predecessor did, and that he CANNOT just cut and run from.

Now that’s logic at its finest.

Get over it. He will not be impeached.

Why can we not just simply cut and run?
This is not my soil nor are they my Countrymen.
I say let the savages slug it out if they like.
Let the sand become glass.
The Mideast has been a sludge pit since the dawn of time, and will continue after we pullout.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by g146541]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by g146541]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheyRHere913
 


Bingo. The right wingers are EXTREMELY bitter that Dinosaur and Hockey Mom lost the election...now they have folks like Glenn Beck representing them? I think that right there shows the (in)sanity of these folks......




top topics



 
81
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join