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.

 

Breaking News: Judge Doesn't Rule, Secretary of State Doesn't Agree - Obama NOT off

page: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
1.) Show up when you're court ordered to, you're not above the law even if you are the POTUS.


Funny how birthers are ignoring the others that were "ordered" to show up, but did not, including
Sheriff Joe Arpaio!


It is the same kind of logic that causes them to write an entire post with the opening paragraph claiming the birth certificate is not the issue with a closing paragraph all about how he needs to just show (again) his birth certificate.

I imagine it is also the same thought process that causes so many birther posts to begin with "I am not a birther but..."




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Interesting info, and thank you for adding that to the conversation, but I was offering up the fact that there were more issues in the case than the Birth Certificate and how it played out without Obama and his lawyer present as everyone seems preoccupied with the birth certificate. The primary things that are flags for me are:

1.) Show up when you're court ordered to, you're not above the law even if you are the POTUS.

He and his lawyers disdain for our legal system tells me that he believes he is above the law and his interests doesn't lie with our country's welfare if he can't acknowledge some of our basic tenets.

2.) Why allow the continuing misdirection?

Okay, so this has been an on going issue from the "birthers." Step up, take the time out of your busy life, show up with your original birth certificate and let an expert chosen from both sides give testimony to its validity or lack thereof. While you're there, validate your SSN, end the citizen/natural citizen debate, and explain the gaps or confusion in timelines, locations, residencies, schooling, and familial names from your youth. (I've helped pay for his vacations and golf outings, I'd gladly help pay for his day in court and offer a formal apology afterword if he is vindicated.)

Also, just for me, explain to me how you can be the POTUS and not recognize our flag in ceremony. If you can't pledge allegiance to our flag, who's flag do you pledge allegiance to?


You are calling it distain for the legal system, while it is probably a distain for the witch hunt
which is being pursued by hyper partisans. There is such a thing as not justifying a comment
or an action with a response. And if you take into account the DOZENS of such cases which
have been tossed out around the country it becomes clear. I would rather go to jail than justify
such bullying with a response.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Still
 


What are you talking about? That wasn't opinion, I provided facts from his actions and wording in the Constitution that he has broken laws and violated his Oath of Office.


No, you provided a bunch of unrelated external quotes and provided it was your opinion that they proved your claim. The thing I would be looking for are articles or impeachment for any of those things. Have anything like that? All I see is your opinion that these are impeachable offenses. What good is it doing you?


You're really that much in denial?


You are a birther who believes Obama has a ton of impeachable offense with no proof for your birtherism and no one in any legal position siding with your claims of impeachable offense, thus no impeachment or won birther cases and I am in denial?

Sure.


I'm not talking about the "birther" stuff, I'm specifically referring to impeachable offenses he has committed. Try to read.
edit on 28-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


I know. I specifically asked what it had to do with this thread. Then I answered it for you. It is all there in that post.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Pretty much all of that is simply your opinion. The POTUS, any POTUS, doesn't act alone. Every decision he makes is run past about 10 lawyers to make sure he doesn't get impeached. Your belief that he can't justify his behaviour legally is a far cry from you having rock solid proof that a legal body would lookat all the evidence and impeach him.

I think many Presidents have broken the law, as I understand it, and yet none of them get impeached. You might consider that fact before you start gonna all nutso about your evidence and proof.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
The blind leading the blind ... birthers huh (?) what about the damn truth.. This clown lies about everything
his lieing mouth utters and you (idi*ts) fall right inline... good stay their. You'll get exactly what (you) special
(mor*ns) deserve ... Smiling



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Still

No, you provided a bunch of unrelated external quotes and provided it was your opinion that they proved your claim. The thing I would be looking for are articles or impeachment for any of those things. Have anything like that? All I see is your opinion that these are impeachable offenses. What good is it doing you?


I can tell reading comprehension isn't your strong point, so I urge you to go back and re read the post. He broke the War Powers Resolution (federal law) which is considered a high crime and impeachable offense under Article 2 Section 4.



You are a birther who believes Obama has a ton of impeachable offense


I don't believe that he does. He does.



I know. I specifically asked what it had to do with this thread. Then I answered it for you. It is all there in that post.


If you would read the posts, I am replying to people who are asking what his impeachable offenses are. But you've been proving that reading comprehension doesn't come easily to you.
edit on 28-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Money talks

ETA: never did I say Obama is the only prez to commit impeachable offenses.
edit on 28-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I can acknowledge the fact that it is an on going attack on Obama, but he's never once verified the legitimacy of his birth certificate in a forum which would end contestation. If I were him, I'd show up and end the drama. One day, BAM, all done. Wouldn't you, if someone had leveled an attack at your character, seek to prove yourself and be vindicated before the whole world when someone has opened the door for you to do so?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Yeah, it's not money either. It's that politically most people won't pursue charges as they know that most laws so open to interpretation and that Presidents only act in official capacity after a massive amount of legal advice.

It's not that, he looks like he broke the law therefore he did. It's like, he loos like he broke the law, but the law has loopholes and good lawyers can find them. Its like taxes, most things that are immoral are perfectly legal.

Don't be naive, they are probably acting legally in all your examples and can cite a lot of case law to justify that belief. I would also say that no president since probably Reagen knowingly broke the law. But many ha,bi own that if things went a certain way they'd be in legal difficulties which would inconvience their plans.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SumerianSoldier
 


Obama knows that no matter what he does mentally ill people like taitz who are pursing a political agenda will keep pushing. His behaviour is rational and reasonable.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


The WPR is not open to interpretation at all. The wording is not vague, it's very precise. Obama is not the only one to disregard this federal law. Clinton did as well during bombings of Kosovo. If you don't believe Congress is under any monetary influence, I would say that's naive of you given the amount of extortion and corruption that politics is known for. They have an 11% approval rating for Christ's sake.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
I can tell reading comprehension isn't your strong point, so I urge you to go back and re read the post.


I can tell a birther knows their own failings when after not only wandering aimlessly off topic, they just start name calling and insulting people.


He broke the War Powers Resolution (federal law) which is considered a high crime and impeachable offense under Article 2 Section 4.


He broke the war powers act ACCORDING TO WHOM?



I don't believe that he does. He does.


Too bad no one who matters believes YOU huh? How is that going so far?


If you would read the posts, I am replying to people who are asking what his impeachable offenses are.


I know, I saw that. I should have known it was other people's fault that you reply with what you reply with thus I should have asked them why they tricked or forced you into pushing this line of BS.

My bad!


But you've been proving that reading comprehension doesn't come easily to you.
edit on 28-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


Sure I have. You have proven what so far? Oh right that Obama is not eligible to be president and is being impeached. I forgot where you proved all that though. I guess I am just too stupid to read it.

Angry and rude much? Is that helping since trying to make your case with facts is not? I am curious.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I can acknowledge the fact that it is an on going attack on Obama, but he's never once verified the legitimacy of his birth certificate in a forum which would end contestation.


He has, repeatedly. The problem is the birthers continue to move the goal posts rendering the need to further prove what has been proven null thus the 100+ failed birther cases.

Claiming he has never shown a valid birth certificate is a birther lie that will not die because no matter who he does show it to, you will always claim he needs to show it to someone else. Many of you still seem to be expecting him to go door to door with it. More of you believe it is the PDF file. There is no way to logically fight any of this anymore.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Still
I can tell a birther knows their own failings when after not only wandering aimlessly off topic, they just start name calling and insulting people.


I haven't failed at anything besides pleasing you. It's not my fault reading is trouble for you and you can't accept any truth.



He broke the war powers act ACCORDING TO WHOM?


According to the War Powers Resolution LMAO. What kind of question is that?



Too bad no one who matters believes YOU huh? How is that going so far?


Yeah, it sucks that there's still Americans trying to justify illegal actions of a ruler who so closely resembles Hitler and implements Fabian Socialist ideals. All while people like you are screaming "I LOVE OBAMA! He can do no wrong!" What a sad state this country is becoming.



I know, I saw that. I should have known it was other people's fault that you reply with what you reply with thus I should have asked them why they tricked or forced you into pushing this line of BS.

My bad!


I guess I am no longer allowed to respond to posts on a public forum if they don't fit your view? I'm so very sorry kind sir. I plead for your forgiveness.



Sure I have. You have proven what so far? Oh right that Obama is not eligible to be president and is being impeached. I forgot where you proved all that though. I guess I am just too stupid to read it.


Once again, all I have done is stated what his impeachable offenses are and the laws he has broken. I keep forgetting that Barry can do no wrong, though.



Angry and rude much? Is that helping since trying to make your case with facts is not? I am curious.


I'm not angry. I apologize if you're so easily offended. Maybe you shouldn't reply to posts by someone who obviously doesn't agree with anything you stand for, huh?

www.gallup.com...

America speaks for itself.
edit on 28-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
I haven't failed at anything besides pleasing you. It's not my fault reading is trouble for you and you can't accept any truth.


You certainly do sound as though you are probably the scariest kid in all of 9th grade at your school. Tell me I cannot read a 4th time and see if that starts to make it true, prove your case, or matter to me. At least it makes you look like a punk little kid.



According to the War Powers Resolution LMAO. What kind of question is that?


A logical one you apparently did not understand. The war powers act never said a damn thing to me or to you so you are either lying or confused. Perhaps your reading skills are not all they have been bragged to be?



Yeah, it sucks that there's still Americans trying to justify illegal actions of a ruler who so closely resembles Hitler and implements Fabian Socialist ideals.




I would love to see you put some reality and facts behind that statement but it just seems like you are trying to see how far off topic you can get.


All while people like you are screaming "I LOVE OBAMA! He can do no wrong!" What a sad state this country is becoming.


So you are just a little liar? Sounds pretty typical for a birther, JUST MAKE THINGS UP. Can I see the posts where I said I love Obama! He can do no wrong?

I thought you were going to prove to me how I was wrong and you were right but instead you agree with me that I am right, then lie about me specifically. Wow, birther tactics 101?



I guess I am no longer allowed to respond to posts on a public forum if they don't fit your view? I'm so very sorry kind sir. I plead for your forgiveness.


WTF are you talking about? I never even suggested you should not respond to me. You just had no answer to that one, did you? Well pout and get angry all you like. Let me know when that works.


Once again, all I have done is stated what his impeachable offenses are and the laws he has broken. I keep forgetting that Barry can do no wrong, though.


No, all you have done is express your opinion. We have actually gone over this. For someone who cries about other people's ability to comprehend what they read, you sure do need things repeated for you.

Hint: These things are written down. Instead of asking me to repeat myself, just read the first one twice.


I'm not angry. I apologize if you're so easily offended.


I never said I was offended. I said you were rude. Try comprehending what you read and maybe your next post will not be so full of mistakes and outright lies? Good luck!


Maybe you shouldn't reply to posts by someone who obviously doesn't agree with anything you stand for, huh?


Did you not just cry about people trying to tell you who you can and cannot reply to? Yes you did. Then you go on to try to suggest to me who I should and should not reply to. The irony is thick in you.



www.gallup.com...

America speaks for itself.
edit on 28-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)




Translation: "As a birther, I cannot make my birther case so I will insult you, make up things and claim you said them, pretend he is being impeached for other stuff, and then try and add his approval ratings cuz that proves he was not born in Hawaii!"



When you get something interesting, true, and factual to write this could be interesting. Try being on topic a little though.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Again, you're full of it.

www.brookings.edu...
www.nytimes.com...

A right wing and left wing examination of the WPR in relation to Libya. Both of which disagree with you pretty unambiguously.

From the Center on Congress at Indiana University:



The legislation has proven to be seriously flawed, however. Nothing in it actually requires joint deliberation before going to war, and it contains loopholes that presidents have been only too happy to exploit. Only once, after the Navy ship the Mayaguez was captured by Cambodia in 1975, has a President actually acted pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. Congress has been unable to address the ambiguities in the measure. So despite its noble attempt more than 30 years ago to restore some balance when it comes to making war, the power remains largely with the President.


More:



The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 is generally considered the high-water mark of congressional reassertion in national security affairs. In fact, it was ill conceived and badly compromised from the start, replete with tortured ambiguity and self-contradiction. The net result was to legalize a scope for independent presidential power that would have astonished the Framers, who vested the power to initiate hostilities exclusively in Congress.


www.loufisher.org...

As I knew, the act is seen as VERY ambiguous and in fact gives the President MORE powers to unilaterally start a war.

Maybe that's why the president hasn't been impeached for it? Maybe your horribly flawed understanding of it and your "I'm too arrogant to research my beliefs" attitude explain why your "understanding" of the WPR so clashes with reality, not some conspiracy about bribes and corruption...?

The same goes for everyone that blindly starred all the WPR comments without bothering to use google. No excuses guys. It's easy to see that not only does the Obama administration think that legally it's ambiguous, but that well before Obama, Presidents, and legal scholars, and other politicians, and the media, and the original authors, realised it was ambiguous at best.
edit on 29-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Uhh.. he took us to war without even approaching congress?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


He didn't need to. Sadly.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Still
You certainly do sound as though you are probably the scariest kid in all of 9th grade at your school. Tell me I cannot read a 4th time and see if that starts to make it true, prove your case, or matter to me. At least it makes you look like a punk little kid.


Scary? I wasn't aware I was trying to sound intimidating over the internet. Great example of psychological projection, by the way.

What else was it you just said?

"I can tell a birther knows their own failings when after not only wandering aimlessly off topic, they just start name calling and insulting people."

You're giving yourself away




A logical one you apparently did not understand. The war powers act never said a damn thing to me or to you so you are either lying or confused. Perhaps your reading skills are not all they have been bragged to be?


Logical? The logical thing for you to do would be to google the War Powers Resolution and read it yourself. But I know reading is scary for you, so I'll just do your research for you. Hopefully this is simplified enough to where you'll be able to comprehend it.

Library Of Congress - War Powers Resolution

50 USC Sec. 1542


The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.


Now I know right now you may be asking yourself "hos-...hosti...hostilatayas????" Have no fear, I have the definition of that for you as well. Try to sound this one out. If you have any trouble just raise your hand!

From Merriam-Webster

plural hos·til·i·ties

Definition of HOSTILITY

1
a : deep-seated usually mutual ill will
b (1) : hostile action (2) plural : overt acts of warfare : war
2
: conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle


You were aware of the use of Predator Drones correct? And the countless bombings they were used for? Or the 6 innocent Libyan villagers shot by the US? Oh that's right, none of that is hostile.

Obama even ignored 2 top lawyers from the Pentagon and Justice Department when they said he would be violating the War Powers Resolution.


“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”


AKA Obama says "I don't care, bombings aren't hostile, I'm doing it anyway!"

What other proof would you like that Obama's just a Narcissistic asshole?



I would love to see you put some reality and facts behind that statement but it just seems like you are trying to see how far off topic you can get.


Well, I sure can tell history isn't one of your strong points either. That's sad, it's really something people should know. Without you dragging me too far off topic, I will let you do your own research on those political ideologies, even though I know you won't. You can start with Hitler's Tiergartenstrasse 4 policy in your quest to reality.



So you are just a little liar? Sounds pretty typical for a birther, JUST MAKE THINGS UP. Can I see the posts where I said I love Obama! He can do no wrong?


Oh kind of like this quote from the end of your post?

Translation: "As a birther, I cannot make my birther case so I will insult you, make up things and claim you said them, pretend he is being impeached for other stuff, and then try and add his approval ratings cuz that proves he was not born in Hawaii!"


Likewise, can I see the post where I said he wasn't born in Hawaii, or the post where I said he is being impeached? Or are you just a hypocritical "little liar" who is attempting to insult me as well?




I thought you were going to prove to me how I was wrong and you were right but instead you agree with me that I am right, then lie about me specifically. Wow, birther tactics 101?


What exactly have I agreed with you on? When have I said you were right? Retard tactics 101?
edit on 29-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   


WTF are you talking about? I never even suggested you should not respond to me. You just had no answer to that one, did you? Well pout and get angry all you like. Let me know when that works.


By saying

I should have known it was other people's fault that you reply with what you reply with thus I should have asked them why they tricked or forced you into pushing this line of BS.


You are implying that I shouldn't have replied because you sarcastically state I was "tricked/forced." When in reality I merely provided facts in which you choose to deny. I also find it strange how you just joined today and already have 40 posts or so, all conveniently defending Obama? What's up with that? rofl



No, all you have done is express your opinion. We have actually gone over this. For someone who cries about other people's ability to comprehend what they read, you sure do need things repeated for you.


Nope!



Hint: These things are written down. Instead of asking me to repeat myself, just read the first one twice.


Oh the hypocrisy!



I never said I was offended. I said you were rude. Try comprehending what you read and maybe your next post will not be so full of mistakes and outright lies? Good luck!


Rudeness is purely objective. It's a term used by people who are offended because someone has opposed their thought process. You were offended, but you're pretending you're not. It's okay, it's just the internet.



Did you not just cry about people trying to tell you who you can and cannot reply to? Yes you did. Then you go on to try to suggest to me who I should and should not reply to. The irony is thick in you.


Meh, touche.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join