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.
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!
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?
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.
You're really that much in denial?
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)
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?
You are a birther who believes Obama has a ton of impeachable offense
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.
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.
He broke the War Powers Resolution (federal law) which is considered a high crime and impeachable offense under Article 2 Section 4.
I don't believe that he does. He does.
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)
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.
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.
He broke the war powers act ACCORDING TO WHOM?
Too bad no one who matters believes YOU huh? How is that going so far?
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!
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.
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.
According to the War Powers Resolution LMAO. What kind of question is that?
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 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
“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.”
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.
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?
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!"
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?
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.
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.
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 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!
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.