Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #21

    Oct 23, 2009, 10:08 AM
    Neither is the president of the U.S. so your point is irrelevant.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #22

    Oct 23, 2009, 10:10 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Thank goodness there's no pettiness here! Imagine!
    Pot, meet kettle
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #23

    Oct 23, 2009, 10:15 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Pot, meet kettle
    LOL! That's what I was going to say to you! Great minds think alike I guess. Hey, show me where I'm being petty in this thread.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #24

    Oct 23, 2009, 12:37 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Neither is the president of the U.S. so your point is irrelevant.
    Ya got that right. This President isn't much of a leader of anything. But he is a supporter of communists, rogue regimes, and terrorists.

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #25

    Oct 23, 2009, 02:16 PM
    Hello:

    Hello yee right wing masses who sufferuth from thy short term memory losseth...

    George W. Dufus, on October 17, 2006, invited conservative radio hosts Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved to the White House. I don't think Olbermann was invited...

    I'm just saying...

    excon
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #26

    Oct 23, 2009, 02:53 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello:

    Hello yee right wing masses who sufferuth from thy short term memory losseth...

    George W. Dufus, on October 17, 2006, invited conservative radio hosts Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved to the White House. I don't think Olbermann was invited...
    Was he simultaneously shutting out, demeaning and otherwise marginalizing a particular network while asking for snoops to rat them out for any perceived bias? I didn't think so.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #27

    Oct 23, 2009, 02:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    LOL! That's what I was going to say to you! Great minds think alike I guess. Hey, show me where I'm being petty in this thread.
    Sure you were... and who said it had to in this thread? You just said "here."
    galveston's Avatar
    galveston Posts: 451, Reputation: 60
    Full Member
     
    #28

    Oct 23, 2009, 04:02 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    I gotta agree with Tom and Speech on this one. As much as I dislike Obama's policies and his stated goals, he has not taken any action that is an impeachable offense. Implementing policies we don't like isn't illegal.

    Even the act of shunning Fox News and refusing to grant them access to the Administration isn't illegal. There is no REQUIREMENT that the WH give ANY news outlet access to its personnel. They can pick and choose who they do interviews with as much as they want. It may be evidence of political bias, but it is not illegal.

    There are no grounds for an impeachment of Obama.

    Elliot
    There might be.

    Now the WH has told financial insturions that took TARP money how much their executives can make. Since they took public money, that MIGHT be justified.

    NOW we hear that OTHER institutions that DID NOT take public money are being told how much THEIR executives can make.

    I have to think that IS illegal.

    Follow this reasoning to a logical conclusion.

    If the WH can do this to these executives, they can tell YOU how much YOU can make.

    In fact, if they are not stopped, down the road, they will be telling us a LOT of things we won't want to hear.

    FREE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL, EQUAL MEN ARE NOT FREE
    workhomeunion's Avatar
    workhomeunion Posts: 5, Reputation: 0
    New Member
     
    #29

    Oct 23, 2009, 04:16 PM

    Most people who voted for Mr. Obama, and most minorities, specifically the African American race, know specifically why all this nonsense about impeachment, the comparisons to Hitler, and all the other outlandish attempts to belittle the President are being said and written about.. It's simply because of the color of his skin, Plain and Simple. And no matter how you try to say it's NOT about RACE, we know the truth. It will take 2-4 years to undue all the damage done by Pres Bush, the worst President in American History. He served 8 years and even cheated his way into the White House and no one said anything about impeachment. Obama hasn't been in office one year, has his hands full with the mess that Bush left, and has to fight his own people because they cannot stomach, or digest the fact that America has a BLACK president. That's what is is all about. You can try to disguise this fact with your nonsense all you want. Black Americans are not that stupid, and can see clearly through your racial subterfuge.
    galveston's Avatar
    galveston Posts: 451, Reputation: 60
    Full Member
     
    #30

    Oct 23, 2009, 04:30 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by workhomeunion View Post
    Most people who voted for Mr. Obama, and most minorities, specifically the African American race, know specifically why all this nonsense about impeachment, the comparisons to Hitler, and all the other outlandish attempts to belittle the President are being said and written about .. It's simply because of the color of his skin, Plain and Simple. And no matter how you try to say it's NOT about RACE, we know the truth. It will take 2-4 years to undue all the damage done by Pres Bush, the worst President in American History. He served 8 years and even cheated his way into the White House and no one said anything about impeachment. Obama hasn't been in office one year, has his hands full with the mess that Bush left, and has to fight his own people because they cannot stomach, or digest the fact that America has a BLACK president. That's what is is all about. You can try to disguise this fact with your nonsense all you want. Black Americans are not that stupid, and can see clearly through your racial subterfuge.
    You'r right! I don't like him because of his color!

    He's not black, he's RED.

    And BTW, how is it that African Americans voted for him as a block vote? Is that not racist?

    Your side DID call for impeachment for Bush.

    You should listen to Fox News some, it would help clear your head.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Oct 23, 2009, 05:02 PM
    The first question about TARP is how did a program to purchase toxic assets become a tool to seize equity positions in financial institutions ?

    As you know I challenge the Constitutionality of many things that is happening ;especially the plan to compel people to buy into a national insurance policy. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...re-405829.html

    Until I see actual articles of impeachemnt drawn up by serious people I cannot take this talk of impeachment seriously . There are too many other battles to wage to preserve the country .I say concentrate your efforts on getting liberty loving individuals elected .
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Oct 24, 2009, 03:15 AM
    George
    Citibank is 34% owned by the American people, why would the Obots aim to undermine the bank's recruiting and retention rates and guarantee that second rate has been talent occupies key positions in the bank ? It really is stupid on face value. It's like turning the bank we "own" into another civil service position... like working in the Post Office.

    Why would anyone of talent become a Citi Exec. When they could just as easily get recruited at a higher paying institution ?
    Understanding that ;it is critical for Pay Commisar Ken Feinberg to level the playing field by forcing the other institutions to adopt the pay ceiling he's imposing on the zombies .

    [ I have a proposition to Feinberg. I'll oversee the destruction of CitiBank for half the pay he's offering the CEO .]

    As for the Constitutionality of Feinberg's activities... I don't recall Congress giving him the authority to regulate the pay of the zombies ,let alone the pay of any other institution in the financial markets. Sen.Sheets Byrd understands this and objected to the appointment of Czars back in Feb. He has not been heard from since.

    The president can have any advisors he wants,but they act in advisory roles and have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, and the Constitution is very clear about the Senate's mandate to 'advise and consent '.
    So yes ;all these czars are unconstitutional in the role they play in the Obama Administration.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #33

    Oct 24, 2009, 03:57 AM
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #34

    Oct 24, 2009, 04:10 AM

    Yup due to government intervention and a huge outlay of our money ;we have turned dead banks into the undead.
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #35

    Oct 24, 2009, 05:23 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    As for the Constitutionality of Feinberg's activities......I don't recall Congress giving him the authority to regulate the pay of the zombies ,let alone the pay of any other institution in the financial markets. Sen.Sheets Byrd understands this and objected to the appointment of Czars back in Feb. He has not been heard from since.

    The president can have any advisors he wants,but they act in advisory roles and have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, and the Constitution is very clear about the Senate's mandate to 'advise and consent '.
    So yes ;all these czars are unconstitutional in the role they play in the Obama Administration.
    Most appreciative of your insight, and the czars are puppets; the president is doing these things. It is a full-blown takeover of the most hostile sort.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #36

    Oct 26, 2009, 06:06 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by galveston View Post
    There might be.

    Now the WH has told financial insturions that took TARP money how much their executives can make. Since they took public money, that MIGHT be justified.

    NOW we hear that OTHER institutions that DID NOT take public money are being told how much THEIR executives can make.

    I have to think that IS illegal.

    Follow this reasoning to a logical conclusion.

    If the WH can do this to these executives, they can tell YOU how much YOU can make.

    In fact, if they are not stopped, down the road, they will be telling us a LOT of things we won't want to hear.

    FREE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL, EQUAL MEN ARE NOT FREE
    I happen to agree that it is "illegal"... but only in the civil sense, not the criminal sense. It is a violation of contract law, not a violation of CRIMINAL law.

    Now... if the execs decide to sue the WH for contact violation, and if the courts rule in the execs' favor, and Obama CONTINUES to violate civil law, THEN he would be subject to impeachment for violating the edicts of the courts... especially if the SCOTUS is the one that hands down the ruling.

    But as things stand now, there is no basis for impeachment. There is only the basis for a civil court lawsuit against the WH.

    Elliot
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #37

    Oct 26, 2009, 06:15 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by workhomeunion View Post
    Most people who voted for Mr. Obama, and most minorities, specifically the African American race, know specifically why all this nonsense about impeachment, the comparisons to Hitler, and all the other outlandish attempts to belittle the President are being said and written about .. It's simply because of the color of his skin, Plain and Simple. And no matter how you try to say it's NOT about RACE, we know the truth. It will take 2-4 years to undue all the damage done by Pres Bush, the worst President in American History. He served 8 years and even cheated his way into the White House and no one said anything about impeachment. Obama hasn't been in office one year, has his hands full with the mess that Bush left, and has to fight his own people because they cannot stomach, or digest the fact that America has a BLACK president. That's what is is all about. You can try to disguise this fact with your nonsense all you want. Black Americans are not that stupid, and can see clearly through your racial subterfuge.
    I suppose that the Black community voted 90% for Obama because he was the most experienced man for the job, right? No racism there, huh?

    Bush managed to stave of recession for 8 years, managed to keep the country from being attacked again after 9/11 (when the Presidents for the 30 years BEFORE Bush failed to stop such attacks repeatedly... the USA was attacked roughly twice a year on average) and freed 50 million Muslims from dictatorial regimes.

    Meanwhile, Obama has quintupled the national budget deficit, nearly doubled the national debt, has allowed unemployment to jump to 10% (17% REAL Unemployment) after promising that it wouldn't go above 8%, spent $3 trillion on a stimulus bill that his own economists are saying DIDN'T WORK and won't work in the future, is unilaterally disarming at the same time that Iran and North Korea are obtaining nuclear weapons, and is failing on the simple job of distributing the swine flu vaccine... but still thinks that the government can do a better job of handling health care than private companies.

    But Bush is "the worst president in history" and Obama is "the savior".

    What an idiot.

    Elliot
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #38

    Oct 26, 2009, 06:17 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Family shots? Or just pictures of random Obama followers?
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #39

    Oct 26, 2009, 06:20 AM
    You crazy jews! :D
    artlady's Avatar
    artlady Posts: 4,208, Reputation: 1477
    Ultra Member
     
    #40

    Oct 26, 2009, 06:27 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello George:

    Sounds like spilt milk, to me. You had a chance to KEEP him out of office... But, the VOTERS didn't agree with you... You're not going to reverse the election by taking this course... As a matter of fact, if you guys tried this, you'll further marginalize your party.

    But, if that's all the Repubs in congress have to do, have at it... It'll be the END of you.

    excon
    YEE HAW!
    That is the second time I said that today. :eek:
    I live in NY but I am reading Gone with the wind and I think I'm going redneck .
    So scary ,not funny ;)

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

How to put articles on net [ 2 Answers ]

Respected Sir/Madam I, Ahrar Ahmad, want to know the way to put articles, speeches etc on net for public domain. Kindly guide me for the same and oblige. Thanking You Yours Ahrar Ahmad

President Clinton's impeachment [ 2 Answers ]

When President Clinton was impeached, why wasn't he removed from office? Now I understand that the Illinois governor is going to be removed from office if he is impeached. What's the deal?

Articles of Confederation [ 1 Answers ]

What is false? a) The US had no power to enforce the collection of taxes? b) Several attempts to change the Articles were held up by one state's refusal to ratify? c)The Articles were never ratified? d) The US had no power to regulate commerce between and among states? What was included in...

Online poll: "Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?" [ 12 Answers ]

Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached? - Politics - MSNBC.com The currrent results may surprise you.


View more questions Search