Unfortunately the man-child president in 2014 saw it as an opportunity to spill another five of the Taliban's worse characters out of Gitmo without thinking about the danger he is putting remaining US troops in Afghanistan through.
Sorry, but I won't read through this thread. If Obama broke the law, take him to court. Otherwise, yer just boring the eff outa me.
Sorry, but I won't read through this thread. If Obama broke the law, take him to court. Otherwise, yer just boring the eff outa me.
Helps to read the article past oh the first few paragraphs
Obama 'clearly violated laws which require him to notify Congress thirty days before any transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, and to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated,' House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Buck McKeon of California and Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. JIm Inhofe of Oklahoma said Saturday.
An official Pentagon report in 2010 concluded that he 'walked away' from his post, so the U.S. Army did not exert any extraordinary efforts to find him after an initial flurry of searches, according to an insider who spoke to the Associated Press.
but i guess you prefer to not be informed? maybe it might make your president look bad?
Take him to court? you mean impeach him correct?
Yet you were not too bored to type in a response. Go figure.
And you should try to answer what was posted.
This is your argument for your gross, overbearing, incorrect answer? Check your underwear. You give evidence that they are too tight.
No, I don't, although a conviction on impeachment articles would surely end his Administration.
I just thought I'd clue you in to the reality outside of yer I Hate Obummer echo chamber. You people really should be embarrassed after all these years of claiming that he's broken the law … and then never getting anything done about it in court.
>>Actually he did break the law concerning notifying congress
You and others SAY he broke the law. You can say anything you want. What difference does it make in this context? See my point?
As far as can tell
Then you should have passed it by instead of answering the question he did not ask. It was dishonest. And now you make excuses. What distinguishes your behavior from our liberal posters.His point had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. This is about a prisoner swap, not Obamacare.
Biden would be the incumbent president.
Not very wise to impeach him.
That would be the important qualifier.
My apologies for the typo. It should have read "As far as I can tell, you do not have a point."
Yeah. I almost put that in there to. Could we take Biden for 2 years?
Absolutely not. As bad as Obama is, Biden is worse. That's why I get chills when people suggest impeaching Obama. Do we really want that moron sitting in the Oval Office?
And they're both comparable to or better than their predecessors. Quite a nice run we've had.
Yet you were not too bored to type in a response. Go figure. Actually
he did break the law concerning notifying congress...however that was not why I mentioned it. I am more concerned with the stupidity of releasing 5 of the world's most dangerous Taliban terrorists just for the sake of freeing a likely deserter. But I suspect that his only real motivation was emptying out Gitmo as much as he can get away with as fast as he can.
IMO they are far worse than Bush and Cheney, neither of whom were good to me. We'll have to disagree on this, Kobie.
The missing pronoun was not an issue; I of course knew what you meant. My meaning was that the clause "As far as I can tell" provides the key to understanding yer assertion that I had no point. You apparently can't understand my point. I'll restate it for you: Who cares if you and yer political allies go around saying that the President has repeatedly broken the law when you can't ever get anything done about it in court? Yer position is quite simply pathetic whining, devoid of any substance. Got it now?
And they're both comparable to or better than their predecessors. Quite a nice run we've had.
You seem to be the one who is whining. If you do not like hearing about Barack "Hussein" Obama's broken promises, use the scroll function. Nobody is forcing you to read or respond. Got it now?
When did I say anything about "not liking to hear about" fabrications? Doesn't bother me. Feel free to spend yer time calling the President a liar and a criminal; my guess is you have nothing better to do. My point, which seems to escape you, is that if Obama is breaking the law, why can't you whiners get anything done about it in court? I doubt you'll ever get it.
I have posted no fabrications on this board on any issue.
There were no costs to Reagans tax cuts.
Which part of "The tax cuts resulted in nearly double the revenue" do you not understand?
I'd say you post nothing else.
The real, per capita national debt increased by 92% under Reagan. If that's not a "cost," what is?
No he is not, and you cannot point to a single lie that's come from him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?