- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 28,852
- Reaction score
- 18,983
- Location
- SW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think many are basing their conclusions on the already announced increases in the 20% to 40% range. Fear mongering? That's a part of politics, and I have no doubt there's some of that in the mix as well.Or you could.... while public opinion can be shaped the proof will be in the full implementation. I don't know what some are basing the increase on.... seems like highly biased opinion and a good smattering of fear mongering.
I agree. There's no virtue or political hay to made impeaching a very lame duck, and they know it.But back on topic... nobody is going to start impeachment on the President. IF the House was going to jump they would have already done so.... Sen. Coburn is just snarling because he knows that dawg won't hunt...
I'm no lawyer either, but imho Coburn is spot on and I agree with you, he should've been impeached long ago.As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
you mean you don't even have anything on file? who the hell are you to tell me to do research when you don't have any yourself?It takes me a lot longer to research and debunk every itemized list that you just copy/paste from someone else.
Great. where's your link?So no. I am not going to do that. I will put as much effort into this as you do, but not more.
Here's one. Just trying to be helpful."MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?you mean you don't even have anything on file? who the hell are you to tell me to do research when you don't have any yourself?
Great. where's your link?
I am going to have to completely disagree with this. If Obama were a white democrat many Republican lawmakers and pundits would be calling for his impeachment as they are now, and the majority of Democrats would stand by their president as they are now. I don't think his race changes the minds of more than a slight percentage of people across the country about whether or not they support impeachment.
Great post! Probably since man walked the earth, there have always been those who feel they deserve more than they have. Until recently, they usually buckled down and tried to change their circumstances as a matter of personal pride. Now it seems they expect the government to do the job for them, and since they still don't feel they have everything they feel they "deserve," they constantly demand more. What a crock! I guess that's their justification for stealing? Don't they ever stop to think that maybe most of us don't have everything we want either? This is total :bs: and it's disgusting!
This would be a great way to raise Obama's job approval ratings and MSNBC's ratings. :thumbs:As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
The problem with that link is that everyone knows it's based on fiction.Here's one. Just trying to be helpful."MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?
It takes me a lot longer to research and debunk every itemized list that you just copy/paste from someone else.
So no. I am not going to do that. I will put as much effort into this as you do, but not more.
I'm no lawyer either, but imho Coburn is spot on and I agree with you, he should've been impeached long ago.
How does he get away with everything he does? To me, that's simple; those who like him refuse to hold him accountable.
So why not a white republican? To hear the Cons talk everyone hates a con....
How does that saying go??? Something about those who forget history... they are usually covering their political lean's crap like a cat in a litter box!
It doesn't matter what you or I think qualifies as 'lawlessness'.... You can bet your Willard/Wonk in 2012 bumper sticker if there was ANY hint of an impeachable offense the 'Cants would be all over it like flies on poop.
It is just wolf whistling.
(FYI there is a wide gap between laws I'd like to see walked back and 'lawlessness' )
I think the point was that if the president was White the impeachment procedings would have been filed instead of just talking about them.
What these people have forgetten is that it is better to want than to have.
you mean you don't even have anything on file? who the hell are you to tell me to do research when you don't have any yourself?
Great. where's your link?
I'm interested in this research as well. if you won't do it for him, how about for me?
As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
It's getting more interesting.
The President's Increasing Lawlessness - Ed Rogers, Washington Posteace
Very interesting article! :thanks: for providing. Some of the comments made at the conclusion of this article are, if true, frightening!
The supposed waiving of welfare work requirements was completely false. In fact, what happened was giving more freedom to states than they had before, a request made by several "red" states in the first place. Ask Democrats for something, attack them for giving it to you, typical right-wing.
The requirement certainly was waived. The question is not who asked for it, but whether granting it was legal.eace
:lamoPointing your finger and calling me names isn't helping your defense. That list gives good reason to suspect violations. In light of what's below, one should be suspicious every word or action taken by Barack Obama.
President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations | The Daily Caller
1. The individual mandate
No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term.
It really does suck people can be so uneducated on the issues and yet have their vote count as much as yours, doesn't it?The supposed waiving of welfare work requirements was completely false. In fact, what happened was giving more freedom to states than they had before, a request made by several "red" states in the first place. Ask Democrats for something, attack them for giving it to you, typical right-wing.
No, not at all accurate. You were straight-up lied to.
A state could apply for a waiver from the work requirement to test out their own substitution for that requirement. The state would then have to show improved work outcomes or they'd lose their waiver.
And yes, it's legal.
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?