Obama '08?

@Advocate,

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Where does the Constitution allow the hiring of mercenaries like Black Water?

Quote:

Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
...

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I see a lot of charges against Obama, but no proof (even though the charges are called proof). You sure don't mind wasting a lot of your time on this garbage.

I did not claim to be offering proof that Obama was violating his oath of office. I claimed I was providing evidence--lots of it--that Obama was violating his oath of office.

Only the Senate after the House indicts (i.e., impeaches) Obama--not I--can after deciding it is proven can convict (i.e., remove) Obama for violating his oath of office.

So far, none of you who claim my evidence is not proof have provided any evidence that my evidence is not valid.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Is it evidence that a cat ate a mouse if there's feathers in the cat's mouth?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I did not claim to be offering proof that Obama was violating his oath of office. I claimed I was providing evidence--lots of it--that Obama was violating his oath of office.

But you haven't provided any evidence ican.
Evidence would be something that actually exists.

You claimed Obama violated this part of the constitution.

Quote:

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

That means we need evidence that he increased or diminished his compensation while President. No such evidence exists.

As for THIS claim..

Quote:

Only the Senate after the House indicts (i.e., impeaches) Obama--not I--can after deciding it is proven can convict (i.e., remove) Obama for violating his oath of office.

Please show us where a President can be impeached for "violating his oath."
The constitution says this in case you forgot.

Quote:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

No where does it state "violating his oath" is reason for impeachment. But then we can't really expect you to follow the Constitution, can we ican? It's so much easier for you to lie, isn't it?

2 Replies

@parados,

Lie, and create things that are not even real.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

That was changed a long time ago, Ican.

Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To be completely duped by the executive branch with the flimsiest of information, to sign off on a declaration of war, ...

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

No letter of marque and reprisal has been issued for more than 100 years.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

The only reason the US could still grant such a letter . . . which really is simply permission to cross an international border . . . is that the US was not a signatory to the Paris Declaration of 1856 which renounced privateering. A total of 52 nation states signed this treaty but the US was not among them.

Right, from a country that tried to maintain neutrality during both WWI and WWII. Hypocrite.

But, this is yet another issue that ican does not understand. Here, he acts as the typical tyrannical, bullying right winger and warmonger. The letter of marque does not authorize the use of mercenaries.

0 Replies

You ODD (i.e., Obama Democrat Disassemblers) make all kinds of claims without provideing any evidence to support them. At the same time you demand we Conservatives provide you evidence for our claims.
Comical!
………………~~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
………………~~~~~~~~(O|O) ~~~~
………………..~~~~..~ ( ~o~ )

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

No letter of marque and reprisal has been issued for more than 100 years.

Listen, you pussy, you make up things constantly, giving us evidence that you are a follower of Leo Strauss. You have never presented a supportable argument. You misquote when you cut and paste! You use unreliable and sloppily researched sources like Ann Coulter.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Listen, you pussy, you make up things constantly, giving us evidence that you are a follower of Leo Strauss. You have never presented a supportable argument. You misquote when you cut and paste! You use unreliable and sloppily researched sources like Ann Coulter.

So, how do you really feel about Ican?

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Oh, that he is an effeminate, bungling liar.

0 Replies

Good afternoon, all.
I note that Rasmussen today has President Obama at -10 in his Approval Index. 31% Strongly Approve minus 41% who Strongly Disapprove. The -10 is way down from the -20 a couple of months ago. Most of the recent movement comes from an increase in the Strongly Approve sector rather then from a decline in the Strongly Disapprove.
In the broader survey, dropping the word Strongly, Obama has an Approval rating of 48% vs a Disapproval rating of 51%.
Real Clear Politics, an accumulation of polls, shows an almost 3 point spread.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

No letter of marque and reprisal has been issued for more than 100 years.

Paper trails, unnecessary paper trails. It's been found that covert action works much better. There's no need to explain to a duped Congress and an equally duped populace [a leftist word, you might like to know] about all the bodies, the damaged infrastructures, the terrorized populations - those lucky few who escaped the murderous rampages.

Quote:

The United States is not nearly so concerned that its acts be kept secret from its intended victims as it is that the American people not know of them.”

U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT, There's an excellent article in today's San Jose Mercury News on a book on the Korean War written by a University of Chicago historian, Bruce Cumings, who identifies many of the US atrocities against innocent Koreans who were victims of mass incendiary and fire bombings, and compares American bombing as genocide.

Another reason why I believe war is stupid.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Sorry, but "duped" is a right wing mantra. When I was in college, there was a student there whose parents met while serving in WWII. It was her dream to find her man the same way and to marry him during wartime in uniform.

Her mother was a member of the John Birch Society but she forbade her daughter to join as she feared the daughter would not get her commission.

This girl enlisted the summer before her senior (?) year, although it might have been her junior year.

She constantly walked around, eavesdropping on conversations, telling people that they were "duped by the Communists."

Ever since then, I have told people they were duped by the Capitalists.

0 Replies

Black Hawk et al. were probably hired as "consultants."

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados you claimed that I claimed that President Obama violated this part of the constitution.

Quote:

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

I did not claim that President Obama violated that part of the constitution.

I made the following claims:

If Obama was born in the USA he satisfies one and only one necessary
condition to be president.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article II.
Section 1.
...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

...
These are two other necessary conditions stated in Article II. Section 1, plus one necessary condition implied in Section 4.:

Quote:

Section 1
. ...
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

...

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

I claim President Obama has violated his oath of office and should therefore be impeached and removed.

Subsequently, at your request, I supplied what I think is ample evidence that President Obama violated his oath of office.

I understand that you disagree and think my evidence is not evidence. However, you have not provided me any evidence that what I provided as evidence is not evidence.

You just make claims without providing any evidence.

You claimed:

Quote:

No where does it state "violating his oath" is reason for impeachment. But then we can't really expect you to follow the Constitution, can we ican? It's so much easier for you to lie, isn't it?

What is your evidence that a president that violates his oath of office is not committing high crimes and misdemeanors?

I think it obvious that a president who violates his oath of office is violating the Constitution and is committing a high crime or a high misdemeanor. In fact, I think it stupid to claim otherwise.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

You expect parados to provide proof for a double negative. In this kind of situation, it's an impossible task. Rather, it's up to you to provide the (solid, credible) evidence and the section of the constitution that it violates.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know