Indicator for November?

Jarod said:
What he is doing, has done, is no different than what ALL other presidents have done with laws and its perfectly Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Please find the section within the Constitution that says a President can create laws. I just cannot seem to find it.

So given your comments above; you’re argument seems to be that if other Presidents violated the intent of our Constitution, a document they have sworn to protect and defend, then it is okay for others to do so?

Jarod said:
If it weren't you know the R's would be jumping to impeach him. Its not like he was getting a BJ in the Oval.
Click to expand...

So you’re saying that just because the House does not choose to impeach the President, it is okay for the President to violate the Constitution? That’s a fascinating argument Counselor.

What would the purpose of impeaching the President in the House be if Republicans KNOW that such impeachment would be DOA in the Senate? How did that work with Clinton?

Jarod said:
If it weren't you know the R's would be jumping to impeach him. Its not like he was getting a BJ in the Oval.
Click to expand...

So you still believe that Clinton was impeached for a BJ? That is fascinating Counselor; how is someone supposedly versed in law so incredibly poorly informed and hypocritical?
 
Jarod said:
Ah, so you know the future?

Are you so dumb that you are sure of this?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about counselor; are you talking about my claims that Republicans WILL hold the House? That's a foregone conclusion Counselor. Unless of course you have some form of evidence that defies the laws of gravity you would like to share.

Or are you talking about my prediction that there is a chance that Republicans might take the Senate? In that case, I did qualify my statement as "might". Are you not in touch with polling data and daily news?

What is dumb is acting like you don't know about the predictions from experts about Democrats chances this fall and feign ignorance on Obama's unconstitutional Imperial Presidency. Now that is pretty dumb if you ask me.

But we know that you're not merely dumb, you're incredibly dishonest and love to engage in hyper partisan buffoonery with a hypocritical double standard.
 
The R's are likely to keep the House, and might take the Senate.

But nothing in politics is a sure thing, especially 8 months out. You are a fool to say its a lock.
 
Jarod said:
The word "situation" does not have a negative or positive connotation. I can be in a good situation, just as likely as I am in a bad situation.
Click to expand...

There you go again; you just can't help but repeat the same silly statement over and over again thinking that if you repeat it enough, it might start making sense. But trust me, it sounds just as dishonest and dumb as the first time you erupted with it.
 
Jarod said:
You are correct, I misspoke.

SO why don't they at least try to impeach him... ?


Ill tell you why, this is how historically Presidents have used their enforcement power. Its not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


"SO why don't they at least try to impeach him"

I already told you why....Harry Reid's Senate would be the jury....what the hell would be the point....it would be as meaningless as trying to convict a Dem. of perjury.


Its ok to have enforcement desecration on a case by case basic....they don't have the desecration to stop enforcing a particular law on a whole class
of people....as in immigration law.....or drug enforcement....
 
Jarod said:
What he is doing, has done, is no different than what ALL other presidents have done with laws and its perfectly Constitutional. If it weren't you know the R's would be jumping to impeach him. Its not like he was getting a BJ in the Oval.
Click to expand...


blow jobs are perfectly legal in the US....its lying under oath that is a crime....an impeachable crime, (except in the case of democrats)
 
So, you don't think that if Obama were really breaking the law, the Congress would not impeach him because of Harry Reid?
 
Jarod said:
So, you don't think that if Obama were really breaking the law, the Congress would not impeach him because of Harry Reid?
Click to expand...

Exactly........thats what I think.
If legal arguments can make Clinton not guilty of perjury and obstruction, anything is possible.
But we've been over this a million times in the past.

Yet Martha Stewart, Rod Blagojevich, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madoff, and Jeffrey Skilling
were convicted of 'making false statements'.

The mysteries of the legal twisting of facts....
 
Last edited:
SO, don't you think that if the Republican controlled house could impeach the President they would?

Especially in this hyper-partisan time?

They don't because they know he has broken no law, and the American people would not stand for it!
 
Jarod said:
So, you don't think that if Obama were really breaking the law, the Congress would not impeach him because of Harry Reid?
Click to expand...

How many times do you think you will need to ask that same question before you get it? I am all eyes to see how Harry Reid is going to prosecute Obummer for abuse of power. Why don't you share with us a feasible scenario that would convince Reid that Obummer should be impeached; I would really enjoy a good laugh Counselor.
 
Jarod said:
SO, don't you think that if the Republican controlled house could impeach the President they would?
Click to expand...

If they believed that they could impeach him and not watch it become a media circus, yes. But then, Democrats wanted to prosecute GWB for war crimes too and knew they didn’t have the votes for it.

Jarod said:
Especially in this hyper-partisan time?
Click to expand...

What is so hyper partisan this time than any other time? You think Tip O’Neil was not a hyper partisan?

Jarod said:
They don't because they know he has broken no law, and the American people would not stand for it!
Click to expand...

He is in violation of the Constitution; but these days, everyone does it right Counselor? No big deal right Counselor?

But isn’t it like you to wander way off your original topic. Hell, you can’t stay on topic in your own threads. What a shocker!
 
In Clinton's time, the house felt that Clinton should be impeached and they did so... because they thought it was the right thing to do. The senate, on the other hand, found him not to have committed the high crimes and misdemeanors with which the house charged him.... because they thought THAT was the right thing to do. If Boehner and his buddies truly believed that Obama should be impeached, it would seem to me to be truly cowardly of them to NOT do so simply because they were not assured of a conviction in the senate. But then, there is a reason why the house of representatives has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of that body.
 
So Jarod and I know this is hypothetical but if Romney had own and just decided not to implement Obamacare you would just shrug it off?
 
Jarod said:
There is an intelligent answer.

But here is the thing, Sink, by getting as close as she has to winning, and possibly winning... she will have produced a formula for beating the current Republican formula for winning this November.

The Republicans have thrown their arsenal at her and she has remained at a dead heat with the Republican. Democrats who want to win need to follow her formula and they will likely have at least an even chance...

Sink is not a great candidate, she lost to the awful candidate and awful governor Scott.
Click to expand...

The Dems outspent the republicans in this race. They didn't throw an aresonal at him? She also had name recognition in the state. I'm not saying the republican victory means jack shit nationally but you're trying to spin it like she's some unknown underdog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top