A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
What's next for O? Declaring himself emperor?
Posted: Jun 5, 2014
I think we'd better impeach him before he disbands Congress. This man has no concept whatsoever of checks-and-balances, and no intention whatsoever of obeying the law of the land.
;
None of the above would surprise me. - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
I am getting fed up with all talk and no action... - me
[ In Reply To ..]....this guy needs to go - all we heard is talk, talk and more talk - how about some action? It's long past due. With 4th of July around the corner, these idiots in office need to declare a revolution and regain our independence/freedoms.
All politicians do is talk/lie. What action do you want? - Invade Iraq again?
[ In Reply To ..]I don't get the difference between any lying politician. It is the nature of the job.
there is nothing actionable - it IS just talk - sm
[ In Reply To ..]The revolution will not be televised. Just remember that.
I'm hearing that there are talks in the works as we speak - (or would that be as we write) :-)
[ In Reply To ..]I still have faith that the true patriots of the country are past the stage of talks. They have the list of crimes, so now they need to bring punishment for those crimes. I've read that is in the process but the people need to give it some time because this has gone past a "Billy". It's not just about lying, and it's not going to be as easy as that was. In fact it is far far worse than anything Nixon ever did. So I think all we can do right now is pray and keep an eye on things. Don't read the lamestream media as it is their jobs to deflect us from what is going on. There are some great alternative news sources that have the guts (and decency) to actually inform the people of what is going on. Be patient. All things due will come in time.
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it". -Theodore Roosevelt
"True" patriots? Pffft! - What arrogance on the right.
[ In Reply To ..]=(
Whoa there - never said anything about "the right" - The arrogance is on your part
[ In Reply To ..]I never in my message said anything about the right. Are you saying that there are no true patriots on the left? What does the right or left have to do with anything? I'll answer that (raising hand) - answer: Nothing. This is not about right or left. This is about patriots versus non-patriots. In fact I never even mentioned in my message who my sources are, so anything you are thinking is just a wild guess and assumption on your part (and you know what they say about assuming).
Your message is part of what is wrong with people in this country. You always have to divide things left and right. Guess what? They are all the same thing. The only difference in the parties is what is in people's minds. If you're into hating one group you are always going to see fault with the group you don't associated yourself with and not in your own party. There are faults in everyone. Not just right or left. Politicians are people and politicians are bought and paid for by people with money - both sides.
I stand by my post. When people break the law they need to be held accountable for their actions. Doesn't matter what group they associated themselves with. Laws are laws and since politicians and lawyers, etc make up the laws, they need to also abide by the same laws. "Nobody" should be above or below the law. Otherwise, then they should just get rid of all laws, let everyone out of jail never to face the consequences. You cannot say well you belong to this group, so you can murder and rape people, steal, etc, but since you over there belong to this other group you can't. Laws are to be applied to everyone equally no matter whether they are a janitor, gardener, lawyer, or politician. Whether they are Caucasian, Black, Asian, Indian or whether they are man or woman.
Whatever you are "assuming" from my post is just that - assumptions and the arrogance is on your part.
Oh, you were talking about the left trying to - impeach the president?
[ In Reply To ..]Wow, that is very interesting.
Gee, I wonder why someone would assume it would be the right.
I never used the word "impeached" - However, now that you bring it up
[ In Reply To ..]1 in 4 democrats want the O impeached, or 25-30% of Democrats want the O impeached.
"I know it must be tough for the other Democrats who still support Obama, trying so hard to believe lies a ten year old can see through."
"I have been trying to imagine what the media would have done if the President was a Republican. The truth of the matter is that a Republican would not have made a secret deal with the terrorists. Let’s just say that if this many scandals had broke out in a Republican Administration the Press would be on it in a heartbeat. The Press would accuse the President of criminal activity."
"Therefore we are looking at a double standard,as if we didn’t already know that, as the Press is vigilant when a Republican is in office, but a Democrat gets a pass every time. The only time the Press is critical of a Democrat President is when the American people, and 25% of Democrats, can see through the smoke screens and the outrageous lies the President wants us to swallow. The only solution to get the Press to do their jobs is to elect a Republican. The Press would then be redeemed and they would be very critical of the Republican, even if he is black, and they would not be called a racist. The Democrats would be racist against a black Republican President because racism is in their nature."
Full excellent article below.
http://guardianlv.com/2013/05/democrats-want-obama-impeached/
"bring punishment for those crimes. I've read that is in the process." - sm
[ In Reply To ..]You never used the word impeached, but you used the definition.
You should know that I'm a Democrat who wants to see the POTUS impeached so his ratings will go up and get other Democrats fired up and voting.
So don't let the numbers fool you, keep up the good work, and fire Obama when ready!
Well, it's just my opinion, but.... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]And all due respect for you and your beliefs, you are certainly entitled to them, but IMO, anyone reading your post would naturally conclude your party affiliation.
We may not agree with you, but we're not stupid.
So say you - The arrogance is on your part
[ In Reply To ..]That's fine, you can draw your own assumptions. If you read my post instead of instantly being on the defense without really reading what I wrote then you would see I belong to no party. Again, there is no differences in parties. I learned the game a long time ago. There are good and there are bad and a person merits trust or distrust on what they do as a politician.
A true patriot observes and sees things for what they are. Wrong is wrong no matter what party they are in.
So you are wrong - I have no party affiliation.
I agree that no, you will not agree with me.
Thank you so much... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
I read every word of your post and was not the least bit defensive in my response. Again, there is no differences in parties.
That name-calling technique is still a losing argument.
Always will be.
I read every word of your post, and I was not the least bit defensive in my response. I just gave my opinion to it.
"Again, there is no differences in parties."
Again, IMO, I respectfully disagree. If there were no differences in the parties, there'd be no need for the 3-ring circus. Might as well say there are no differences in men and women, in my opinion, of course.
Still, that name-calling technique is always going to be a losing argument.
What name calling? I did not call you a name - Are you even reading my posts?
[ In Reply To ..]Not once in my post did I call you a name.
You and I have a difference of opinion. Nothing anyone could ever say will change your mind. If you are happy there then fine. But I also know what I know and nothing you can say will change my mind.
There is no differences in parties. Ever wonder why the Bush's and Clintons are buddy buddy? Ever wonder why those hated people the libs hate because they support republicans also support democrats?
Politics in general is a 3-ring circus. BOTH SIDES, which happen to be the same side, that's why you see the 3 ring circus in both parties. They are the same thing.
What does being a man or woman have to do with this? If somehow that is what you are getting out of this, then all I can say is good luck.
We disagree.
And to set the record straight I did not call you a name.
Of course I read your post. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]In my opinion, there are differences in the parties. Democrats and Republicans are like men and women, metaphorically speaking, of course; although similar in structure, very different in thought.
I actually know why the Clinton and Bush families are "buddy buddy," and I have actually handled millions of dollars in PAC funds distributed to candidates of both major political parties (and even occasionally one of the smaller parties). The parties are not the same. They are not even the same parties they were 20 years ago, and in 20 years from now, they'll be different than today. They are not remotely the same side. Of course, speaking for myself.
And for the record, the statement "the arrogance is on your part" is a name-calling technique, but I let that stuff roll. In my opinion, there are differences in the parties. Democrats and Republicans are like men and women, metaphorically speaking, of course; although similar in structure, very different in thought.
I actually know why the Clinton and Bush families are "buddy buddy," and I have actually handled millions of dollars in PAC funds distributed to candidates of both major political parties (and even occasionally one of the smaller parties). The parties are not the same. They are not even the same parties they were 20 years ago, and in 20 years from now, they'll be different parties than today, ever fluid and constantly changing party platforms. They are not remotely the same side. Of course, speaking for myself.
The GOP within itself has two very different ideologies.
And for the record, the statement "the arrogance is on your part" is a name-calling technique.... but I let that stuff roll.
I was the first to actually be called arrogant - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Okay, I get it, people who are not in the party who like to call themselves democrats is okay to be called arrogant, but if you belong to the party that likes to call themselves democrats you are not allow to be told that the arrogance is on your part. Thanks for straightening that out. Maybe you are not arrogant, but your statement was. Either way it was an arrogant statement. I don't know you so I'm not going to call you anything.
Don't know what your cartoon has to do with anything. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I do my fact checking and I know what I know about the parties. It doesn't matter whether or not you handed money to anyone. That does not have anything to do with the background of the parties. They are all the same.
We will just have to disagree on this one.
Have a nice weekend.
Okay. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Have a nice weekend.
No. I merely said the name-calling technique is a losing argument. Anybody can feel free to call me whatever they want; I just let that rolln do it all you want, but
"I was the first to actually be called arrogant."
I saw that. It wasn't my part of the thread. I merely said the name-calling technique is a losing argument. IMO, it's a bad substitute for a good argument, and I just let that stuff roll.
"Okay, I get it, people who are not in the party who like to call themselves democrats is okay to be called arrogant, but if you belong to the party that likes to call themselves democrats you are not allow to be told that the arrogance is on your part. Thanks for straightening that out."
Thank yourself for straightening that out. I disagree with it because it's still name-calling, a bad substitute, IMO, for a good argument, and I rarely do it.
"Maybe you are not arrogant, but your statement was. Either way it was an arrogant statement. I don't know you so I'm not going to call you anything."
It wasn't my statement, and I guess you said the arrogance was on my part because you thought it was my statement.
"I do my fact checking and I know what I know about the parties. It doesn't matter whether or not you handed money to anyone. That does not have anything to do with the background of the parties. They are all the same."
So I'm talking ideology/platform, and you must be talking something else. Money gets you a seat at the table, like waving meat at a pack of rabid dogs, diametrically opposed ideologies (sometimes within the same party), yet very similar in many ways still.
Don't believe everything you read nor everything you hear: Real eyes, realize, real lies.
You have a great weekend too.
Patriots versus non-patriots? - NK
[ In Reply To ..]How would you define non-patriot?
Are you serious or are you baiting? - It sounds like baiting, and
[ In Reply To ..]truthfully I'm not going to get dragged down to that level. So I'll just say this:
pa·tri·ot
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
non-patriot
One who isn't the above.
I don't bait - NK
[ In Reply To ..]I merely asked you to clarify a concept in your post that interested me. I was hoping that you would expand on the subject rather than providing a definition from a dictionary. I don't know anyone personally or in public life that I would classify as a non-patriot regardless of differences in ideology and, therefore, asked the question.
Well when you asked the question it sounded like you did not know - the definition - sm
[ In Reply To ..]A patriot is exactly what the definition is that I provided.
If you were not baiting then why would you want me to expand on the the meaning of a patriot. It's pretty straight forward.
I disagree with a lot of politicians (in all parties) on issues. I also understand the meaning of patriot and yes, there are a lot of people in or who discuss politics that are not patriots. I'm not talking about anybody on this board.
Differences in ideology IS what makes people patriots or not. If a person believes in the communist ideology or any other ideology that goes against the constitution and wants to destroy a country (and it could be any country) then that does not make them a patriot of their country, and yes there are a lot of people that fall into that classification.
Hope that clarified a little better.
Actually - NK
[ In Reply To ..]I asked how you would define non-patriots but I see you couldn't pass up the opportunity to insult my intelligence by implying that I don't know the definition of patriot.
I don't consider differences in ideology a reliable measure in labeling a person a patriot or a non-patriot because it seems to me to be a subjective conclusion. There was a time in this country that "there's a communist under every bed." I suppose it has resurfaced since the tendency is to use the communism epithet in too many instances of disagreement. I prefer not to label people, but, to each his own.
Jeepers peepers, no need to be so sensitive - You asked, I answered
[ In Reply To ..]You asked me to define it. I did that to the best of my ability. There was no insulting of intelligence. You ask a question I thought you wanted an answer.
You did not make it clear exactly what it was you wanted. I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what your intentions are. Baiting is what it appeared to be. I learned (the hard way) not to fall into posters baiting other posters appearing to ask a simple question and then as soon as they answer they get pounced on and ridiculed.
If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question. Simple as that.
I don't insult anyone's intelligence. I read your posts. Sometimes I agree with you (yes, that's right, I agree with some things you write, although it is not very much), so most of the time I don't agree with you. Most of them I don't get involved in because I just don't like the way you talk to a lot of posters who don't agree with you. But that's your style of posting. I don't like it so I don't read it. I do see many baiting posts and that's why I asked if you were baiting or if you really wanted to have a serious conversation. The more you write the more it is evident you were baiting, expecting me to answer so you could go after me too. I opted not to be dragged down to that level. Sorry if you don't like it. That's my choice.
I also don't label anyone anything. There are good and bad in every group, party or whatever. I don't sit here and say all democrats are bad and I don't say all republicans are bad. Just like I know in the administration there are some good and bad people. Not everyone is good, not everyone is bad.
I don't call anyone a communist just because they belong to a party, but I do know a bit about history of the parties, and know enough about marxism, communism, Alinksy, the ideations of each party and I listen to enough sources from people in other countries, from top officials (the ones that don't make the rounds in the LSM (lame stream media) to understand what exactly is going on.
I can't help if you were offended by a simple answer to your question.
You better inform the rest of your party. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Rubio would beg to differ with you.
âto be honest with you, Iâm not sure thereâs many people here that are focused on that right now.â
Get busy, will you! - sm
[ In Reply To ..]We've seen this dog and pony show before, and this is hardly a new tactic by the GOP. When President Clinton was impeached along party lines, his approval rating went up by around 10%. After he left office, his Gallup Poll rating was the highest approval rating of any postwar president at 66 percent, 3 points ahead of both Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy.
So get busy, will you! Obama could use some of that Clinton mojo, and there'd be nothing like impeachment that could rally the Democrats to his defense.
Just my opinion, but I think impeaching him would mean the assured destruction of the Republican party.
Well he could have an affair with an intern - or invade a foreign country
[ In Reply To ..]Maybe he can get his wife to run for office.
You think Obama is different than previous presidents? They are politicians and all politicians are corrupt.
Whatever he does... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]...one thing is for sure. It will be done covertly, deceitfully and with the use of his mighty pen and phone.
The Constitution Being that "Law of the Land" - Seriously
[ In Reply To ..]The Constitution gives every POTUS the authority as commander in chief to take necessary actions, and courts have ruled for decades that a president/CIC has broad powers.
Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if details of prisoner swap leaked...Congress - CANNOT be trusted
[ In Reply To ..]"The White House was particularly worried because previous leaks had derailed past efforts to free Bergdahl, an administration official said in a separate interview with the Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau."
Certain Republican members of Congress would not hesitate for a minute to undermine the Obama Administration, even at the expense of a soldier's life. Everybody knows that...
Oh? Exactly what leaks have been attributed to - Congressional intelligence committees?
[ In Reply To ..]They were in the loop back in 2011 and you didn't know anything about it, now did you? The problem is, they OPPOSED exactly this same swap, and THAT is why they weren't consulted this time.
And you know this, how? - nm
[ In Reply To ..]x
I hope you found the answer to your question. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]It's been everywhere.
It wasn't my question, it was yours. Tell me how you know your reason - is the reason
[ In Reply To ..]they were not consulted when all media resources and top level resources are saying it is because if leaks occurred our American soldier would have been killed.
You haven't provided sources supporting your assumptions.
Poster to whom you responded....Edited. - See message.
[ In Reply To ..]That was my first post here on this thread. I was just trying to be helpful by telling you that I have heard the answer to your question all over the news tonight.
Well Welcome!! :) - sm
[ In Reply To ..]If you'd like to provide a link to what you are referring to is all over the news, that would be great.
I'm reading, as in the link I provided, that the Congress was not notified because any leak could result in death an American soldier held captive for over 5 years.
Good move on Obama's part because there is no doubt in my mind that Republican members who hate him with a vengeance as proven in multiple instances would not stop at anything including sacrificing an American soldier to undermine his administration.
Nailed it! - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Exactly right! Republicans attempting to try Obama and/or Bergdahl in the press are so disgusting, in my opinion, it makes my stomach turn. So much for due process and our Constitution.
But it's certainly not something we've not seen from their lot before, and the public is not as gullible as they seem to think we are.
Not even close - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm is needed.
Similar Messages:
HA-HA - The Emperor's Wife Has No Clothes (sm)Oct 06, 2014
Keep your rabbit food, Mooch, our kids don't want it. Link ...
The Emperor's New Clothes = Trump SupportersJan 22, 2017
to acknowledge what they can see with their own eyes. What difference does it make if he didn't have the biggest crowd? Talk about snowflakes! ...
Rick Santorum Is Declaring Today--maybe May 27, 2015
xx ...
Donald Trump Declaring War On MexicoAug 21, 2015
This is the vulgarity and coarseness that Trump inspires. Wonder what his next feats will be. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/consul-homeless-man-beaten-boston-mexico-native-33224872 ...