Impeach Obama if he wins again

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What is it about George Soros that he is considered to be such a bogeyman, by the right? I really have difficulty understanding why he is so reviled. I also find it hard to understand why anybody would expect a multi-billionaire to not try to buy influence, surely that is the American way?

i don't think soros is a bogeyman....and i believe most on the right only point him out to show the left's ridiculous hypocrisy that only the right is influenced by the wealthy people like the koch brothers. i have no doubt there are people on both sides who believe only the other side is bought and paid for...however, the truth is, both sides are.

 

[Taichiliberal]

yes...because without a "pledge"...no dem congressperson or president will ever be beholden to lobbyist.

please...

btw...i never talked about the legality of what soros does. try to stay focused. there are very few, if any, politicians who are not beholden to lobbyist or wealthy scions like soros, koch brothers etc.... your dismisal attempt to make it out as if only the pubs engage in such practice is ludicrous at best.

To date, no Congressman or Senator has signed a "pledge" that interferes with their duty to negotiate in Congress. That the GOP has it members just blatantly go that extra yard shows their arrogance to the American people....safe in the knowledge that willfully ignorant toadies like YOU will make excuses for them.

BTW...YOU tried to compare soros to what norquist did. YOU FAILED in that comparison....yet instead of just admitting such, you try to BS your way past it. Bottom line: YOU were wrong, Yurt....grow up and deal with it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

post 39 taichi

 

[Taichiliberal]

btw taichi...what is unconstitutional about the norquist pledge?

hat you have Senators/Congressmen sign a pledge to a lobbyist as to how they are to perform their duties INDEPENDENT of the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution and the execution of it's laws with regards to the constituents of their various states,

explain how the pledge does anything you claim above.

Funny how Yurt is ALWAYS trying to paint George Soros as the evil machievellian genius behind the Democratic party (and liberals/progressives in general) who is out to subvert & destroy the Constitution and the Republic, but suddenly has NO problem with Republican Congressmen and Senators ACTUALLY PUBLICALLY SIGNING A PLEDGE TO A LOBBYIST'S POLICY DICTATE.


And if Yurt is so smug in the "legality" of the signing of Norquist pledge, maybe he should take a gander at this.

Oath of Congress/Senate:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.



Nothing in there about swearing NOT to raise taxes on rich folks via ending Reagan/Bush tax breaks. But hey, why stop there? Let's have flack jackets with sponsorship emblems like Nascar? C'mon Yurt, get your lips off of Limbaugh's ass and THINK!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Funny how Yurt is ALWAYS trying to paint George Soros as the evil machievellian genius behind the Democratic party (and liberals/progressives in general) who is out to subvert & destroy the Constitution and the Republic, but suddenly has NO problem with Republican Congressmen and Senators ACTUALLY PUBLICALLY SIGNING A PLEDGE TO A LOBBYIST'S POLICY DICTATE.


And if Yurt is so smug in the "legality" of the signing of Norquist pledge, maybe he should take a gander at this.

Oath of Congress/Senate:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.



Nothing in there about swearing NOT to raise taxes on rich folks via ending Reagan/Bush tax breaks. But hey, why stop there? Let's have flack jackets with sponsorship emblems like Nascar? C'mon Yurt, get your lips off of Limbaugh's ass and THINK!

so you can't point to a single constitutional violation. there is nothing in the oath about NOT making a pledge to NOT raise taxes. politicians have done this before in campaigns....but all of a sudden because it is norquist you make up bullshit about some constitutional violation but can't actually say what the violation is. got it.

and you're lying about my claims about soros. take your lips off his ass and take a breath.

 

[Conservative]

After impeachment, should Obama be deported?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

After impeachment, should Obama be deported?

Should he?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Funny how Yurt is ALWAYS trying to paint George Soros as the evil machievellian genius behind the Democratic party (and liberals/progressives in general) who is out to subvert & destroy the Constitution and the Republic, but suddenly has NO problem with Republican Congressmen and Senators ACTUALLY PUBLICALLY SIGNING A PLEDGE TO A LOBBYIST'S POLICY DICTATE.


And if Yurt is so smug in the "legality" of the signing of Norquist pledge, maybe he should take a gander at this.

Oath of Congress/Senate:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.



Nothing in there about swearing NOT to raise taxes on rich folks via ending Reagan/Bush tax breaks. But hey, why stop there? Let's have flack jackets with sponsorship emblems like Nascar? C'mon Yurt, get your lips off of Limbaugh's ass and THINK!

so you can't point to a single constitutional violation. there is nothing in the oath about NOT making a pledge to NOT raise taxes. politicians have done this before in campaigns....but all of a sudden because it is norquist you make up bullshit about some constitutional violation but can't actually say what the violation is. got it.

and you're lying about my claims about soros. take your lips off his ass and take a breath.

All one has to do is just follow the chronology of the posts to see that I was NOT lying about Yurt's insertion of Soros into the discussion and subsequent failed attempt to try and compare him to what Norquist has done. Yurt can repeat his denial until doomsday, but the chronology of the posts makes him out to be a bald faced liar time and again.

As to the Norquist pledge.....I am pointing out the glaring contradiction it has in relation to the oath of office that Congressmen and Senators take. Rather than deal with that, Yurt just makes stuff up and repeats his already failed assertion. But here, let a former federal judge explain it:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench



The oath which each member of Congress takes requires the support and defense of the Constitution "without any mental reservation" and a promise to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Vowing never to raise taxes directly or indirectly is certainly a "mental reservation," in the same way that a pledge never to vote to authorize war would be. Taxes are certainly not mandated by the Constitution, but they are clearly authorized and allowed by it. I would think that an elected member of Congress in carrying out that oath would be expected to make legislative decisions based upon the facts and circumstances presented at the time. To commit in advance to a position without the necessary knowledge seems to be a dereliction of the duty imposed upon lawmakers, particularly when the commitment is made at the instigation of a private organization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/does-the-norquist-notax-p_b_853312.html


Whether or not the Dems have to balls to harp on this glaring contradiction to the public in the upcoming elections remains to be seen. In any event, Yurt's glaring willful ignorance on the subject is documented.

As for this threads opening premise, there's not a thing that idiots like Yurt can stand on when they parrot squawk for Obama's impeachment.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

again.....what constitution provision did they violate by making the oath?

good lord. you can't even explain what constitutional provision they violated. you have tried to claim that making a pledge to not raise taxes violates the constitution, however, that is patently false.

i never said you lied about me injecting soros into the discussion. sheesh. you can't read or are just plain dishonest.

 

[christiefan915]

So what if he steals another rigged election with the liberal medias help?

He is a total failure and betrayer of America.

Plenty of reasons to impeach and jail him!

List a few.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

List a few.

Legion....

 

[Taichiliberal]

All one has to do is just follow the chronology of the posts to see that I was NOT lying about Yurt's insertion of Soros into the discussion and subsequent failed attempt to try and compare him to what Norquist has done. Yurt can repeat his denial until doomsday, but the chronology of the posts makes him out to be a bald faced liar time and again.

As to the Norquist pledge.....I am pointing out the glaring contradiction it has in relation to the oath of office that Congressmen and Senators take. Rather than deal with that, Yurt just makes stuff up and repeats his already failed assertion. But here, let a former federal judge explain it:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench



The oath which each member of Congress takes requires the support and defense of the Constitution "without any mental reservation" and a promise to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office." Vowing never to raise taxes directly or indirectly is certainly a "mental reservation," in the same way that a pledge never to vote to authorize war would be. Taxes are certainly not mandated by the Constitution, but they are clearly authorized and allowed by it. I would think that an elected member of Congress in carrying out that oath would be expected to make legislative decisions based upon the facts and circumstances presented at the time. To commit in advance to a position without the necessary knowledge seems to be a dereliction of the duty imposed upon lawmakers, particularly when the commitment is made at the instigation of a private organization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-..._b_853312.html


Whether or not the Dems have to balls to harp on this glaring contradiction to the public in the upcoming elections remains to be seen. In any event, Yurt's glaring willful ignorance on the subject is documented.

As for this threads opening premise, there's not a thing that idiots like Yurt can stand on when they parrot squawk for Obama's impeachment.

again.....what constitution provision did they violate by making the oath?

good lord. you can't even explain what constitutional provision they violated. you have tried to claim that making a pledge to not raise taxes violates the constitution, however, that is patently false.

i never said you lied about me injecting soros into the discussion. sheesh. you can't read or are just plain dishonest.

Judge Sarokin said it best, The "Pledge" may be neither illegal nor unethical, but I cannot help but find it troublesome. Commitment to certain dearly held political principles is to be commended; but swearing blind allegiance to them is not.

I NEVER said it was "unconstitutional", I pointed out it's glaring contradiction to the Oath of Office that the Congressmen/Senators take TO the Constitution.

And PLEASE stop lying like a retarded weasel as to YOUR interjection of Soros into this conversation. THERE IS NO OATH DRAFTED BY SOROS THAT DEMS HAVE SIGNED ONTO. PERIOD. That little gem is the sole attribute of the current GOP.

And THAT, Yurtle old thing, is a serious stain on the conservative flag that will be waved in November.

You want to impeach Obama, come up with a viable reason based on fact, and not on your tired, lame ass "soros the boogeyman" BS.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

1. i never said i want to impeach obama. nice strawman.

2. you claimed the pledge was not in accord with their oath. their oath is about upholding and defending the constitution. the pledge does not contradict that.

3. i never made soros a bogeyman. that is why i called you a liar earlier. in fact, i said he was not the bogeyman. but you can't rationally defend your claims, so you make stuff up.

4. it does not matter who was the inspiration behind a pledge. FACT: pledging to not raise taxes is not in contradiction to their oath to uphold and defend the constitution. both dem and pub politicians make pledges ALL THE TIME. yet, oddly, you never bitch about dem pledges.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dune...can you counter any point i made?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What is it about George Soros that he is considered to be such a bogeyman, by the right? I really have difficulty understanding why he is so reviled. I also find it hard to understand why anybody would expect a multi-billionaire to not try to buy influence, surely that is the American way?

He is usually pointed to when the left trots out their boogey men... the Koch brothers. The Koch's give a paltry $30k to support electing Walker in WI and they think he owns WI now. Take a look more closely and watch how many times the Obama admin assaults the Koch's in the coming year. I guarantee you won't hear a third as much on Soros from the right in the media. Many on the left want to pretend that the 'rich' and 'super wealthy' only bribe Republicans. Look to Wall Street. Many on the left pretend it is just Reps that have been bought off. In reality, both parties have. One of the most corrupt pieces of shit on Wall Street is a Dem... Jamie Dimon.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

So what if he steals another rigged election with the liberal medias help?

He is a total failure and betrayer of America.

Plenty of reasons to impeach and jail him!

Good luck.

 

[Taichiliberal]

1. i never said i want to impeach obama. nice strawman. You never said you DIDN'T want to impeach Obama. Given the subject title of the thread, you had ample opportunity to do so, yet instead when others PROVE that there is no grounds for impeachment, YOU interject Soros into the discussion in an attempt to what, sully Obama by guilt through (neocon) association. To what end? The request in the subject title? Come, come Yurtle old thing....the ONLY strawman here is YOU.

2. you claimed the pledge was not in accord with their oath. their oath is about upholding and defending the constitution. the pledge does not contradict that. As the chronology of the posts shows, I and Judge Sarokin explain why you are wrong....and all you've got is typical neocon parrot repetition of a failed assertion to the point of isipidness.3. i never made soros a bogeyman. Yurt, YOU introduced soros into the conversation with a response to Evince that was totally unrelated to the topic at hand. It was aptly demonstrated by myself and others that Soros is NOT on par with Norquist in the discussion. But instead of conceding a point, you do the usual Yurtle shuffle and LIE about what has transpired. that is why i called you a liar earlier. in fact, i said he was not the bogeyman. but you can't rationally defend your claims, so you make stuff up.

No one said YOU used the word "boogeyman", Yurt....I pointed out that you USE Soros as a boogeyman whenever the flaws and chicanery of the GOP and it's supporters is documented. It's an apt description because like on this thread, YOUR ALLEGATIONS AND ASSERTIONS REGARDING SOROS ARE PROVEN WRONG TIME AND AGAIN. I don't have to make stuff up, Yurt...the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS make YOU out to be the intellectually dishonest jackass you are.
4. it does not matter who was the inspiration behind a pledge. FACT: pledging to not raise taxes is not in contradiction to their oath to uphold and defend the constitution. both dem and pub politicians make pledges ALL THE TIME. yet, oddly, you never bitch about dem pledges.

Yurt, when will you learn that repeating your worthless opinion, supposition and conjecture is NOT a substitute for facts and the logic derived from those facts. As the chronology of the posts shows, I already addressed your assertion here......that you cannot logically prove your assertion reduces you to just repeating it ad nauseum. So be it. Let me know when you 've got something besides lies, lame insults and repetition.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

learn the quote function so i don't have to spend extra time responding

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

1. i never said i want to impeach obama. nice strawman.

You never said you DIDN'T want to impeach Obama. Given the subject title of the thread, you had ample opportunity to do so, yet instead when others PROVE that there is no grounds for impeachment, YOU interject Soros into the discussion in an attempt to what, sully Obama by guilt through (neocon) association. To what end? The request in the subject title? Come, come Yurtle old thing....the ONLY strawman here is YOU.

i've said it several times before in several different threads. i don't need to repeat myself just so hacks like you don't lie about people's positions. next time, why don't you ASK me what my position is. i'll remember the next time you don't say a negative and accuse you of supporting it....i bet you would go apeshit.

i actually interjected soros and the koch brothers. but you're too much of a hack to acknowledge that and instead whine about soros.

2. you claimed the pledge was not in accord with their oath. their oath is about upholding and defending the constitution. the pledge does not contradict that.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I and Judge Sarokin explain why you are wrong....and all you've got is typical neocon parrot repetition of a failed assertion to the point of isipidness.3. i never made soros a bogeyman. Yurt, YOU introduced soros into the conversation with a response to Evince that was totally unrelated to the topic at hand. It was aptly demonstrated by myself and others that Soros is NOT on par with Norquist in the discussion. But instead of conceding a point, you do the usual Yurtle shuffle and LIE about what has transpired. that is why i called you a liar earlier. in fact, i said he was not the bogeyman. but you can't rationally defend your claims, so you make stuff up.

no, you didn't explain how i was wrong. your authority even said it wasn't illegal. you can bitch and moan all you want, but your tantrum over repubs making a pledge is hollow as you never bitch when dems make pledges. i never lied, not once. you said it was not in accordance with their oath, their oath is about defending the constitution. nothing about making a pledge is in contradiction to that, even your authority agreed with me on that.

No one said YOU used the word "boogeyman", Yurt....I pointed out that you USE Soros as a boogeyman whenever the flaws and chicanery of the GOP and it's supporters is documented. It's an apt description because like on this thread, YOUR ALLEGATIONS AND ASSERTIONS REGARDING SOROS ARE PROVEN WRONG TIME AND AGAIN. I don't have to make stuff up, Yurt...the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS make YOU out to be the intellectually dishonest jackass you are.

you're a lying sack of shit.

and not on your tired, lame ass "soros the boogeyman" BS

4. it does not matter who was the inspiration behind a pledge. FACT: pledging to not raise taxes is not in contradiction to their oath to uphold and defend the constitution. both dem and pub politicians make pledges ALL THE TIME. yet, oddly, you never bitch about dem pledges.

Yurt, when will you learn that repeating your worthless opinion, supposition and conjecture is NOT a substitute for facts and the logic derived from those facts. As the chronology of the posts shows, I already addressed your assertion here......that you cannot logically prove your assertion reduces you to just repeating it ad nauseum. So be it. Let me know when you 've got something besides lies, lame insults and repetition.

reply:

Taichi, when will you learn that repeating your worthless opinion, supposition and conjecture is NOT a substitute for facts and the logic derived from those facts. As the chronology of the posts shows, I already addressed your assertion here......that you cannot logically prove your assertion reduces you to just repeating it ad nauseum. So be it. Let me know when you 've got something besides lies, lame insults and repetition.

 

[Damocles]

Well then. IMPEACH THE BASTARD!

Twice!