Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... Last
[#] Fri Dec 13 2013 12:04:01 EST from the_mgt @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It would be an outrage! Think about it, occupying a position to which he has no right. That's something reserved for republicans, not for your average democrat.



[#] Fri Dec 13 2013 19:13:35 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


In truth, politicians wind up bending or outright breaking the rules any time something really needs to get done, and the rules are in the way.

The question is whether or not the breaking of those rules actually helps or harms society.

Some might consider our current government as predicated upon the breaking or bending of certain rules. Before our federal government took the form it has now, we had a confederacy. That confederacy required a unanimous vote to effect changes in the government. How, then, did the confederacy get the votes necessary to transform into the federal government we have today?

[#] Fri Dec 13 2013 19:57:30 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Fri Dec 13 2013 09:04:01 PST from the_mgt @ Uncensored

It would be an outrage! Think about it, occupying a position to which he has no right.

Should this actually be the case, the immediate impact would be far-reaching and of immense relief.

Every document bearing his signature where the signature of POTUS is required would immediately be null and void.

The legislative process on the "Affordable" "Care" Act would have to start from the very beginning. Having Biden, as President Successor, might not even be possible since the lawsuits involving the election(s) of 2008/12 would be immediate and intensive. And even if the courts ruled Biden to be legally elected as VPOTUS and his succession to POTUS legal (which it probably would not be) would not be enough to "rescue" Obamacare since the Pocket Veto Rule (among other juicy items) could be applied to say the law was not signed within the Constitutionally required timeframe (if memory serves, 10 calendar days).

And of course the same thing would happen to every other thing bearing The Imposter's signature.

Probably will never happen.

But we can dream.

And hope.

For that would be real change... for the better.



[#] Sat Dec 14 2013 12:13:44 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If Obama's presidency was found to be void would the candidate with the next highest amount of votes in
2008/2012 be declared president? Would we hold another election? Would Bush return as an interim president?

With any of those choices the results of the last five years would be signed back into place.

[#] Sat Dec 14 2013 15:33:07 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sat Dec 14 2013 09:13:44 PST from zooer @ Uncensored
If Obama's presidency was found to be void would the candidate with the next highest amount of votes in
2008/2012 be declared president? Would we hold another election? Would Bush return as an interim president?

With any of those choices the results of the last five years would be signed back into place.

1. the office would be declared vacant.

2. VPOTUS would then automatically and immediately become POTUS - taking the oath of office is not needed, but will happen to show the continuity of office required in any extraordinary circumstance (cf: LBJ after the JFK Assassination)

3. All legislation, executive orders, appointments, actions as Commander-in-Chief would be null & void, of no consequence, as if they had never happened. This is exceptionally far reaching and enormous in its impact:

a) all cabinet officers would immediately lose their positions. Their appointment(s) and subsequent senate confirmations would be illegal as the appointments were not made by a legal POTUS.\

b) all legislation (including Obamacare) would be vacated immediately and the Government would have to "make whole" anyone suffering damages as a result.

c) all Executive Orders signed by Obama would immediately be vacated "as if they had never happened." Again, anyone suffering damages would have to be made whole by the federal government.

In the Real World this will never happen, pleasant though it may seem on its face.

The NOV 2014 elections will almost certainly strip the Senate from control of the Democrat party.

The NOV 2014 elections will almost certainly strengthen the Republican hold on the House of Representatives.

The NOV 2016 elections will almost certainly put a Republican in the White House (if we allow the somewhat-dubious assumption that the Republican Party will nominate a credible candidate and manage to not commit political suicide over the next 34 months).

Even the thought of impeachment is not worth the time, the money, or the tedium. There's plenty to do about the evil deeds of Barack Obama after he is out of office and subject to criminal indictment(s).

Hmmm... the potential of a RICO indictment brings immense cheer to this conservative writer!



[#] Sat Dec 14 2013 18:03:02 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't believe we will see a republican president for a while.

But then again I see no difference between the two parties.

[#] Sat Dec 14 2013 21:52:11 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think the widespread and very visible damage being done by OsamaCare has a very good chance of delivering another "shellacking" to the Democraps in the 2014 mid-term. However, the 2016 election is anything but in-the-bag.
The liberal media can swing the vote by anywhere from 15% to 40%, turning landslide R-victories into squeakers, and squeakers into defeats.

And of course there is the small matter of America-hating communists *within* the GOP doing everything they can to exterminate the true conservatives. Put 'em together and you end up with the 2012 election, where they did everything they could to make sure that their nominee was the *one* guy in the bunch who couldn't defeat Osama.

[#] Sat Dec 14 2013 23:36:22 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sat Dec 14 2013 18:52:11 PST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
I think the widespread and very visible damage being done by OsamaCare has a very good chance of delivering another "shellacking" to the Democraps in the 2014 mid-term. However, the 2016 election is anything but in-the-bag.
The liberal media can swing the vote by anywhere from 15% to 40%, turning landslide R-victories into squeakers, and squeakers into defeats.

And of course there is the small matter of America-hating communists *within* the GOP doing everything they can to exterminate the true conservatives. Put 'em together and you end up with the 2012 election, where they did everything they could to make sure that their nominee was the *one* guy in the bunch who couldn't defeat Osama.

Republicans holding control of the House is a given. This is due to what I call the "2010 Phenomenon." The importance of 2010 was not "the Republicans regained the House of Representtives." While that was important, it was minor in comparison to the groundswell monumental gains the Republicans made in many (make that **many**) state legislatures and gubernatorial seats nationwide. Coupled with 2010 being a census year, this gave Republican congtrolled State legislatures and Republican governors the opportunity to draw legislative district boundaries in such a way as to virtually guarantee a Republican national House of Representatives for, literally, decades. It would take a disaster of Watergate dimensions to even begin to put a dent in that.

The ability of the liberal media to swing the electorate is directly related to the viewership of TV entities such as CNN, MSNBC, and others of the same ilk. Their viewership has been reduced by a more-than-significant amount over the past three years. According to recent ratings, it seems that Fox News (for all *their* faults) has more viewership than CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC ****combined****.

Your most valid point, IG, is your final paragraph. For the Republicans to be truly effective they need The Message, and they need a presidential candidate capable of igniting The Fire.

In short, the Republicans need not "the next Reagan" but rather the Conservative equivalent of John F. Kennedy. Of course, this does not address the fact that JFK's politics today would be Conservative and certainly not the perversion of "liberalism" extant in today's Democrat party.

Republicans need to ignite the imaginations of today's Americans with a vision for the future. Not economics; not social programs; not immigration reform; and certainly not more socio-economically oppressive anti-capitalism.

"The New Frontier of our age is in Outer Space - the moon, the near-earth planets, and the asteroid belt. As the generation of the 60s reached for the Moon, we must reach for the Planets in order to hold the Stars within our grasp. This is the journey we must begin. For ourselves, for our children, and for the generations yet to come.

And this shall be our legacy..." [you don't want to know...]



[#] Tue Dec 17 2013 08:19:07 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Good luck getting a conservative onto the 2016 ticket. It seems the RINO Establishment has already selected Krispy Kreme.

[#] Thu Jan 09 2014 17:22:57 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

http://ens-newswire.com/2014/01/03/u-s-sailors-sue-japanese-nuclear-plant-owner-tepco/

...and the whashington post asks, why the NSA, who most probably have sniffed those phonecalls didn't warn the sailors...



[#] Thu Jan 09 2014 17:34:33 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

otoh - you're aproaching a nuclear desaster site, and you don't have some Geiger Mueller counters at hand, to verify your life support systems are sane?

plus, that carier probably runs itself on nuclear power? If not, many submarines run on nuclear power, which won't fail by any means *cough*

WTF? are people building ships outright stupid?



[#] Fri Jan 10 2014 08:14:43 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The reactors inside carriers and submarines are much smaller and are hardened for the kind of environment expected at sea.

It does seem odd that anyone would approach a nuclear disaster site and not expect to be exposed to radiation, though. That's just insane. Almost as if someone's about to get a new nuclear energy project approved and the anti-nuclear lobby needed a reason to bring Fukushima back into people's minds. (That's just a guess, of course.)

[#] Fri Jan 10 2014 10:00:32 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And I guess wounded sailors are next to dead kittens in public attention...



[#] Sat Jan 11 2014 14:07:38 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Good luck getting a conservative onto the 2016 ticket. It seems the
RINO Establishment has already selected Krispy Kreme.

I thought it was Krusty the Klown.

[#] Sat Jan 11 2014 18:04:25 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Either one is fine. The liberal media has already given 1700% more coverage of Krispy Krusty's lane closure "scandal" than to Obama's IRS abuse of conservative groups.

Liberal republicans are working as hard as they can to make sure they bring in a candidate incapable of beating Hitlery.

[#] Sun Jan 12 2014 23:26:34 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Actually, I really don't understand this whole thing. Why is the liberal media destroying Krispy Krusty? He's already been selected as the milquetoast R chosen to lose to Hitlery in 2016. If they destroy him now they run the risk of an actual conservative appearing on the ticket (and winning).

[#] Mon Jan 13 2014 08:25:06 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Q) What is the difference between an actual conservative and the Easter Bunny?

A) An actual conservative does not exsist.

[#] Mon Jan 13 2014 22:19:55 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


In nutter news, this year, according to conspiracy theorists, we should see more UFOs, and the US/Russia weather wars will continue to wreak havok in the name of global warming (which is all fake).

The 12 foot tall people living in Agartha will be available to protect the wise.

(I don't think I have the required imagination to make this up).

[#] Thu Jan 16 2014 22:56:51 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


MOTHERFUCKING DE BLASIO. LEARN HOW TO EAT PIZZA LIKE A NEW YORKER, ASSHOLE.

[#] Fri Jan 17 2014 10:17:13 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I heard the slice had horse meat on it.

Go to page: First ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... Last