Obama Impeachment

[Mavorpen]

Personal attacks are against. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.

That's not a personal attack. That's attacking your ethos, which is a legitimate debate tactic.

[Immoren]

Are going on and on with impeachment demands, 'till Obama's presidency is over?

Hopefully.

Are going on and on with impeachment demands, 'till Obama's presidency is over?

Of course, how can they fulfill their constitutional obligation to govern when a black man continues to sit in the White House?

'Tis getting stale.

[Neo Art]

Come on everybody, the Republicans have a strong case. Obama has clearly committed a misdemeanor by violating the Being a Democratic President Act of 1980.

not to mention the list that everyone on here made, all those apply too. *nods*

Your signature interests me. Apparently within the space of approximately three weeks and 40 posts, you have apparently been called a nazi with such frequency that you feel it necessary to put a pre-emptive warning there.

You're going to be an entertaining one, aren't you?

[Ethel mermania]

From the way he posts and what he says...I think I can get a good clear idea of what he thinks.

You certainly can, which is why I said he is most likely an atheist and hardly right-winged. Sarcasm is sarcasm and judging somebody by their name or a few posts in one thread is about as annoying as somebody presuming you're a "progressive" because that word happens to be in your NS name.

i always judged you as a ghost president speaking to us from the other side.

[Nadkor]

I'd rather let SCOTUS, the actual people whose job it is to say so, be the judge of that. You not liking what he does =/= what he does being unconstitutional.

Presuming unconstitutional actions are a high crime, and the president is committing such crimes frequently, then what would SCOTUS have anything to do with whether the president should be charged (impeached) and convicted (removed), except the CJ's ceremonial role during such cases in the senate?

Ehh...eh?

Where did I say they anything like that?

[Imperium of the Gliusor Species]

Plan of the republicans to do stupid shit.
No. He hasn't done anything illegal.

[Khadgar]

Ok Captain Silver Medal, it should be easy for you to name at least 20 then.

Personal attacks are against. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.

As for Obama, try the claims of legal authority to indefinitely detain and murder American citizens, without due process of law.

Mods as a weapon are against the rules too.

[Antic Master Fegelein]

not to mention the list that everyone on here made, all those apply too. *nods*

Your signature interests me. Apparently within the space of approximately three weeks and 40 posts, you have apparently been called a nazi with such frequency that you feel it necessary to put a pre-emptive warning there.

You're going to be an entertaining one, aren't you?

not really.

[Orcoa]

You certainly can, which is why I said he is most likely an atheist and hardly right-winged. Sarcasm is sarcasm and judging somebody by their name or a few posts in one thread is about as annoying as somebody presuming you're a "progressive" because that word happens to be in your NS name.

i always judged you as a ghost president speaking to us from the other side.

Or in a glass jar

[Nadkor]

Personal attacks are against. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.

As for Obama, try the claims of legal authority to indefinitely detain and murder American citizens, without due process of law.

Uh huh. See, you have this braggadocios claim in your bumper that shows you're a Silver Medal debater. That's not a personal attack to point it out. Nice try though.

I kinda always think that if you have to go around saying "No, I swear; I am good at debating! Some people on the internet said so!" then, well, you're probably not.

[Trotskylvania]

Plan of the republicans to do stupid shit.
No. He hasn't done anything illegal.

Nonsense. The man is clearly guilty of being black.

[Mike the Progressive]

Presuming unconstitutional actions are a high crime, and the president is committing such crimes frequently, then what would SCOTUS have anything to do with whether the president should be charged (impeached) and convicted (removed), except the CJ's ceremonial role during such cases in the senate?

Ehh...eh?

Where did I say they anything like that?

Sib said almost everything Obama does is unconstitutional. You replied you'd rather let SCOTUS determine that. And based on the assumption that everything Obama does is unconstitutional and unconstitutional actions constitutes a high crime, then on a thread about impeachment, wouldn't the legislature be in charge of determining his guilt or innocence?

[Neo Art]

Uh huh. See, you have this braggadocios claim in your bumper that shows you're a Silver Medal debater. That's not a personal attack to point it out. Nice try though.

I kinda always think that if you have to go around saying "No, I swear; I am good at debating! Some people on the internet said so!" then, well, you're probably not.

Oh sure, but when it's sexiest NSGer, well then you...actually don't really seem to care about that one all together too much either...

[Ethel mermania]

I didn't know you had such a flimsy grasp on the Constitution.

Murder is unconstitutional. As is, indefinite detention.

nah, once your dead the body is release.

[The Marxist State]

I'd rather let SCOTUS, the actual people whose job it is to say so, be the judge of that. You not liking what he does =/= what he does being unconstitutional.

Presuming unconstitutional actions are a high crime, and the president is committing such crimes frequently, then what would SCOTUS have anything to do with whether the president should be charged (impeached) and convicted (removed), except the CJ's ceremonial role during such cases in the senate?

What Nadkor was saying is that SCOTUS can rule executive orders or legislation signed by the President unconstitutional without removing him from office.

[Sibirsky]

Personal attacks are against. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.

As for Obama, try the claims of legal authority to indefinitely detain and murder American citizens, without due process of law.

Uh huh. See, you have this braggadocios claim in your bumper that shows you're a Silver Medal debater. That's not a personal attack to point it out. Nice try though.

And, which AMCITs has he murdered, exactly?

You are not merely pointing it out. I don't your need your bullshit.

Have you been living under a rock?

Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Awlaki?

They claim it is a mistake. And sure, lets give them the benefit of the doubt. it is a mistake.

Killing his father was not. And being an American citizen, he is entitled to the due process of law. Like any other American citizen.

Or, it should be, any other human being, having to go through the American justice system.

[Mike the Progressive]

Presuming unconstitutional actions are a high crime, and the president is committing such crimes frequently, then what would SCOTUS have anything to do with whether the president should be charged (impeached) and convicted (removed), except the CJ's ceremonial role during such cases in the senate?

What Nadkor was saying is that SCOTUS can rule executive orders or legislation signed by the President unconstitutional without removing him from office.

Ah, never mind then.

[Sibirsky]

Almost everything that corrupt piece of shit does, is a violation of the constitution.

BREAKING NEWS! Obama takes a shit! Country in uproar over this disturbing expression of disregard for the constitution!!!1111!!

[Mavorpen]

BREAKING NEWS! Obama takes a shit! Country in uproar over this disturbing expression of disregard for the constitution!!!1111!!

For once, your facepalm makes sense.

Perhaps you realize the idiocy of claiming that almost everything he does is a violation of the constitution while being unable to name even ten.

[Nadkor]

Ehh...eh?

Where did I say they anything like that?

Sib said almost everything Obama does is unconstitutional. You replied you'd rather let SCOTUS determine that. And based on the assumption that everything Obama does is unconstitutional and unconstitutional actions constitutes a high crime, then on a thread about impeachment, wouldn't the legislature be in charge of determining his guilt or innocence?

This doesn't even remotely follow.

Doing something unconstitutional isn't a high crime (although, of course, some high crimes might be things that are unconstitutional), or half the federal government would have been arrested at some point in the last 250 years.

You know that not every breach of the law is a criminal matter, right?

Please tell me that you know this.

[The Godly Nations]

Uh huh. See, you have this braggadocios claim in your bumper that shows you're a Silver Medal debater. That's not a personal attack to point it out. Nice try though.

And, which AMCITs has he murdered, exactly?

You are not merely pointing it out. I don't your need your bullshit.

Have you been living under a rock?

Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Awlaki?

They claim it is a mistake. And sure, lets give them the benefit of the doubt. it is a mistake.

Killing his father was not. And being an American citizen, he is entitled to the due process of law. Like any other American citizen.

Or, it should be, any other human being, having to go through the American justice system.

How is this different from the usual illegal things that our government does?

Obama, for one, actually knows how to speak English, so it is an improvement from the former state of things, and enough to redeem any of his crimes.

[Neo Art]

Killing his father was not. And being an American citizen, he is entitled to the due process of law. Like any other American citizen.

It's true. This is why, before engaging the Confederate army, the Union held seperate and indvidual trials for each and every member of the oppositional army, before determining whether it was lawful to kill them.

Or, rather, this was true, in Stupid Universe (stupid universe is what happens when you use a die to find out who gets the pizza, and roll a 4)

This is, incidentally, why the South won the war in Stupid Universe. Because they recognized the inanity of proposing that due process of law applies on the battlefield

[Nadkor]

I kinda always think that if you have to go around saying "No, I swear; I am good at debating! Some people on the internet said so!" then, well, you're probably not.

Oh sure, but when it's sexiest NSGer, well then you...actually don't really seem to care about that one all together too much either...

Being told you're pretty by a group of teenage boys on the internet is hardly one for the CV

[Mike the Progressive]

Doing something unconstitutional isn't a high crime (although, of course, some high crimes might be things that are unconstitutional), or half the federal government would have been arrested at some point in the last 250 years.

There are some who think that should have happened.

You know that not every breach of the law is a criminal matter, right?

Yes.

[Sabara]

Posting this on NSG?

Get ready for the bloodthirsty liberals to jump down your throat.