Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bubba was in control... Bubba knew better... Bubba was picking on a kid... Bubba did wrong...then Bubba lied to try to weasel his way out of it. That's all on Bubba, and on Billary, for not taking care of business, to an extent where this would not have happened... at least not in connection with anyone who had an ounce of self-control in those circumstances....who said she had her presidential kneepads ant threw herself at him...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz but way to be total fuckups as usual...
I don't think so. Clinton on his worst day was nothing like this lawless criminal in the White House and the People know it. look at his approval numbers. They're in the toilet. We know Obama is acting not in the interests of the Country. Of course, the Senate won't convict him, but the House can bestow the "Impeached" blemish on Obama. That goes with him into history. His presidency must go down as the worst one in all history of the American government.Go ahead. Then watch the repudiation of the GOP at the polls in 2016.
In other words: everything. Communism, socialism- samo,samoCommunism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
Communism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) ...
Hey... Hoss... I think you've got an admirer... don't drop the soap... and watch your Six.I know the Constitution, Skidmark.When are you lefties going to realize that Obama can't make or pass laws on his own?In the absence of a functioning Congress, Obama is filling the void
If Congress does not like it, they can pass their own immigration bill
If he can then we'll insist the next Republican president enact a law to sterilize all leftwingers so they can't breed.
you're an idiot assfly ..
There are two ways that presidents can enact initiatives without congressional approval. Presidents may issue a proclamation, often ceremonial in nature, such as naming a day in honor of someone or something that has contributed to American society. A president may also issue an executive order, which has the full effect of law and is directed to federal agencies that are charged with carrying out the order. Examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive order for the internment of Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces and Dwight Eisenhower's order to integrate the nation's schools.
Congress cannot directly vote to override an executive order in the way they can a veto. Instead, Congress must pass a bill canceling or changing the order in a manner they see fit. The president will typically veto that bill, and then Congress can try to override the veto of that second bill. The Supreme Court can also declare an executive order to be unconstitutional. Congressional cancellation of an order is extremely rare.
Skidmark? Is that something like a teabagger?
skidmark is when an assfly shows his stupidity about EO's and comes to a screeching halt.
Eo's fall under Executive Powers.
Asshat falls under idiots.
You think this is just another blue dress scandal? The people are going to demand impeachment at a minimum.Please, please do.
quelle surprise!!! ..... NOT!. You're nothing if not predictable in your drama threadsPrior to the elections last week I thought that was a bad idea.
No more
AS SOON as he uses that damn pen to do congresses job IMPEACH HIS ASS
In the words of Obama: "Elections have consequences"
Grampa Murked U
You truly are an ignorant partisan hack.Prior to the elections last week I thought that was a bad idea.
No more
AS SOON as he uses that damn pen to do congresses job IMPEACH HIS ASS
In the words of Obama: "Elections have consequences"
Sorry, hater dupes, no impeachment and no reason to. Only you ignorant Beckbots or ? believe it...
WHY? With ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS, if the congress doesn't agree with an Executive order or action...one takes it to court, if the court agrees with Congress or finds the actions of the President unconstitutional, then the executive order is reversed, or null and voided.Prior to the elections last week I thought that was a bad idea.
No more
AS SOON as he uses that damn pen to do congresses job IMPEACH HIS ASS
In the words of Obama: "Elections have consequences"
BS- Under War Powers Act, he had 60 days...He appointed 35 administrators- only media call them Czars. Total hater dupe idiocy. Change the channel, brainwashed functional moron.Sorry, hater dupes, no impeachment and no reason to. Only you ignorant Beckbots or ? believe it...
Oh really? What about the illegal war in Libya that he didn't get congressional approval for? He lied about troops on the ground there.
How about him electing 35 "czars" that answer only to him? This is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
There are many others. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Protect. Obama. At. All. Cost.Congress has legislative authority, the President has executive authority.
There will be no impeachment.
BS- Under War Powers Act, he had 60 days...He appointed 35 administrators- only media call them Czars. Total hater dupe idiocy. Change the channel, brainwashed functional moron.Sorry, hater dupes, no impeachment and no reason to. Only you ignorant Beckbots or ? believe it...
Oh really? What about the illegal war in Libya that he didn't get congressional approval for? He lied about troops on the ground there.
How about him electing 35 "czars" that answer only to him? This is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
There are many others. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Check the election returns.Where's your proof of that?obama was beaten or the democrats were beaten last November 4 because of obama and his policies that they help to pass and push.. People do not support obama's immigration reform.And neither is establishing the order of succession in the Department of Agriculture.Here we go back to bush? Is he still president?Let's see how many of THESE Executive Orders were in response to an emergency:
Executive Orders Issued by President George W. Bush
NAME ONE TIME THEIR WAS A STATE OF EMERGENCY THAT OBAMA HAS NEEDED TO USE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?
Immigration is not an emergency.
Face facts: Obama has been elected twice by the citizens of the United States of America. His policies rub you the wrong way. And he's Black.
Add it up and you hold more animus toward the President of the United States of America than respect for the rule of law and the constitutional process.
You can keep saying people elected obama twice, but if the election was held back in November 4 I doubt he would have won.
the GOP was given control to stop obama, not to get along with him. They should do what is necessary and let the politics be damned.
Do you need a video of each voter's testimony to be convinced?He said that.....does every voter agree that that was the reason they voted the way they did? Proof please.obama said he wasn't on the ballot BUT his policies were.Where's your proof of that?obama was beaten or the democrats were beaten last November 4 because of obama and his policies that they help to pass and push.. People do not support obama's immigration reform.And neither is establishing the order of succession in the Department of Agriculture.
Face facts: Obama has been elected twice by the citizens of the United States of America. His policies rub you the wrong way. And he's Black.
Add it up and you hold more animus toward the President of the United States of America than respect for the rule of law and the constitutional process.
You can keep saying people elected obama twice, but if the election was held back in November 4 I doubt he would have won.
the GOP was given control to stop obama, not to get along with him. They should do what is necessary and let the politics be damned.
They are Gruber's "stupid ones"!So how do you explain the MAJORITY of American voters who did not even vote?Where's your proof of that?obama was beaten or the democrats were beaten last November 4 because of obama and his policies that they help to pass and push.. People do not support obama's immigration reform.And neither is establishing the order of succession in the Department of Agriculture.
Face facts: Obama has been elected twice by the citizens of the United States of America. His policies rub you the wrong way. And he's Black.
Add it up and you hold more animus toward the President of the United States of America than respect for the rule of law and the constitutional process.
You can keep saying people elected obama twice, but if the election was held back in November 4 I doubt he would have won.
the GOP was given control to stop obama, not to get along with him. They should do what is necessary and let the politics be damned.
exit polls for one. the fact that obama-supporting dems were defeated for two.
Because Rush/Sean/Glenn told you so lol...a million times. Strange, eh?BS- Under War Powers Act, he had 60 days...He appointed 35 administrators- only media call them Czars. Total hater dupe idiocy. Change the channel, brainwashed functional moron.Sorry, hater dupes, no impeachment and no reason to. Only you ignorant Beckbots or ? believe it...
Oh really? What about the illegal war in Libya that he didn't get congressional approval for? He lied about troops on the ground there.
How about him electing 35 "czars" that answer only to him? This is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
There are many others. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
And these people have far too much power.
Scorched earth, eh? Winning hearts and minds never happens with that tragic strategy.So to get even, the Republicans should:Does arrogance meet the criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors?The way things are going, a quick sidebar to invent some juicy charges, may end-up doing the trick.
If the Failed Messiah pushes the Pubs too far on this Immigration-Shamnesty horseshit, the Pubs are gonna crucify him, even if they have to make-up shit and find a way to make it stick. Obumble seems to be preparing to tread on very treacherous ground, but his arrogance may be blinding him to the nature and severity of the aftermath.
He is arrogant, and the damage he does won't just fall on his head, but ours as well.
This impeachment talk is purely political and does not reach the threshold of high crimes. Not anymore than the last time politics drove the impeachment process and the Republicans were shown to be petulant children.
Republicans went after Clinton for something that looks tame in comparison to what we already know Obama has done, and who knows what else he's done.
Tie up the legislative process with special prosecutors and Senate hearing; drag the nation further toward political division and animus, impeach a President not for high crimes and misdemeanors but for something that "looks" worse than the last time they pulled this crap.
And somehow, coupled with that bit of impeachment petulance with the government shutdiowns, the Republicans could "look" like a responsible, mature group of people charged with running the government?
What's the upside?
I'm afraid the time for being cordial with criminals is over. The Republicans have been eating the Democrat's shit and asking for seconds far too long.
They have two choices; Investigate the allegations that Johnathan Gruber has admitted to, and prosecute the guilty parties to the full extent of the law, or forgive their transgressions against the GOP and the people of this nation and allow them to get away with it and expect to pay a price in the future for not cleaning this den of vipers out of the houses of power in Washington. Any on the Republican's side that facilitated this criminal conspiracy should go down with the rest.
It will happen again soon if they don't do something about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
When it comes to Obama, he thinks he has the upper hand. He does not. Anything he does he will pay a terrible price for. I doubt Impeachment is one of them.
BS- Under War Powers Act, he had 60 days...He appointed 35 administrators- only media call them Czars. Total hater dupe idiocy. Change the channel, brainwashed functional moron.Sorry, hater dupes, no impeachment and no reason to. Only you ignorant Beckbots or ? believe it...
Oh really? What about the illegal war in Libya that he didn't get congressional approval for? He lied about troops on the ground there.
How about him electing 35 "czars" that answer only to him? This is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
There are many others. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
And these people have far too much power.
Czar SearchFULL ANSWER
It’s meaningless to ask a question about what "hiring czars" allows a president to do, because presidents don’t hire czars. "Czar" is a label bestowed by the media – and sometimes the administration – as a shorthand for the often-cumbersome titles of various presidential advisers, assistants, office directors, special envoys and deputy secretaries. (After all, what makes for a better headline – "weapons czar" or "undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics"?)
There’s been a certain fascination with calling Obama’s advisers and appointees "czars." Fox News host Glenn Beck has identified 32 Obama czars on his Web site, whom he has characterized as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the Constitution. Beck and other television hosts aren’t the only ones crying czar, either. Six Republican senators recently sent a letter to the White House saying that the creation of czar posts "circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’ " Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah issued a press release saying that czars "undermine the constitution." And Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post complaining about the czar menace, including the factually inaccurate claim that only "a few of them have formal titles."
The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called "What’s With This Czar Talk?" and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are "really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems." Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of "czar" has changed from insult to praise: "It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.”
Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists:
These new "czars" include the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; the director of recovery for auto communities and workers; the senior advisor for the president’s Automotive Task Force; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the federal chief information officer; the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board; the White House director of urban affairs; and the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, security and arms control. Or, as Glenn Beck would have it, the Afghanistan czar, the auto recovery czar, the car czar, the embattled green jobs czar, the information czar, the stimulus accountability czar, the urban affairs czar and the WMD policy czar.
- Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
- Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
- Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
- In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.
Some of these new positions would have been meaningless in a previous administration. Previous presidents didn’t need an Automotive Task Force or a Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. These positions are similar to George W. Bush’s "World Trade Center health czar" and "Gulf Coast reconstruction czar" in that they are new advisory positions created to deal with temporary challenges facing the administration. Others do represent new long-term concerns (urban affairs, climate change), but the act of appointing advisers to manage new areas of interest is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar."
Another thing: Beck counts among his 32 "czars" three who have not been called "czars" by reporters at all, except in stories claiming that the Obama administration has lots of "czars." We’ve compiled a FactCheck.org list that discounts these positions, which seem to be "czars" only in the context of media czar-hysteria. (Our list also adds three czars Beck’s research didn’t find – a "diversity czar," a "manufacturing czar" and an "Iran czar.")
As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.
Better than being told by Chris Matthews. The thrill up his leg is scary wierd.Because Rush/Sean/Glenn told you so lol...a million times. Strange, eh?BS- Under War Powers Act, he had 60 days...He appointed 35 administrators- only media call them Czars. Total hater dupe idiocy. Change the channel, brainwashed functional moron.Sorry, hater dupes, no impeachment and no reason to. Only you ignorant Beckbots or ? believe it...
Oh really? What about the illegal war in Libya that he didn't get congressional approval for? He lied about troops on the ground there.
How about him electing 35 "czars" that answer only to him? This is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
There are many others. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
And these people have far too much power.
That's a lot of typing just to say nothing, and only exhibit your ignorance.Care to discuss legal grounds for impeaching?
Sure, but you're not equipped to handle what you'll learn about it....First off, are there illegal grounds for impeachment?Nah, you'll keep repeating defeated phrases or run away claiming your dog is on fire. Simple really...."high crimes and misdemeanors"....archaic language from the late 1700's meaning the president has either broken or failed to enforce laws in force. There can be a multitude of levels.....each one easily exceeded by this president's treachery. The House impeaches....the Senate convicts.....step one is a forgone conclusion if he tries to back-door in the illegals.
Your turn.
Clinton had a booming economy on his side. He didn't piss off 70 % of the nation ignoring our laws. Impeaching Obama will be seen as just by the public.Why do you guys act like your OPINION is fact?PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REPUBLICANS START THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
Make sure there is no doubt that a Republican wouldn't be elected President next time.
