Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[Zona]

I know nothing about it but I assume that, if there is such a thing as a "presidential order" it was created to prevent paralysis at federal level.

But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.

Which people?

Republicans.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
Isn't this how dictators begin?

Does your pussy ever stop whining?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But the executive order should not be used to by-pass the will of the people.

Sorry, where does it say that the President must consult with all 300,000,000+ American citizens every time he issues an executive order?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?

 

[Sallow]

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?

I am sure they would have been content to carve states out of the Union.

To bad.

That's ain't the way it works.

 

[bodecea]

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?

You'll have to ask the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?

I am sure they would have been content to carve states out of the Union.

To bad.

That's ain't the way it works.

Really? Got any evidence of that other than your conjecture?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?

You'll have to ask the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.

Really? Can you name the major cities in those state that were burnt to the ground? How many campaigns did the south wage in northern territory where they were cut off from their supply lines and instead relied on pillaging the livelihoods of the local population?

The double standard. It always exists in war. In this case, the winner can burn down Atlanta, Columbus, and steal the food needed for survival from thousands of civilians - and that's OK - but the mere presence of a soutern army in the north - even if they are only there in pursuit of a union unit that was just in the south - is a war crime.

Got it.

 

[Sallow]

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?

I am sure they would have been content to carve states out of the Union.

To bad.

That's ain't the way it works.

Really? Got any evidence of that other than your conjecture?

This never gets old..

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Lemme guess..

And you love the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

What Rebellion? The south would have been perfectly content to not have any hostilities at all with the union and were perfectly content to allow all union army units to leave peaceably. It was the North that embarked on a campaign of terror against southern civilians. How many Northern livelihoods were burnt to the ground by bands of thuggish confederate soldiers?

You'll have to ask the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.

Really? Can you name the major cities in those state that were burnt to the ground? How many campaigns did the south wage in northern territory where they were cut off from their supply lines and instead relied on pillaging the livelihoods of the local population?

The double standard. It always exists in war. In this case, the winner can burn down Atlanta, Columbus, and steal the food needed for survival from thousands of civilians - and that's OK - but the mere presence of a soutern army in the north - even if they are only there in pursuit of a union unit that was just in the south - is a war crime.

Got it.

War is hell, isn't it? Maybe the South shouldn't have started it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And you love the Constitution.

You don't?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

Rebelled against whom? You can't rebell if it never happen, and if it happen why didn't the hang the leaders?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the WPA and most of the new deal programs survived constitutional scrutiny?



and once more for the obama deranged:

Baby Bush advanced his agenda 255 times by using executive orders.

George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables

Let's clear this up for the obama defenders.
It's not the use of executive orders, it's the way they are used and the purpose they were used. Bush did not by-pass congress when a bill he wanted passed did not make it to his desk for his signature. obama has done that.

if there was something i disagreed with, i'd say so. but the level of fauxrage is really kind of funny.

the only reason bush's didn't bother you is you agreed with him.

so you can call it anything you want. but you might want to dial it down a bit.

Jillian bush did what he did with the approval of Congress. He didn't pencil whip a regulation when it's didn't pass through congress.

 

[rightwinger]

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

Rebelled against whom? You can't rebell if it never happen, and if it happen why didn't the hang the leaders?

No...they didn't hang the leaders

But in the south, southern terrorists did hang freed slaves

Looks like the right side won

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

So your position now is that Ft Sumter was a terrorist attack by southern terrorists?

I guess you could look at it that way

Does it hurt when you spin something like that when it doesn't exist?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's "the War of Southern Rebellion". What kinda school books you all usin down there?

Rebelled against whom? You can't rebell if it never happen, and if it happen why didn't the hang the leaders?

No...they didn't hang the leaders

But in the south, southern terrorists did hang freed slaves

Looks like the right side won

Then there was no rebellion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason

Sumter was on South Carolina soil, just like any military base outside the U.S. in todays terms.

It was federal property just like Military bases today. An attack on a federal installation is an act of war or in this case, outright treason.

Not during that time period The states allowed to feds to stay. Just like the local sheriff he can kick the feds out of his county. Thats rights You just got punked.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

There was no Northern Aggression. The south were the first to commit treason. They were all traitorous slavers and their treachery caused the deaths of well over 600k Americans.

Lee should have been hung. His body ripped to shreds by pigs and his head put on a post until it was completely fly blown. Then his skull should have been put into excrement. Same with Jefferson Davis.

The stars and bars are suitable for toilet paper. And Sherman was way to kind to the south.

The bodies of the traitors should have lined the roads on gallows.

Who sent troops to which country? It wasn't the South.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

you really are a simple brained man huh?

still playing with those transformers? Go do some research. I suggest reading a few diaries and letters from soldiers during that time period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is considered war yes. oh goodie now you are throwing this talking point under the bus so you wont be wrong

Was 9/11 a battle or an attack that is the question.

And the original question was where was the first battle of the war of northern aggression?

There was no war of northern aggression...that is just a silly tag that traitor supporters like you put on the South's treason in the name of slavery to make yourselves feel like victims.

Who sent troops to which country?