Barack Obama is an illegal president,...

Barack Obama is an illegal president, period

There are 301 comments on the Pravda story from Jun 25, 2012, titled Barack Obama is an illegal president, period. In it, Pravda reports that:

American politicians and the media are lying to the American people. They do so because they hope that their complicity in the greatest fraud in U.S. history will be overtaken by events, that is, the 2012 election.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Pravda.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#189 Jan 24, 2013
ManBearPig wrote:
<quoted text>
This entire time you have been trying to give the impression that I have something to prove to you. I'm sorry, but you are a nobody. I could explain my position all day but you would still attack ,attack, attack. It's pathetic. Your nothing but a puppet. A dried up, crusty old sock puppet, and the more you babble, the more you prove it!
He's one of the worst blowhards on topix. He thinks he's always right and everybody else is always wrong.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#190 Jan 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Props to you, dude(ss).
The way I see it, every person should be allowed to believe and practice whatever religious thing he or she wants to. Even wail at full moon while dancing around a bloody chicken foot. Or worse.
But keep it private. Like, in your house, in your church, but leave your religion out of the public marketplace.
That's my formula for getting along with one another.
This isn't a religion thread so why don't you just stfu about it?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#191 Jan 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No, go back and read it. I've pointed out that Conservatives such as yourself have a monopoly on hypocrisy. I suggested a few areas where it's obvious and challenged you to come up with any area in which the Conservatives aren't hypocrites.
That's not me pulling you off topic, by the way. You brought up hypocrisy in the first place. That's me responding to your assertion.
By the way, this sort of "what's on topic/what's off topic" would be much easier for you to understand if you had completed at least one year of high school.
Is there ANY subject with which you are at least conversant? We know English and US History are beyond your grasp?
What about NASCAR?
Just as liberals like you are rabid liars.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#192 Jan 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>This isn't a religion thread so why don't you just stfu about it?
There's this poster, Skombolis. I don't know if you know him.

Skom posts in several threads. If you reply to one of his posts, he's paranoid and says you're stalking him and why are you following him around.

I won't do that.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#193 Jan 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Just as liberals like you are rabid liars.
Yawn.

Nano, since you admit that Conservatives are hypocrites, you realize that calling me a liar just implies that you are liars.

I've offered NUMEROUS times to discuss any of these topics in great detail. No one is willing to go to depth.

They want to post links to ridiculous sites which don't actually support their claims and then go back to spewing racist rants about re-instituting slavery.

Or, and this one is really precious, complaining that the blue states which pay pretty much ALL the taxes are "takers" because we don't give even MORE of our money to the red states which basically pay nothing in taxes. Hilarious.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#195 Jan 25, 2013
President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. He sure knows how to violate the constitution, huh?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#196 Jan 25, 2013
Correct, CBOW!

I now fully expect the resident apologist to deny, deny, deny about this as well, then bring up the possibility of an "appeal"! BTW, the vote was 3-0. It wasn't even close.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#198 Jan 25, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
Correct, CBOW!
I now fully expect the resident apologist to deny, deny, deny about this as well, then bring up the possibility of an "appeal"! BTW, the vote was 3-0. It wasn't even close.
Yes, they are already in the process of an appeal.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#199 Jan 25, 2013
Mr Big Bad John Roberts wrote:
<quoted text>Yo' pissface, the Black president is not illegal but the way he easily beat the hell out of Mitt Romney in the debates and general election should be.
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
The clown troll speaks.....please cut back on the crack, it's affecting your judgement.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#200 Jan 25, 2013
CBOW wrote:
President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.
The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. He sure knows how to violate the constitution, huh?
It's a questionable call and one that is likely to get appealed.

The real issue is how do you run a government when one branch is intent not on pushing it's own agenda, but on ending the government entirely.

Is it beneficial to the citizens to have a Congress that won't allow hearings on appointments?

How do we function, as is the case with the ATF, when there hasn't been a head of the agency for 6 _years_ because all appointments are blocked?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#201 Jan 25, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
Correct, CBOW!
I now fully expect the resident apologist to deny, deny, deny about this as well, then bring up the possibility of an "appeal"! BTW, the vote was 3-0. It wasn't even close.
3-0 isn't exactly something you say "wasn't close".

15-0 is "not close".

And, if you read the decision, the issue was not that the President doesn't have the ability to make these appointments. He does. Bush did. Clinton did. Bush did before that. As did Reagan.

It's what constitutes a "recess". How many days does the Congress have to be out of session before such appointments can be made.

Can it happen during lunch? Can it happen on a long weekend? Do they have to be out of session for a week? A month? Three months?

That's a valid question to ask. The court felt that the Congress needed to be out of session longer than the executive felt constituted a "recess".

It will be appealed. It probably won't be overturned.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#202 Jan 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a questionable call and one that is likely to get appealed.
The real issue is how do you run a government when one branch is intent not on pushing it's own agenda, but on ending the government entirely.
Is it beneficial to the citizens to have a Congress that won't allow hearings on appointments?
How do we function, as is the case with the ATF, when there hasn't been a head of the agency for 6 _years_ because all appointments are blocked?
It undoubtedly is the reason we have a two party system. That way, all things are considered. That is the problem when government gets too big, someone's voice is muted in the process.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#204 Jan 25, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
It undoubtedly is the reason we have a two party system. That way, all things are considered. That is the problem when government gets too big, someone's voice is muted in the process.
Again we discover that Conservatives have little to know understanding of US History.

We currently have a two party system, not because it was intended but because the two biggest parties have conspired to keep other parties from participating.

In order to get matching funds for campaigning, your party has to get 35% of the vote. Since only two parties can get that percentage in any given election, it all but prevents a newcomer from unseating an existing party.

Despite the Rights hyperbole, the Democrats are actually center right. Obama is not a socialist. You've never seen a socialist.

We're talking about "gun control" currently and the right is screaming bloody murder because the left is daring to suggest that the EXISTING department in charge of enforcing gun laws should have a person in charge of it. Or that people don't need 30 round ammo clips.

That's not "leftist".

The fact that you guys think that positions like that are "leftist" shows how far off the deep end you've gone.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#205 Jan 25, 2013
Far off the deep end? At this point, I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd staunchly disagree.

The FACT remains that obama had majorities in both the house and senate, yet failed to pass much of anything his first two years in office, especially the budget.

Prioritizing the "gun" issue is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors show that will accomplish nothing and you know it.

It's been how many years since a budget has been passed? And let's take a close, hard look at who's present and in office, shall we? Let's begin with the little obama, shall we?

Then, let's look at he he used that as some kind of "excuse" for the lemmings and sheep of the world to buy.

Yet, he has the balls to criticize others for what he does best?

LOL! You crack me up nuggin. You sir are full of wool!

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#206 Jan 25, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
Far off the deep end? At this point, I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd staunchly disagree.
Outside right now, the sky is gray. At night the sky is black. It's a matter of position, time and weather.

But, go on thinking that your experience of the sky is universal to everyone else.

:P
The FACT remains that obama had majorities in both the house and senate, yet failed to pass much of anything his first two years in office, especially the budget.
Largely due to the fact that Republicans are more interested in crippling the government than governing.

How many filibusters did they do in those first two years?

More that TWICE as many as had been done under any year under Bush. In some cases THREE times as many.

Hell, this year, one of the Republicans filibustered his OWN bill.

Don't blame government inaction on the President when it's your boys who are causing the inaction.
Prioritizing the "gun" issue is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors show that will accomplish nothing and you know it.
I disagree that it's smoke and mirrors, but I do agree that it won't accomplish much.

The problem is that they are focusing on assault weapons which, while responsible for a couple big incidents, actually only cause 3% of gun deaths.

If everything went right, it MIGHT prevent one massacre MAYBE. But over all it won't stem the violence hardly at all.
It's been how many years since a budget has been passed? And let's take a close, hard look at who's present and in office, shall we? Let's begin with the little obama, shall we?
The White House doesn't pass budgets. The Congress does.
The White House can pressure the Congress to do so, but if half the Congress is unwilling to act on anything at any time for any reason, then nothing is going to happen. Period.
Then, let's look at he he used that as some kind of "excuse" for the lemmings and sheep of the world to buy.
To pass a budget? You need to focus on clarity in your writing.
Yet, he has the balls to criticize others for what he does best?
LOL! You crack me up nuggin. You sir are full of wool!
You are accusing Obama of FAILING to nominate the people that he used recess appointments to place? Honestly, does that make sense to you? Because, I gotta tell you, that makes NO SENSE to anyone in the real world.

Obama nominated people. The GOP refused to even review the nominations. The positions remained unfilled.

Hence the recess appointments.

It would be different if the GOP objected to someone, held a hearing and rejected them. That's DOING something. But NOT doing anything as a means of failing to have the government do it's job is not something for which you should be defending your politicians.
Elohimsokie

Broken Bow, OK

#207 Jan 25, 2013
Not only is he illegal he also draws flys. hehehe

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#208 Jan 26, 2013
This couldn't be a better example of why the GOP is so hopelessly messed up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sh...

Texas Republican platform opposes teaching critical thinking because it might challenge things the students already believe.

In other words, if they believe in Santa Claus, you shouldn't teach them Physics.

WOW.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#209 Jan 26, 2013
Well then, you must believe in Santa Clause if you actually believe what the media writes. They also ignore stories such as the budget and this:

The military brass is being replaced by those who are willing to fire on their own citizens:- https://www.youtube.com/watch...

And:- https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php...

And this one's just for you!-


Now, I might get arrested for thinking on my own!
Elohimsokie

Broken Bow, OK

#210 Jan 26, 2013
Obama was appointed. His puppet masters like him .

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#211 Jan 26, 2013
AristotleRex wrote:
Well then, you must believe in Santa Clause if you actually believe what the media writes. They also ignore stories such as the budget and this:
The military brass is being replaced by those who are willing to fire on their own citizens:- https://www.youtube.com/watch...
And:- https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php...
And this one's just for you!- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wAFAywYZK-MXX
Now, I might get arrested for thinking on my own!
Before I start clicking on your new links, let's discuss either the link you already posted or the link I posted.

This isn't a game who who can copy and paste more "rick rolls".

Are you willing to discuss your initial like about "Muslim Brotherhood" people in depth? Or have you already realized you are going to lose that discussion and are trying to spam a new fight?

Are you willing to condemn the Texas GOP for putting forward a platform that literally calls for an end to critical thinking.(NOT a methapor. They _literally_ want to end the teaching of critical thinking skills.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 1 min truth 628
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 min Aura Mytha 88,384
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Crow 977,437
"I LOVE YOU Eva' 7 min Doctor REALITY 3
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 25 min AussieBobby 284,624
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 40 min X Pendable 184,770
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 41 min truth 665,473
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 3 hr Lonestar 255
More from around the web