Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
President Biden?
26 views
Skip to first unread message
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 14, 2013, 1:19:11 PM5/14/13
to
If Obama is forced from office, we'll have President Biden. Of course Biden is dumber'n a bag of hammers so maybe they'll find a way to get rid of him too. Then if Obama goes Hillary prob will too over Benghazi which leaves us..........
President Boehner
President Boehner
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 14, 2013, 2:11:44 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:19:11 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> If Obama is forced from office, we'll have President Biden. Of course Biden is dumber'n a bag of hammers so maybe they'll find a way to get rid of him too. Then if Obama goes Hillary prob will too over Benghazi which leaves us..........
>
> President Boehner
Reports now by a St Louis reporter that after he asked tough questions of Obama in early 2012, he was subjected to unusual IRS scrutiny. If this is true, then we have a direct connection from Obama to intimidation of media by using the IRS. If this connection is made, it alone is sufficient for impeachment and should be backed by anybody who believes in freedom of press.
> If Obama is forced from office, we'll have President Biden. Of course Biden is dumber'n a bag of hammers so maybe they'll find a way to get rid of him too. Then if Obama goes Hillary prob will too over Benghazi which leaves us..........
>
> President Boehner
Andrew Swallow
May 14, 2013, 2:48:37 PM5/14/13
to
You will have to prove Obama took a bribe from the Chinese.
Andrew Swallow
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 14, 2013, 3:24:08 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:19:11 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> If Obama is forced from office, we'll have President Biden. Of course Biden is dumber'n a bag of hammers so maybe they'll find a way to get rid of him too. Then if Obama goes Hillary prob will too over Benghazi which leaves us..........
>
> President Boehner
Yes, it is.
>
> President Boehner
Bill
May 14, 2013, 3:39:37 PM5/14/13
to
dott.Piergiorgio
May 14, 2013, 4:55:46 PM5/14/13
to
to America is simply weather the emergency (if Obama's demise came from
some white supremacist, the mother of all race riots begins...) then
nominate an agreed-upon VP then resign (more or less how Gerald Ford
became the lone unelected US President...)
dott. Piergiorgio.
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
May 15, 2013, 6:01:39 AM5/15/13
to
On 15/05/2013 05:23, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> The complete phrase is "high crimes and misdemeanors".
>
Yes. You do not get US Presidents on minor grounds.
Where there is one crime there are frequently others. Possibly bigger
ones. These crimes are likely to involve the same people in or near the
White House. (The IRS intimidations was performed using minor civil
servants a long way from the White House.)
Andrew Swallow
>
>>
>> You will have to prove Obama took a bribe from the Chinese.
>>
>
> Nope.
>>
>> You will have to prove Obama took a bribe from the Chinese.
>>
>
>
Yes. You do not get US Presidents on minor grounds.
Where there is one crime there are frequently others. Possibly bigger
ones. These crimes are likely to involve the same people in or near the
White House. (The IRS intimidations was performed using minor civil
servants a long way from the White House.)
Andrew Swallow
Bill
May 15, 2013, 6:27:41 AM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:01:39 +0100, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Yes. You do not get US Presidents on minor grounds.
And certainly not when it appears that emails used in evidence against
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Yes. You do not get US Presidents on minor grounds.
him have been tampered with, as in the Benghazi thing.
Not the IRS one either where it seems that it was just the local tax
office being reasonably diligent about wingnuts looking for tax
breaks.
The one about the freedom of the press is interesting because in the
UK you wouldn't get much reaction from anyone if the government got
hold of the press's phone records to find out who'd been leaking
classified stuff to the media.
On the other hand there'd be absolutely no doubt about who authorised
it either because a senior politician has to sign the warrant.
pgra...@cox.net
May 16, 2013, 4:56:09 PM5/16/13
to
Mark Sieving
May 16, 2013, 6:02:43 PM5/16/13
to
Message has been deleted
Mark Borgerson
May 18, 2013, 1:13:53 AM5/18/13
to
In article <hbjdp8ls0oq4rnqr4...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> Uh, isn't misuse of police power a crime by definition?
Are the IRS a police agency? Unless the person in question was placed
under arrest, I don't think it's a misuse of police power. Unless you
haveappropriate citations to show otherwise, I think this would be some
sort of governmental initimidation other than misuse of police power.
Mark Borgerson
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
Are the IRS a police agency? Unless the person in question was placed
under arrest, I don't think it's a misuse of police power. Unless you
haveappropriate citations to show otherwise, I think this would be some
sort of governmental initimidation other than misuse of police power.
Mark Borgerson
Message has been deleted
Mark Borgerson
May 18, 2013, 2:29:04 PM5/18/13
to
In article <0k6ep8hr3m4fnfvhk...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> The IRS has their own (armed) enforcement agents and their own court
> system.
OK, So were any of the unwilling participants in this scandal visited
by these police agents or arrested? Have they appeared in tax court?
IIRC, the actions taken seem to have been limited to bureaucratic delays
and some audits.
Mark Borgerson
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> system.
OK, So were any of the unwilling participants in this scandal visited
by these police agents or arrested? Have they appeared in tax court?
IIRC, the actions taken seem to have been limited to bureaucratic delays
and some audits.
Mark Borgerson
Message has been deleted
Mark Borgerson
May 18, 2013, 11:16:08 PM5/18/13
to
In article <8aufp85pu4p5g9htv...@4ax.com>,
> They all amount to something called "misconduct under color of law",
> so the crime is the same and you are, as usual, picking ever tinier
> nits.
Standard approach to a question of detail. Spread the net to include
the original assertion.
Mark Borgerson
> so the crime is the same and you are, as usual, picking ever tinier
> nits.
Standard approach to a question of detail. Spread the net to include
the original assertion.
Mark Borgerson
Message has been deleted
Mark Borgerson
May 19, 2013, 11:23:17 PM5/19/13
to
In article <35pgp8lvqiri0oumd...@4ax.com>,
> All I've done is answer your questions, Mark. The original statement
> wasn't mine. All I'm doing is demonstrating that all nits are pretty
> much the same, so there's no point in your picking them.
LOL! The whole point of picking nits is that it prevents an annoying
propagation of innacurate statements----much as picking real nits
prevents a future infestation of blood-sucking fleas.
Mark Borgerson
> wasn't mine. All I'm doing is demonstrating that all nits are pretty
> much the same, so there's no point in your picking them.
LOL! The whole point of picking nits is that it prevents an annoying
propagation of innacurate statements----much as picking real nits
prevents a future infestation of blood-sucking fleas.
Mark Borgerson
Message has been deleted
Mark Borgerson
May 20, 2013, 10:33:42 AM5/20/13
to
In article <3rijp8dt0qlf49tck...@4ax.com>,
> Except that's not why most nit-pickers do it. The usual goal of
> nit-picking is to try to obfuscate the original point because the
> nit-picker can't argue the actual facts on the ground.
OK, I guess I wasn't nit-picking by that definition, since I stuck to
the premise to which I responded---that the IRS problems were an abuse
of police power. Here is is you that is shifing from abuse of
police power to the broader concept of "misconduct under color of law".
By the way, despite your allegation, you never did answer my question:
"OK, So were any of the unwilling participants in this scandal visited
by these police agents or arrested? Have they appeared in tax court? "
These questions are pertinent to the original question of whether the
IRS actions were an abuse of police power.
Mark Borgerson
> nit-picking is to try to obfuscate the original point because the
> nit-picker can't argue the actual facts on the ground.
OK, I guess I wasn't nit-picking by that definition, since I stuck to
the premise to which I responded---that the IRS problems were an abuse
of police power. Here is is you that is shifing from abuse of
police power to the broader concept of "misconduct under color of law".
By the way, despite your allegation, you never did answer my question:
"OK, So were any of the unwilling participants in this scandal visited
by these police agents or arrested? Have they appeared in tax court? "
IRS actions were an abuse of police power.
Mark Borgerson
Message has been deleted
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 21, 2013, 1:34:35 AM5/21/13
to
> Except that's not why most nit-pickers do it. The usual goal of
> nit-picking is to try to obfuscate the original point because the
> nit-picker can't argue the actual facts on the ground.
Well said, fwed!
> nit-picking is to try to obfuscate the original point because the
> nit-picker can't argue the actual facts on the ground.
;-)
0 new messages