Obama's Final Two Years

intheaspens wrote: Hussein is a very dangerous man now. He's both narcissistic and arrogant. He will never admit that he's wrong or change his basic course of action and will sooner take the country down with him. He has no regard for the Constitution or rule of law. He had no regard for Congress before the election when his lackeys ran the Senate and he'll have even less regard now.

Out of curiosity in trying to help me understand better where those of a more conservative bent are coming from, would you consider explaining the use of "Hussein" to describe the President? Also, when you say he has no regard for the Constitution or rule of law, on what do you base that statement? Which law(s) has he broken specifically (especially those that warrant the filing of Articles of Impeachment which is something already being bandied about), and in what way does he have no regard for the Constitution?

As for the rest, you may be right - he may, in fact, be a narcissist. He may also be arrogant. I, personally don't see that, but, hey, that's just me.

I don't believe Congress had any regard for the President, either. That's just one of many reasons nothing has gotten done prior to these mid-term elections, in my opinion. They're too busy fighting amongst and between each other, too busy trying to push their own agendas, and too busy not doing the jobs any (including the President) were elected to do in the first place. American disaffection with the politics of Washington, D.C. is palpable. Will that change now that Republicans have regained control of both houses of Congress? I doubt it. But, again hey, that's just me.

Do-nothing government? Do we really need more laws? More handouts to politically connected people. More new taxes? More new make-work jobs and bureaus? More limits to our privacy and freedoms.

I would love to see the House and Senate go on more vacations.

Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name. If you'll recall, the left loved to refer to George W Bush as "W", in fact they even made a movie with that title. Maybe he should have stuck with Barry Soetoro... don't know if he had the same middle name but I doubt it.

Rick wrote: Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name. If you'll recall, the left loved to refer to George W Bush as "W", in fact they even made a movie with that title. Maybe he should have stuck with Barry Soetoro... don't know if he had the same middle name but I doubt it.

I knew it was his middle name, but had forgotten the "W" - my bad. What about the rest of the question I asked?

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name. If you'll recall, the left loved to refer to George W Bush as "W", in fact they even made a movie with that title. Maybe he should have stuck with Barry Soetoro... don't know if he had the same middle name but I doubt it.

I knew it was his middle name, but had forgotten the "W" - my bad. What about the rest of the question I asked?

Well the quote in question is not from me so I'll let intheaspens respond in his/her own way. The middle name thing was just too easy to pass up.

ZHawke wrote: Also, when you say he has no regard for the Constitution or rule of law, on what do you base that statement? Which law(s) has he broken specifically (especially those that warrant the filing of Articles of Impeachment which is something already being bandied about), and in what way does he have no regard for the Constitution?

Shall we start with the use of an executive order to prevent the "Dreamers" from being deported? If you are going to allow the president to decide who will or will not be deported, which is nothing more and nothing less than legislating from the Oval Office, are you going to pitch a fit when the next one instructs the IRS not to collect income tax revenues in excess of 25% regardless of what the law says the tax rates are?

This is what happens when one decides that the ends justify any means necessary to achieve them, each successive person pushes the envelope just a little more than their predecessor did. And like the frog in the pot, because it is by small degrees, the violence done to our form of government goes mostly unnoticed until we wake up one day finding ourselves compelled to participate in the commerce dictated by the federal government or taxed for our failure to participate in their chosen commerce.

PrintSmith wrote: Shall we start with the use of an executive order to prevent the "Dreamers" from being deported? If you are going to allow the president to decide who will or will not be deported, which is nothing more and nothing less than legislating from the Oval Office, are you going to pitch a fit when the next one instructs the IRS not to collect income tax revenues in excess of 25% regardless of what the law says the tax rates are?

This is what happens when one decides that the ends justify any means necessary to achieve them, each successive person pushes the envelope just a little more than their predecessor did. And like the frog in the pot, because it is by small degrees, the violence done to our form of government goes mostly unnoticed until we wake up one day finding ourselves compelled to participate in the commerce dictated by the federal government or taxed for our failure to participate in their chosen commerce.

I'm not saying you're right. I'm not saying you're wrong.

A logical follow on question might then be would the allegation you've made stand up in a Senate trial if Articles of Impeachment were passed in the House?

If you can't impeach a president for committing perjury, I don't think there is much that can be done to impeach a president. That is what happens when party tops the rule of law, when those who populate the federal government have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. You asked for an example, I gave you one. That you can't get the members of the Senate to put aside party loyalty and uphold the oath or affirmation they took before taking their seat in the Congress is another matter and quite separate from the one you originally posed.

PrintSmith wrote: If you can't impeach a president for committing perjury, I don't think there is much that can be done to impeach a president. That is what happens when party tops the rule of law, when those who populate the federal government have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. You asked for an example, I gave you one. That you can't get the members of the Senate to put aside party loyalty and uphold the oath or affirmation they took before taking their seat in the Congress is another matter and quite separate from the one you originally posed.

Yes, you did give an example. Then I asked a follow on question. Your opinion appears to be, in a very roundabout way, that your example of grounds for impeachment would not stand up in a Senate trial.

And my reply indicates the likelihood of that happening given the Senate refused to convict a sitting president who was known to be guilty of perjury.