Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Yamato

Rand Paul: Obama thinks he's a King

97 posts in this topic

[media=]

[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People say every president should be impeached. Hating your elected leaders seems a very common thing.

Hardly ever really happens. Talk is fun though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i got to agree, hardly ever happens, and when it does, it isn't about their policys, or whatnot. it has to be sex scandal.

the only recent politican removed for non sex offece was the guy that tried to sell obama seat. all others i can remember were fired\sues\impeached due to sex scandal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's done nothing impeachable .

Look at who has been impeached,and why .

They wanted Clinton ...couldnt do it.

Bush did nothing impeachable either....so....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well quite.

Has he done anything actionable?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a President is doing things that an Act of Congress doesn't even have the authority to do, is that actionable?

I don't think that past examples of impeachment limit future examples. How many years was it until there was a sex scandal that led to impeachment? Yes they're rare, but not confined by their precedents.

I believe we would be in a better place politically if we had impeached the last three Presidents we've elected. Including Clinton, not for reasons related to the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, but for the illegal bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan. I think the unconstitutionality of recent Presidents waging war is the greatest threat the US faces today after our spending problem, though the perpetual war itself is a big part of the spending problem too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a President is doing things that an Act of Congress doesn't even have the authority to do, is that actionable?

But are they things the President has the authority to do and the previous 42 people haven't used that power because they didn't need to/didn't want to?

Edited by Wearer of Hats
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah rand paul is one of the more crazy tea party nut jobs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dotn even care what Obama says anymore. He lost trust after Sandy Hook by not fact checking the indescrepencies. Now all I hear is bla bla bla everytime he speaks. I didnt used to feel like that but now I do. If congress and the president cant have the trust of the people then they are ineffective Tyrants not doing the peoples will like they were elected to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But are they things the President has the authority to do and the previous 42 people haven't used that power because they didn't need to/didn't want to?

That the previous 42 had but didn't use? I would hope not, or else where does he get that authority?

What do you think of the US's behavior in the world over the past 10 years? What example do you think we've set for the rest of the world to follow? We have created a moral hazard in the world with these commercialized special-interest wars of aggression in the past decade and its this anti-Constitutional mindset that the President is privileged enough to shirk the Constitutional process that makes this subject so important. Presidents can't just invent their own powers or circumvent Congress by creating their own laws. They can administer the laws that are created already based on the authority granted to them by the Constitution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the response to this is "Well, the President has Executive Orders, he doesn't need the Congress", then Rand Paul isn't a nut-job after all and he's right. The President is acting like a King.

I don't want to let past precedent ruin the future too, whether it's the lack of impeachments or a host of unconstitutional abuses of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Obama can do what ever with out having a 100 lawyers check his math before doing it lol ya what ever.

The president is no longer accountable for anything.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of Mitt Romney from 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Obama can do what ever with out having a 100 lawyers check his math before doing it lol ya what ever.

The president is no longer accountable for anything.

He's gotta whole pocket full of free passes.

In his defense he's batting average for the amount of executive orders he's issued compared to the past few presidents.

...but I won't let him off the hook.... he's a scumbag politician..... works for the globalist scumbags. They take our jobs. Make us poorer.

They rig the game in their favor by convincing the dumb that it's in their best interest to bend over and take one up the behind for the team.

lol

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama has Rand Paul beheaded for treason then I'll believe he's become a king. Until then it's just politically charged nonsense.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama has Rand Paul beheaded for treason then I'll believe he's become a king. Until then it's just politically charged nonsense.

Constitutional constraints on government are politically charged nonsense? I won't suggest the same of your Constitution, when it's bully Canada roaming around the world launching wars at will; ignoring the clearest letters in your highest law. What is the nonsense here, really?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Launching wars? You mean the wars that Obama is ending? And had nothing at all to do about what Rand is talking about? In any event claiming that Obama is trying to be a king is just silly and detracts from actual, serious concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Launching wars? You mean the wars that Obama is ending? And had nothing at all to do about what Rand is talking about? In any event claiming that Obama is trying to be a king is just silly and detracts from actual, serious concerns.

Many Americans consider the separation of powers in the constitution to be of the utmost seriousness. Obama has stretched the envelope with E.O.s and it seems to be a trend now. I can only shudder to think what the next chief executive might try to get by with. The congress is gutless and servile. When the economic collapse happens and they can no longer deliver the goodies back home, the leeches in the system will stroke out and start strolling the streets and demanding what they desire. Maybe THEN...some real leaders will stand up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Launching wars? You mean the wars that Obama is ending? And had nothing at all to do about what Rand is talking about? In any event claiming that Obama is trying to be a king is just silly and detracts from actual, serious concerns.

I mean the acts of war he has committed; the wars he's started, the wars he's escalated, the wars he's ended or not ended, and the wars he is yet to start.

The warfare has something to do with it, Corp. It has to do with the Constitutionality of our government. Our Constitution was intentionally designed so our President could not be a King, that is, a President cannot usurp Congress and write his own laws. Acts of Congress are designed to be burdensome, not subject to the will of one high and mighty individual, but the entire Legislative body. Our rule of law is at stake. Unilateral actions that Obama has taken without the Congress, especially in his perpetual war waging is not only relevant, it's the most serious example of his unconstitutional use of power of all.

Here's Rand Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) putting Obama's wars to the same legal standard he's speaking about in the OP video with the 2nd Amendment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Americans consider the separation of powers in the constitution to be of the utmost seriousness. Obama has stretched the envelope with E.O.s

how do you figure? he;s signed fewer than previous presidents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you figure? he;s signed fewer than previous presidents

true... right now after 23 more he's batting average for the past 5 or 6 presidents.. he's only got something like 144 in 4 yrs.... HW Bush for example had around 166 in one term... They all use EO's. The president during WW2... Roosevelt used over 3500. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_of_Presidents_and_Order_numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true... right now after 23 more he's batting average for the past 5 or 6 presidents.. he's only got something like 144 in 4 yrs.... HW Bush for example had around 166 in one term... They all use EO's. The president during WW2... Roosevelt used over 3500. http://en.wikipedia....d_Order_numbers

Many presidents have used Executive Orders, this is true.

What makes this different I suppose is that the Second Amendment is vital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many presidents have used Executive Orders, this is true.

What makes this different I suppose is that the Second Amendment is vital.

And that we can't hop in a time machine and impeach past Presidents for their abuses of power, we have to start with the present and move forward from there. At least according to Obama we can't go back. I'd have gone after the Bush administration in late January 2009 but Obama would have none of it. He wouldn't dare set up a dangerous precedent that put his butt on the line for repeating all of Bush's greatest turd drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many presidents have used Executive Orders, this is true.

What makes this different I suppose is that the Second Amendment is vital.

Which part of the second amendment do you believe that his executive orders have undermined?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which part of the second amendment do you believe that his executive orders have undermined?

The right to bear arms part. Using verbs in the past tense like "undermined" not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.