Reply With Quote
Because you seem to go along with a lot of the fake libs on here, as to appear cool
Your sheepish scared little ass is just trying to deflect the issue, but I'll say this. The article le says would, the article says could. (lol you get a A for effort)
I will say that it would be ignorant and stupid to say that "would" would be out of the question. Definitely could, of course. Now that we got your spin out of the way, can you discuss Obamas treason, war crimes and attacks on civil liberties a bit more than the other non issues in the forum?
Maybe talk about the impeachment proceedings that should take place for being the first President ever to make it legal to arrest American citizens, with no charge, proof, trial or any due process of law whatsoever? Can you discuss how that's a very anti-American policy to not allow due process and a day in court for a US Citizen?
Because you seem to go along with a lot of the fake libs on here, as to appear cool
Same way I'm not an Alex Jones shill? But you sure like spewing that garbage anyway right? lolI'm pretty sure most on here would agree I'm not a "liberal shill," tbh
All this talk and spin, but yet staying away from the topic originally posted. What a regular pattern for posters who supposedly seem to have so much "credibility"
Yea right
Well, there's obviously a big difference, beyond semantics.
I think 'could' is debatable. You could make the connection with Mandela, but unless he provided material support, the connection is tenuous at best.
I don't think it's automatic that he would be, and that's what 'would' implies.
Nice spin, but I ask again: why would we want to avoid the issue of NDAA?
I can admit that it's impeachable and calls for criminal trial, many of his policies and actions do. You avoid admitting this, and you avoid calling for his impeachment. You are wrong.
Funny that you say your "opinion" is no better than mine, but yet you do act like a sheep and attack everything else other than the topic itself that I post lol Yes that's sheepish. You are so against it, but you can;t wait to attack the poster for posting it everytime lol
Nah, stop lying. I proved a point. And you tell me, why do yall avoid it? Seems to me that you feel more comfortable just trolling doing a chump impression everywhere and appeasing your fellow fake lib posters.
As for other fake lib posters, it's their guy doing it so they won't be as harsh on him as they were on Bush, did you miss the billion other times I have said this and ignored it? lol
I think under the current political climate it's unlikely. I thought the same thing when Bush was president. I haven't seen anything yet in the real world that contradicts that view. When it does, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.I can admit that it's impeachable and calls for criminal trial, many of his policies and actions do. You avoid admitting this, and you avoid calling for his impeachment. You are wrong.
Your opinion is no better than anyone else's. That's a fact of life and all the kicking and screaming in the world isn't changing it.
BTW, I did address the post directly in this thread, and posted my opinion about it.
It's ok, you were wrong and your opinion is no better than anyone else. It happens to all of us.
You are wrong though. I posted fact. Obama has committed impeachable offenses. That's not opinion, it's fact. Your opinion is not better than fact.
Americans should have a right to trial, and due process of law, he signed a bill that takes that right away if he sees fit. That's not opinion. He should be impeached. It's ok, you are wrong, it happens. Just stop being wrong, because you now know the truth.
Anything is impeachable. The house just votes on it and then the Senate holds the trial. Thats like saying Obama has committed a discussable event.
I think murdering Americans without due process is pretty impeachableLove the spin though
I never said it wasn't impeachable. I am just saying that the house can impeach him for whatever. Jaywalking for example. What you should be saying is that it is criminal but you are ignorant to how the Cons ution handles such things.
So basically, you have no valid reason for why we'd want to avoid the issue of NDAA, besides your fantasy of everyone on here being "hypocritical lib shills," tbh...
You posted opinion. There's nothing factual about MLK being sent to Gitmo under a law that didn't exist when he was alive.
My God ya'll can't be this stupid
Right, and it was a good point to bring up, and it would be in MY OPINION very likely to have happened. The FACTS I posted however are Obamas criminal acts and policies that you avoid to admit are criminal and impeachable, and yall avoid calling for both impeachment for and criminal trial for such blatant factual acts.
Look I know your trolling ways don't allow you to not spin anything, but what I said was YOU are a fake lib shill siding with the libs of the board most of the time, that's a fact.
And I said, as many others times..that the other libs avoid these issues because it's their guy. Anything else you care to spin, fake libertarian? lol
You forgot to mention the facts I posted on what the President has committed to go along with your spin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions