Yes.

 

Happy?

 

No.

 

 

Why?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

The funny thing is, if a republican did this, they more than likely would have resigned.  Democrats never consider that option until they've been ordered to do so. 

 

Were you dead when the Spitzer's and Rowland's scandals happened?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

I guess we have to spell it out. If we say that Perry would have done the same with a Republican, JFC would disagree. If we say no, he would agree. He's fishing for an answer to subjectively debate based on a hypothetical.


I'm done playing this childish game.

---

I guess we have to spell it out. If we say that Perry would have done the same with a Republican, JFC would disagree. If we say no, he would agree. He's fishing for an answer to subjectively debate based on a hypothetical.


I'm done playing this childish game.

 

Not fishing for anything. You already was uncomfortable giving me an answer, you are just adding more to the reason why.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Were you dead when the Spitzer's and Rowland's scandals happened?

 

Spitzer was not going to resign until the party bosses came down and told him he had no alternative.  That's pretty well documented that Client #9 only surrendered his office when the party turned their back on him.  Rowland was a republican governor who resigned to avoid impeachment.  What's your point?  I haven't disputed that there is corruption in both parties.  That's simply irrelevant to this discussion, and nothing more than a straw man you're throwing out there in an effort to dismiss the dirtbag move this is in Texas. This is nothing more than a political smear campaign orchestrated by a George Soros funded group, and supported buy the United States DOJ.  When even MSNBC of all places calls this fishy and questionable, you know the democrats have really stepped in it. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Good try.

 

The point of me asking that question was because the majority of both sides will not force the members of their own political parties to step down, unless a serious felony was committed. 

That's complete crap.  There have been several high profile republicans over the past decade alone who have resigned their office for much less than committing felonies.  Most for marital infidelity of one form or another.  You'd rarely see a democrat resign over such things.  Heck, ask Bill Clinton or the current occupant of the Oval Office.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

No ax to grind here.  No agenda at all. 

 

Waiting for the libs to go immediately to their go to maneuver: The Koch Brothers. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

With that said, back to the original question would Perry have taken the same stance if she was a Republican?

 

I'm certainly no huge Rick Perry fan, but I would think that yes, he would have done the same thing.

 

The fact of the matter is Governor Perry did his job.  He would not allow Texan's taxpayer dollars to be controlled and spent by somebody that is unqualified to do her job.

 

Now here is a question for you.

 

If this was a Republican District Attorney and a Democrat Governor, would this have gone to a grand jury?  As a bonus, if this was the case, would you side with the Governor?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm certainly no huge Rick Perry fan, but I would think that yes, he would have done the same thing.

 

The fact of the matter is Governor Perry did his job.  He would not allow Texan's taxpayer dollars to be controlled and spent by somebody that is unqualified to do her job.

 

Now here is a question for you.

 

If this was a Republican District Attorney and a Democrat Governor, would this have gone to a grand jury?  As a bonus, if this was the case, would you side with the Governor?

I don't think it should be legal to withhold funding to make a political move. However she should have resigned already and if it's a legal thing for him to do than I have no problem with him for doing it and I understand the motivations for him doing it. 

---

Spitzer was not going to resign until the party bosses came down and told him he had no alternative.  That's pretty well documented that Client #9 only surrendered his office when the party turned their back on him.  Rowland was a republican governor who resigned to avoid impeachment.  What's your point?  I haven't disputed that there is corruption in both parties.  That's simply irrelevant to this discussion, and nothing more than a straw man you're throwing out there in an effort to dismiss the dirtbag move this is in Texas. This is nothing more than a political smear campaign orchestrated by a George Soros funded group, and supported buy the United States DOJ.  When even MSNBC of all places calls this fishy and questionable, you know the democrats have really stepped in it. 

 

What the hell.

 

Ive said it about 3 times now in this thread the DA should be held accountable. 

 

As far as the grand jury, they are acting on behalf of the DA they should be held accountable as well.

 

That's complete crap.  There have been several high profile republicans over the past decade alone who have resigned their office for much less than committing felonies.  Most for marital infidelity of one form or another.  You'd rarely see a democrat resign over such things.  Heck, ask Bill Clinton or the current occupant of the Oval Office.

 

Why do you think Obama should resign?

 

and please dont say Obamacare.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

What the hell.

 

Ive said it about 3 times now in this thread the DA should be held accountable.

 

 

Why do you think Obama should resign?

 

and please dont say Obamacare.

 

Fast and Furious - I don't care if it was done in the past, those administrations should be held accountable as well.

 

Amendments of the affordable care act - Obama has acted outside his constitutional authority to change law that was passed by congress

 

IRS abuse - don't tell me you believe all these hard drives crashed?

---

I'm certainly no huge Rick Perry fan, but I would think that yes, he would have done the same thing.

 

The fact of the matter is Governor Perry did his job.  He would not allow Texan's taxpayer dollars to be controlled and spent by somebody that is unqualified to do her job.

 

Now here is a question for you.

 

If this was a Republican District Attorney and a Democrat Governor, would this have gone to a grand jury?  As a bonus, if this was the case, would you side with the Governor?

 

I would believe it could go to a grand jury, and it thats the case I would side with the Governor.

 

If the Republican had to resign, in a fair bi-partisan world I would like to see the Democrat Governor appoint another Republican DA.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Fast and Furious - I don't care if it was done in the past, those administrations should be held accountable as well.

 

Amendments of the affordable care act - Obama has acted outside his constitutional authority to change law that was passed by congress

 

IRS abuse - don't tell me you believe all these hard drives crashed?

 

Is this enough to warrant American lives at risk? Or damage the financial sector of the country.

 

Who are we going to elect if Obama was forced to resign?

 

Could they have the ability to provide EVERYBODY with affordable health care in the remaining time frame of Obama's term?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Is this enough to warrant American lives at risk? Or damage the financial sector of the country.

 

Who are we going to elect if Obama was forced to resign?

 

Could they have the ability to provide EVERYBODY with affordable health care in the remaining time frame of Obama's term?

 

The Slow Joe Biden selection was Obama's insurance policy that he'd never face an impeachment or resignation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Is this enough to warrant American lives at risk? Or damage the financial sector of the country.

 

Who are we going to elect if Obama was forced to resign?

 

Could they have the ability to provide EVERYBODY with affordable health care in the remaining time frame of Obama's term?

 

Is this enough to risk American lives, what!? You asked why he should resign, I've named 3 different instances where he's gone outside his constitutional authority. He wouldn't be first and probably not the last president to get caught going outside their constitutional authority and forced to resign.

 

Law is the law, once congress passed the law the president has no authority to change that law. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, NO we can't afford it, but that's not debatable anymore, it passed congress. So either the law is enforced or it's revoked, the executive branch doesn't have the authority to change law as it see's fit.

---

Is this enough to risk American lives, what!? You asked why he should resign, I've named 3 different instances where he's gone outside his constitutional authority. He wouldn't be first and probably not the last president to get caught going outside their constitutional authority and forced to resign.

 

Law is the law, once congress passed the law the president has no authority to change that law. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, NO we can't afford it, but that's not debatable anymore, it passed congress. So either the law is enforced or it's revoked, the executive branch doesn't have the authority to change law as it see's fit.

 

We have a mechanism to decide these things; it's called the Supreme Court.   If someone thinks Obama has violated the Constitution, they should bring a case.  

---

We have a mechanism to decide these things; it's called the Supreme Court.   If someone thinks Obama has violated the Constitution, they should bring a case.  

 

Then when they sue the media and Democrat sycophants (BIRM) jump on about how it's just political gamesmanship.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Then when they sue the media and Democrat sycophants (BIRM) jump on about how it's just political gamesmanship.

 

People comment on court cases all the time.   I happen to believe this move by the congress to sue the President is nothing but an attempt to appease the right wing of the Republican party, the ones who are calling for impeachment.   Boehner knows impeachment would go nowhere and probably backfire, so he's suing to president to appease the right wing.   The voters and various members of the media can judge it however they want to.   What I am saying is, if you really think you have a case, bring a case.   There's the court of public opinion and there's the Supreme Court; those are two different things.   Just because I, or the media or the democrats don't think highly of the effort, that doesn't mean you can't do it.  The Constitutional method of resolving this is to get the Supreme Court to rule.   Then, if he ignores the Supreme Court, that is a crime and you can impeach him for it.  

 

But you cannot force him to resign unless you impeach him and even then he may not resign.  You might still have to get a conviction in the impeachment case.   No President except Nixon has ever resigned, and he resigned because he was about to get impeached and probably convicted.   Clinton got impeached and did not resign, probably because he knew he would be acquitted.  

---

We have a mechanism to decide these things; it's called the Supreme Court.   If someone thinks Obama has violated the Constitution, they should bring a case.  

 

Agreed, I'm just answering JFC's question on what grounds would someone call for his dismissal. I hold no illusions Obama will resign, he'll finish his term out and we will elect a new president in 2 years.

 

Now if you want my opinion of course I'd want him to resign, I think he's incredibly dangerous and intent on transforming the nation. I think he's done severe damage to our system and think it will only get worse in the last 2 years of his term.

---

The Slow Joe Biden selection was Obama's insurance policy that he'd never face an impeachment or resignation.

Biden is a greater deterrent than the Secret Service. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.