Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Sheriff Joe has something on Obama he ought to just come on out with it.
agreed but... doesn't look like that will happen.
in the documentary "the joe show" arpaio directly admits that he's using "the birther issue" as a means of promoting re-election campaign contributions. from some estimates ( $7 million ) it looks that it was a good call on his part.
No I grow tired you and others defend this Unconstitutional President whom has signed Executive orders to by pass Congress. Obama and his cronies is out of control Train Wreck.
Obama has truly divided America.
You can say, "Unconstitutional President" until the sun don't shine and the cows don't come home but that don't make it so.
Name on lawsuit by any organization, foundation or group that have filed a lawsuit against president Obama claiming he has broken constitutional law, in the 6 years he has been in office.
Name one criminal charge or investigation, alleging unconstitutional actions, pending against the President.
Cite the congressional lawsuits claiming constitutional illegality brought by the republican controlled house of representatives. Just one will do.
Name one lawsuit brought by any tea party organization against president Obama claiming he broke the constitution. Just one will do nicely.
How come if the president is so unconstitutional that nobody from the right is suing him or bringing criminal charges against him? conservative republicans have more lawyers than the rest of the political machines combined.
Why no challenge to this unconstitutional president?
As we say in Indian country, "You see the steam from your horse's droppings and call it smoke".
Outside of Maracopa County, Sheriff Joe and his right wing blatherers who post nonsense and lies on the internet forums are considered an embarrassment to the rest of us in the state.
You can say, "Unconstitutional President" until the sun don't shine and the cows don't come home but that don't make it so.
Name on lawsuit by any organization, foundation or group that have filed a lawsuit against president Obama claiming he has broken constitutional law, in the 6 years he has been in office.
Name one criminal charge or investigation, alleging unconstitutional actions, pending against the President. [...]
If I murder you and no charges are filed have I then not committed the crime of murder? Proving it to the extent the court can legally act is one thing, but whether I actually did it is another; me using that as an argument in favor of the assertion that I did no crime would absurd**. Whether any lawsuits have been filed or pending is irrelevant to the question of constitutionality or legality. You could have used much the same argument in 1942: "if these Nazis are (war) criminals how come no one has prosecuted them?"*, which sounds absurd as an argument for their innocence for the simple reason that it was and still is. I don't think Joe Arpaio has anything on Obama remotely like he claims he does; if he did he would have revealed it years ago, but the argument you use there is not a case in favor of Obama's constitutional or legal eligibility to be President. I believe his election and inauguration was legal (more than I can say for some things he did in office!) and he was and still is eligible to be President.
*The same argument used today in America in favor of torturers' innocence, interestingly enough, but that's beside the point.
**Not that I have any intention of murdering you (or doing anything to you, or even meeting you, or replying to another one of your posts for that matter); I just used the concept to illustrate the point.
If I murder you and no charges are filed have I then not committed the crime of murder? Proving it to the extent the court can legally act is one thing, but whether I actually did it is another; me using that as an argument in favor of the assertion that I did no crime would absurd**. Whether any lawsuits have been filed or pending is irrelevant to the question of constitutionality or legality. You could have used much the same argument in 1942: "if these Nazis are (war) criminals how come no one has prosecuted them?"*, which sounds absurd as an argument for their innocence for the simple reason that it was and still is. I don't think Joe Arpaio has anything on Obama remotely like he claims he does; if he did he would have revealed it years ago, but the argument you use there is not a case in favor of Obama's constitutional or legal eligibility to be President. I believe his election and inauguration was legal (more than I can say for some things he did in office!) and he was and still is eligible to be President.
*The same argument used today in America in favor of torturers' innocence, interestingly enough, but that's beside the point.
**Not that I have any intention of murdering you (or doing anything to you, or even meeting you, or replying to another one of your posts for that matter); I just used the concept to illustrate the point.
I think I get it. Although not one conservative right wing organization, who have been screaming "Unconstitutional President!", for six years have filed a lawsuit to get him hung from the nearest tree, there's this "Feeling of unconstitutionality" that should take precedence.
Yeah, I get what you're saying.
You guy's like Joe Arpaio have worked tirelessly over the last 6 years and spent millions upon millions of taxpayer's dollars to somehow, someway prove the fact that Obama is all things evil and unconstitutional. you've come up with nothing, nada, zip. You've done Endless committee hearings, private investigators, eyewitness accounts from people who weren't even there.
Now you're gonna tell me feelings matter more than facts?
Now you're gonna tell me feelings matter more than facts?
What facts? You mean like using "I wasn't prosecuted" as an argument that one hasn't committed a crime? Those "facts"? Will you also say that since one has never been ticketed for violating the speed limit even when a policemen was looking at them that they then haven't violated any law? It seems to me that you're the one going on feelings rather than fact, in this case the feelings of the legal system's participants rather than anything found in law; we're supposed to have the rule of law, not the rule of men, and you're pushing the latter. Does Obama's "we should look forward not backward" approach to torture somehow render the torturers not guilty of anything despite the plain language of the law? If they are ever prosecuted, I doubt their lawyers would use that as a defense of their legality because it is a completely irrelevant "argument".
Also, I've gotta love how you seem to think I'm a birther despite the following which you apparently didn't read or understand, so I'll repost it (emphasis added):
Quote:
I don't think Joe Arpaio has anything on Obama remotely like he claims he does; if he did he would have revealed it years ago, but the argument you use there is not a case in favor of Obama's constitutional or legal eligibility to be President. I believe his election and inauguration was legal (more than I can say for some things he did in office!) and he was and still is eligible to be President.
I believe he was and still is eligible to be President, but I also believe the argument you are using in favor of it is wrong and deeply mistaken.
Hey, now, don't be dissing Cub fans by comparing them to birthers.
Love your link. Anyone who has followed birthers for these past six years knows that is the basic composition of your average birther. They pretend otherwise, but they fool no one with even the remotest amount of discernment.
.... "I wasn't prosecuted" as an argument that one hasn't committed a crime?
i get and agree with the general idea of your point but there is one factor missing ..... two presidential election campaigns. between mccain and romney $1.5 billion was spent in attempts to defeat obama. i find it inconceivable that level of scrutiny with that amount of cash could pass up something as monumental as constitutional ineligibility.
i think there is a good chance it will be at the end of this term. he's on trial for contempt of court, he's cost the county tens of millions in illegal arrest and prison death lawsuits, the documentary "the joe show" is now available nationaly and the "birther investigation", altho very profitable for him, seems to be turning on him.
but who knows. the guy loves the spotlight and won't be giving that up easily.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sheriff Arpaio About To Change America's Political Landscape Forever
