Media Cover-up Of Obama Impeachment Exposed!

reply to post by Thisbseth


S+F

I watched the video. It's a video with a guy pointing to other websites. One is his own from last week, another is a .gov site from some idiocratic teabagger congressman who wants to impeach Obama over his action in Libya. His reason, it was treason to launch a war without Congresses approval. Obama claimed he did not need Congresses approval as this was a UN military action...NOT a declared war. We had NO troops on the ground, We did not kill Ghaddafhi, we simply restricted his airspace and destroyed HIS ability to make war on his own people. We have done this several times. (A lot of ATS people seem to be all for killing Obama, but not for killing known terrorists who actually threaten their lives and country...) Maybe we should impeach Reagan posthumously for Grenada or Guatemala? What about our "nonwar" with Viet Nam. What did they call it? Oh yeah, "a military action!" One that went on for eleven years! Let's posthumously impeach Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Unless Ford is still alive. So then we could REALLY post-impeach him! Come on. We go into military action in EVERY presidency. Isn't Bush going to be arrested for war crimes and starting a war in Iraq? Give me a break. None of this is news in any sense of the word. Of course the MEDIA isn't reporting it, because it is not a story. People try to impeach presidents all the time. never seems to work out. It's not a globalist conspiracy. It's how Washington works.

Originally posted by madhatr137
I love how people are foolishly getting behind this bill as if it is an impeachment bill...it is not.

If anyone here actually bothered to pull their heads out, they would realise that what Rep Jones(R-NC) is attempting to put through is that from the point of passage of the Bill forward that, basically, any military action of any kind, unless it was a response to a direct threat, would have to be approved by Congress; any military action not approved by Congress being an impeachable offense from this point forward.

READ THE BILL people...
Understand how the system works.
No one is filing for the impeachment of the president.

Yep - but hey - this is ATS - whoever bothered to read past a headline here is a shill disinfo paid govt agent Obamabot!!

Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
H.CON.RES.107.IH

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul



Lol true that.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by madhatr137
I love how people are foolishly getting behind this bill as if it is an impeachment bill...it is not.

If anyone here actually bothered to pull their heads out, they would realise that what Rep Jones(R-NC) is attempting to put through is that from the point of passage of the Bill forward that, basically, any military action of any kind, unless it was a response to a direct threat, would have to be approved by Congress; any military action not approved by Congress being an impeachable offense from this point forward.

READ THE BILL people...
Understand how the system works.
No one is filing for the impeachment of the president.

What gets me is Aloysius, is that the War Powers Resolution spells out this very thing the H.Con. Res. 107 is trying to emphasize. Hasn't that already been done in the WPR? If so, then why haven't the CONGRESS done its job?


Yep - but hey - this is ATS - whoever bothered to read past a headline here is a shill disinfo paid govt agent Obamabot!!

Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
H.CON.RES.107.IH

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
Gas right now is well over 4.00 genius and your boy is still in office. Check out my chart and do the math.
www.eia.gov...

I need to know how 3.79 is "well over 4.00" genius.

It's not the figures that lie it's the Obama trolls that lie. Here I did the math for you.

Under the first 4 years of George W. Bush the average price of gas was $1.54 cents per gallon.
Under the second four year term under George W. Bush the average price of gas was $2.70 per gallon.
Under the first 3 years 7 weeks under Barak Obama the average price of gas was $3.05 cents per gallon.

According to AAA the average driver drives 12,000 miles per year. At an average fuel economy of 20 miles per gallon (put your own number in here) that mean the average consumer buys 600 gallons per year. Non business consumer.

During George W. Bush's first term the average consumer spent $924.00 per year on gas.
During George W. Bush's second term the average consumer spent $1,620.00 per year on gas.
During Barak O'Bama's first 3 years 7 weeks (most current data) the average consumer spent $1,830.00 per year on gas.

Any questions from the O'Bama peanut gallery. And hey, the near future looks even worse for the statistics. So not sure how only O'Bama trolls are paying less for gas than they were under George W. Bush.

Here is the chart my numbers were derived from. The information is provided by the US Energy Information Administration.
www.eia.gov...

As for gas being well over $4.00 per gallon, here you go!
www.fox5sandiego.com...

Good day sir!

You guys don't seem to see that the value of the dollar decreases and increases and this affects the prices of gasoline.

If a dollar this week is only worth 50 cents then why worry about gas going up from 1.50 a gallon this week to 3.00 a gallon next week? What's beyond me is when the value of the dollar goes back up why doesn't gasoline prices go down? I think your charts will show this too.

You can't just measure one thing by one linear line, it's not practical and there is no control or anything to compare it to. You're wasting time over nothing but speculation.

reply to post by Sharpenmycleats


Thank you sir.........you saved me from looking like a complete jack ass. that guy had me convinced i was wrong, and even though i might have been a little. this proves i was right. Thank You

reply to post by trekwebmaster


...lol oh how i love ATS

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
You guys don't seem to see that the value of the dollar decreases and increases and this affects the prices of gasoline.

If a dollar this week is only worth 50 cents then why worry about gas going up from 1.50 a gallon this week to 3.00 a gallon next week? What's beyond me is when the value of the dollar goes back up why doesn't gasoline prices go down? I think your charts will show this too.

You can't just measure one thing by one linear line, it's not practical and there is no control or anything to compare it to. You're wasting time over nothing but speculation.

edit on 12-3-2012 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)

Dollar speculator and energy speculator do not mean anything to Joe Consumer. Their paycheck is "x" and it only goes so far. So I disagree with your statement on the basis that people's paychecks do not fluctuate week to week or day to day with the value of the dollar!

reply to post by Thisbseth


It's like congress, there have to be some sane folks just to circumvent the crazy and nutjob legislation being introduced by the lunatic fringes....One day I hope it settles down but still, we have to look where those nutjobs comefrom? They are representatives of people, right?

Eh Gad!

Originally posted by Thisbseth
This guy cant be reasoned with.

Sharpenmycleats either blatantly lied or cannot read his own chart. Just like you cannot see that your chart says Bush left office in 2003. How is that my reasoning that is the problem? Check his chart and tell me what it says gas is right now. Is it "well over" 4 bucks a gallon or not?
Now look at your chart and tell me what it says gas was in 2008.

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
@ LErickson & @ Sharpenmycleats:

Does it matter how much it was under each? The fact remains...

THE Point is moot; but GAS has gone up consistently under BOTH!

You are absolutely right but I remember where this began.
It was asked what has Obama done to make anything any better.
I listed SEVERAL things off the top of my head.
No one could dispute any of them but two posters swallowed some crap they have been fed and tried to attack at least one with lies and this is where we got.

Perhaps if either of them had interest in an honest discussion about my answer it would have ended far sooner.

Originally posted by trekwebmaster


What gets me is Aloysius, is that the War Powers Resolution spells out this very thing the H.Con. Res. 107 is trying to emphasize. Hasn't that already been done in the WPR? If so, then why haven't the CONGRESS done its job?

Apparently you don't understand the WPR either!!

Even if the WPR is actually constitutional (there seems to be some doubt - as in every Peesident since it was passed in 1973 has said it ain't) - this is what it allows:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

- en.wikipedia.org...

So even under the WPR the President can bomb the shirt out of anyone for 60 days without getting permission from Congress.

Originally posted by David134
I believe to simplify it that congress has finally gotten upset with Obama and woken up. Because he stepped on their powers and questioned their rights to govern for a change instead of just trampling the constitution and screwing the American people. Suxs when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it boys.

To simplify it in a less politically correct fashion; Obama is a Democrat and the GOP believes that no Democrat should be President regardless of what the American people think.

Well, the story is on Drudge today, so the "media" is covering it somewhat.

I don't watch MSM news very often so I have perused that venue yet this morning.


www.wnd.com...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yes and he even broke the war powers act with libya. Nevermind the constitution... So is there really any question if he should be impeached or not?

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[10] President Obama, however, notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[11] since the US leadership was transferred to NATO,[12] and since US involvement is somewhat limited. On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[13][14]

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I can't watch the video but I'm assuming it is about frdiay's PROPOSED bill?

Is it a coverup when the media doesn't report on the other hundreds of proposed bills?

No, it's a cover up when the media doesn't report on the bill for IMPEACHEMENT of a US President! Are you dense, or just a tool?

Ok guys, I have it, right here, an MSM source has picked up on this story, a Russian MSM source

'Impeach Obama' Bill: Use of military without Congress approval 'high crime' | RT

rt.com...

An American military attack on Syria could effectively lead to the impeachment of President Barack Obama. Congressmen say that any war without congressional authorization would be “unconstitutional”.

Great find....I love how this administration and the media covers up this stuff (sarcastic). Be sure and share this all over the place so this can get some attention!