Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 31, 2014, 01:54:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Integrity  (Read 3402 times)
SLYY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1364


A mug only your mom could love...


« Reply #125 on: October 26, 2012, 09:32:42 PM »

It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.

No one is backing anyone.  We are attempting to make you back up your extreme allegations.  You can't, so you try to divert our attention by stating things like, "It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances."  That might work with the 3rd graders you train, but not here.  
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3861


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


« Reply #126 on: October 26, 2012, 09:34:58 PM »

There goes that integrity thing again.

[edit: I didn't realize Coach was referring to the Embassy incident in Benghazi, although in retrospect I should have since this is the topic of the thread; I assumed he meant the September 11 attacks]

What's wrong with September 12th? September 11, I can see. What else do you think is "verboten" on the 12th? What about having a beer? Or watching football? Or having a beer while watching football? Or, perhaps, having a beer while watching football, and then getting a blowjob at halftime, while drinking another beer? And if you're so indignant about activities on September 12th, what about the 13th? Or the 14th? Or the 15th? Or the whole fucking month of September.

As for your thinly veiled dig that I lack integrity *shrugs*. Your words - and your opinion of me - carry no weight and have no impact on me. Although, I must say that it's very ironic and quite amusing that you apparently think (and I use the term loosely) that I'm a liberal.
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 23927


He won by a "landslide" lol


WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 26, 2012, 09:35:23 PM »

No one is backing anyone.  We are attempting to make you back up your extreme allegations.  You can't, so you try to divert our attention by stating things like, "It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances."  That might work with the 3rd graders you train, but not here.  

Divert? I've been putting it out there for six fucking pages.
Report to moderator   Logged
SLYY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1364


A mug only your mom could love...


« Reply #128 on: October 26, 2012, 09:39:08 PM »

Divert? I've been putting it out there for six fucking pages.

We have requested your credible sources...you know, where you came up with your allegations.  So far:


* crickets.jpg (157.34 KB, 600x450 - viewed 91 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3861


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


« Reply #129 on: October 26, 2012, 09:40:12 PM »

   Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Oh, actually, I thought Coach was referring to 9/11. My bad on that.

 
[...]
Lunch ~ then off to Vegas baby!

What would cancelling the fundraised really achieve? Hardly anything substantive: it would only be a token expression of respect, and one meant only to preserve appearances. And I don't much care much for appearances.


Responsible?

For what?
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 23927


He won by a "landslide" lol


WWW
« Reply #130 on: October 26, 2012, 09:47:10 PM »

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/
Report to moderator   Logged
Princess L
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 10237


I stop for turtles


« Reply #131 on: October 26, 2012, 10:05:18 PM »

Oh, actually, I thought Coach was referring to 9/11. My bad on that.

 
What would cancelling the fundraised really achieve? Hardly anything substantive: it would only be a token expression of respect, and one meant only to preserve appearances. And I don't much care much for appearances.


For what?

Within HOURS of learning of the attack and not really knowing what happened/was happening ~ only ASSUMPTIONS (about a video  Roll Eyes), was it the responsible thing to do ~ fly off to a self-serving event?
Report to moderator   Logged

:
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3861


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


« Reply #132 on: October 26, 2012, 10:15:22 PM »

Within HOURS of learning of the attack and not really knowing what happened/was happening ~ only ASSUMPTIONS (about a video  Roll Eyes), was it the responsible thing to do ~ fly off to a self-serving event?

I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible - the President is never out of reach and can get any information he may wish to get from wherever he is - even at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. It certainly appears inconsiderate; sure, cancelling and staying at the Oval Office to "take charge" might have appeared like the Presidental thing to do, but as I said before, appearances don't concern me much.

Don't get me wrong - if this incident causes Obama to lose support then that's great. But, at least as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't really register on my radar as "irresponsible." Your mileage may vary. *shrugs*.
Report to moderator   Logged
SLYY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1364


A mug only your mom could love...


« Reply #133 on: October 26, 2012, 11:02:52 PM »

Coach goes over board sometimes.

Article 2 section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So the question becomes can it be proven that POTUS was derelict of duty, which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans. If so should impeachment proceedings take place and/or should he be charged with criminal negligence?

As I said, I have been questioning what credible information Coach has that led him to make those extremely serious allegations.  As such, I was specifically referring to credible information he "observed" because I know that information will never be made public.  Hence, I made reference to the executive privilege; however, due to United States v. Nixon, I created a homework assignment for Coach regarding the words: political question. 

While you correctly stated Article II, §4, I did not include it in my discussion for a few reasons.  First, this discussion will go WAY above Coach's head.  Second, it's extremely rare as only two presidents have ever been impeached and none removed.  Third, neither of the impeachments were related to the president's Commander in Chief power with regard to troop movement.  I state troop movement* because the Supreme Court has deemed that to be the president's Article II, §2, Commander in Chief power.  More specific to Benghazi, the Supreme Court stated:

It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations,
embarrassment-perhaps serious embarrassment-is to be avoided and success for our
aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through
negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the
President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would
not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. Moreover, he, not Congress,
has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign
countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources
of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other
officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly
necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.
  United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).

Thus, the Supreme Court holds that the president can act without congress when dealing with international relations, especially during a time of war due to the reasoning above.  Additionally, the Supreme Court intervened during Johnson's impeachment by finding the Tenure in Office Act violated the separation of powers.  Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), discussed in §4.2.2.  Also, with regard to the Supreme Court interfering with an impeachment, in Nixon v. United States, Justice Souter's concurring opinion stated that if the Senate acts in a way that "seriously threaten(s) the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." 506 U.S. at 254.  Thus, not only are the chances slim that Congress would impeach Obama in the first place, it's possible that the Supreme Court may find an impeachment against Obama while acting as Commander in Chief, to be unconstitutional.  Most importantly to the discussion at hand, any sensitive subject matter/evidence will be withheld from the public.  That brings us back to square one and that is, Coach cannot and will not obtain information regarding what really took place.  So, he will continue to use his special education imagination to increase his getbig post count.       


*Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603, 619 (1850).
*Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 139(1866).
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 23927


He won by a "landslide" lol


WWW
« Reply #134 on: October 26, 2012, 11:12:52 PM »

As I said, I have been questioning what credible information Coach has that led him to make those extremely serious allegations.  As such, I was specifically referring to credible information he "observed" because I know that information will never be made public.  Hence, I made reference to the executive privilege; however, due to United States v. Nixon, I created a homework assignment for Coach regarding the words: political question.  

While you correctly stated Article II, §4, I did not include it in my discussion for a few reasons.  First, this discussion will go WAY above Coach's head.  Second, it's extremely rare as only two presidents have ever been impeached and none removed.  Third, neither of the impeachments were related to the president's Commander in Chief power with regard to troop movement.  I state troop movement because the Supreme Court has deemed that to be the president's Article II, §2, Commander in Chief power.  More specific to Benghazi, the Supreme Court stated:

It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations,
embarrassment-perhaps serious embarrassment-is to be avoided and success for our
aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through
negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the
President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would
not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. Moreover, he, not Congress,
has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign
countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources
of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other
officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly
necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.
 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).

Thus, the Supreme Court holds that president can act without congress when dealing with international relations, especially during a time of war due to the reasoning above.  Additionally, the Supreme Court intervened during Johnson's impeachment by finding the Tenure in Office Act violated the separation of powers.  Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), discussed in §4.2.2.  Also, with regard to the Supreme Court interfering with an impeachment, in Nixon v. United States, Justice Souter's concurring opinion stated that if the Senate acts in a way that "seriously threaten(s) the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." 506 U.S. at 254.  Thus, not only are the chances slim that Congress would impeach Obama in the first place, it's possible that the Supreme Court may find an impeachment against Obama while acting as Commander in Chief, to be unconstitutional.  Most importantly to the discussion at hand, any sensitive subject matter/evidence will be withheld from the public.  That brings us back to square one and that is, Coach cannot and will not obtain information regarding what really took place.  So, he will continue to use his special education imagination to increase his getbig post count.      



Very impressive, but when you state United States vs. Nixon, I would have to assume (and I'm not going to look it up) the Watergate scandal. If this is the case and if what I say that Obama did (cover up) this would make Watergate seem like childs play....why? Four Americans are dead and the watched it go down in real time. You're comparing a break in to murder. Tell me the deaths of four American's doesn't change the landscape of this situation.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9938


Be honest...


« Reply #135 on: October 26, 2012, 11:27:06 PM »

It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.

Oh I think you made your views on integrity quite clear in that you won't answer to your own lack of integrity while you do not hesitate to question other's integrity. I guess for you integrity is in the eye of the beholder.

My answer to you questioning President Obama's integrity is you don't know enough to do that, although you believe you do because you have tunnel vision.
Report to moderator   Logged
SLYY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1364


A mug only your mom could love...


« Reply #136 on: October 27, 2012, 12:08:39 AM »

Very impressive, but when you state United States vs. Nixon, I would have to assume (and I'm not going to look it up) the Watergate scandal. If this is the case and if what I say that Obama did (cover up) this would make Watergate seem like childs play....why? Four Americans are dead and the watched it go down in real time. You're comparing a break in to murder.

The Nixon was Walter Nixon, not Richard Nixon (the Richard Nixon case was your homework assignment about the political question notion).  Again, the Commander in Chief is in control of troop movement (or non-movement) under Article II, §2, of the U.S. Constitution as per the Supreme Court.  Thus, the Benghazi incident will be deemed a political question.  With regard to the possibility of an impeachment, it is very unlikely as I stated above.  


I have yet to reference your "cover up" comments.  However, as per Erwin Chemerinsky:

Executive privilege is sometimes defended as important to protect national security; diplomacy is regarded as requiring secrecy.  In justifying a broad presidential power in the realm of foreign affairs, the Court noted that 'secrecy in respect of information gathered...may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.' ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 354 (Aspen Publishers 2006) (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936)).  


In other words, it is at the president's discretion as to what will be released.  Most importantly, the "premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results."  Wink, wink  Wink.  To be clear, you will never know the details of this incident no matter how many Fox News shows and articles report on it.    
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3861


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


« Reply #137 on: October 27, 2012, 12:18:24 AM »

Very impressive, but when you state United States vs. Nixon, I would have to assume (and I'm not going to look it up) the Watergate scandal. If this is the case and if what I say that Obama did (cover up) this would make Watergate seem like childs play....why? Four Americans are dead and the watched it go down in real time. You're comparing a break in to murder. Tell me the deaths of four American's doesn't change the landscape of this situation.

Nixon v. U.S. is not the same case as U.S. v. Nixon. Perhaps you should look it up Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9938


Be honest...


« Reply #138 on: October 27, 2012, 12:22:54 AM »

Nixon v. U.S. is not the same case as U.S. v. Nixon. Perhaps you should look it up Smiley

It seems as if Coach was set up on this one. Too bad he didn't look it up before responding.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3861


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


« Reply #139 on: October 27, 2012, 12:24:36 AM »

It seems as if Coach was set up on this one. Too bad he didn't look it up before responding.

I guess, although I don't think it matters very much. At any rate, we all fuck up and I don't hold it against him or think it reflects negatively on him; it's easy to get confused. Personally, I find Nixon v. U.S. a much more interesting case than U.S. v. Nixon.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8371


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #140 on: October 27, 2012, 04:33:43 AM »

I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible - the President is never out of reach and can get any information he may wish to get from wherever he is - even at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. It certainly appears inconsiderate; sure, cancelling and staying at the Oval Office to "take charge" might have appeared like the Presidental thing to do, but as I said before, appearances don't concern me much.

Don't get me wrong - if this incident causes Obama to lose support then that's great. But, at least as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't really register on my radar as "irresponsible." Your mileage may vary. *shrugs*.

LOL - Obama - "LEADING FROM BEHIND AT A JAY Z CONCERT"
Report to moderator   Logged
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11387

Team Shizzo


« Reply #141 on: October 27, 2012, 07:37:35 AM »

It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.

Oh the irony!  Your lack of self-awareness is so great that you actually feel completely comfortable making a comment like this.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3861


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


« Reply #142 on: October 27, 2012, 12:18:45 PM »

LOL - Obama - "LEADING FROM BEHIND AT A JAY Z CONCERT"

I don't know that Obama is “leading.” I certainly didn't say he was, but if it makes you feel better to pretend I did, then hey... go right ahead. Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3768



« Reply #143 on: October 28, 2012, 10:07:47 AM »

Doesn't surprise me one bit. We as citizens have allowed the Government, Cops.......... to be above the law. What do expect is going to happen.

and we cops thank you for that.. Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Kazan
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5800


Sic vis pacem, parabellum


« Reply #144 on: October 28, 2012, 12:29:18 PM »

and we cops thank you for that.. Wink

Not funny, shit that any "regular" citizen would sent to the pen for, gubmint employee's get a pass fuck that
Report to moderator   Logged

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3768



« Reply #145 on: October 29, 2012, 06:52:26 AM »

Not funny, shit that any "regular" citizen would sent to the pen for, gubmint employee's get a pass fuck that

not funny that on a political topic you feel you had to get a dig in on cops.. get's old fast.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!