As a law student you should be able to make a case for your argument. All you have is hate filled vitriolic opinion. Certainly not a case that is likely to convince anyone.

So you do not care whether he broke the law or not? He was unjustly fired by Obama even if he did break the law? First, he hasn't been fired, just suspended pending investigation.

Only when you ignore the facts in pursuit of your agenda. Say something that is accurate and I will agree with you.

But I proved you absolutely wrong in this case. When are you going to figure that out?

I freely admitted to three posibilities, but all three involved the law in one form or another. I also showed how the law worked in this case. In spite of that you still keep going back to your same line of "Oh, he was kicked out for gambling." I patently showed that was not true, but you still keep running to it. Are you still claiming to be involved with the law? If so, how is it that the law in this case means nothing to you?

I'm not giving him the benefit of anything. Nothing that is said or done on this forum will affect what Obama does or doesn't do, even if everyone here agreed with you. The issue here is that this is an open discussion forum, to a point. In a debate one must prove one's claims, or at least make an attempt to back them up. So far you haven't even tried. You claim that you are right, and when someone asks you to give evidence you turn around and say that even it you can't prove it now it still might be true. That isn't debate, it's mudslinging, hoping something will stick.

In the interest of real debate, I would challenge you to give any evidence at all. Or, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. A little honesty goes a long way.

Kent State, not Ohio State.

That is insulting, the whole "you claim" thing. Yes I am "involved" with the law, in my final year actually, thanks for asking.I regret mentioning it one time because perhaps I think outside the box? I don't believe everything I am told you doubt me, it is what it is, I have nothing to prove.Anyways, an unjust law is no law at all.Ever hear of that? Some laws are idiotic, unjust, ridiculous. I am saying that while McCrystal' may have violated the law, that was just obama's excuse.I read that the Admiral was out for gambling, later came out(you also pointed out) it was for poker chips? Gambling, while a generic description is accurate.Poker chips are involved in gambling yes? Again, you harp on little things to try and discredit me and I am frankly, sick of it.

The Admiral may be a gambler, may have had poker chips on him but again, going with obama, his nature, how he operates etc, this sounds like an excuse to get rid of someone who was likely in opposition to him.Exploiting the rules and laws for one's personal gain, to settle persona vendettas by the "elite" or those in power etc is not unheard of and again, given the nature of Barack Hussein Obama, it is highly likely.

The whole point of this was to raise the alarm, a lot of people were not even aware of these dismissals. The FACT is obama has fired 5 or 6 Generals and Admirals as of late, 9 overall that I could count.That is a lot of them who magically, all of sudden are incompetent, criminal etc yet they made it all the way through their careers without these troubles? One, maybe but suddenly the ranks are filled with incompetents and criminals?

All can say is I find it likely because it is obama and within his nature.Eventually, perhaps the truth will come out.I will gladly be wrong, hope I am very wrong but 99% sure am not, it just all fits.We shall see...

I did not forget but will admit I do not know a lot about that incident.I don't remember the order coming down from the white house though, some national guard soldiers who got pissed at a bunch of hippies and opened fire.Absolutely wrong but different situation than one that would involve obama ordering a general to open fire or a general who would be okay with that even without orders.That, if the stories are true, is what obama wants, generals who are okay with opening fire on us citizens under certain circumstances.

Now you're just talking through your backside. You made the OP and the claims. You have to back it up with facts or back off. Otherwise all you are doing is insulting our intelligence.

Come with well reasoned argument and your reception will be different. Spout right wing or left wing claptrap and vitriolic hate and you're more likely to cop insult.

Like we've been saying from the start of the responses to this thread poop or get off the pot.

Young man, when you next go to school can you tell your teacher that you want to make a case for unfair dismissal but have no interest in the contract of employment.
Report back if his reaction is to laugh in your face or if he just starts banging his head(or yours) against the desk.

As an "expert" on law can you tell us what the crime is if poker chips are fake?

A fatal flaw in our political system, making the president c-in-c. Although this prevents a military dictatorship, or military coup, it also prevents us from winning a war.

Insulting or not, it looks fishy when someone in your position seems to know so little of it, and shows so little regard for it.

Au contrere. You started this thread talking about how Obama is purging the top military brass, "firing" nine top officers, with no explanation. Several people have repeatedly shown you that there was indeed good cause. That you disagree is fine, but you continually refuse to show any real evidence, and have now admitted that there is none. All that said, you continue to fall back on the same exact statements, still with no proof. All of this is of course possible, but you seem uninterested in discussing the options, only in proclaiming your pet theory to be correct.

Yes, I have. Are you saying that the UCMJ is unjust? The military lives by different rules. Officers are held to a higher standard. Not only do they swear to uphold the Constitution, but also to fully support their Commander-In-Chief. Secondly, does the fact that you find any law unjust give you free reign to ignore it. Are you going to stand up in court and tell the judge that your speeding ticket should be thrown out because the 65 mph limit is unjust? The man was apparently caught cheating. I say "apparently" because I don't know that the investigation is over. He may yet be found not guilty. That said, the charge is very real and you calling it "unjust" doesn't make it so.

The difference is not little at all. You dismissed the case out-of-hand as "being fired for gambling". I pointed out that gambling is not a crime (well, it is where I live but that's another story), and he wasn't dismissed for gambling. He is under investigation for using counterfeit chips, which if true is indeed a crime. Now do you see the difference? Gambling is not a crime. Cheating certainly is.

I'm not trying to discredit you. I don't care about you one way or the other. What I (and some others) are trying to do is show you the flaws in your argument, such as it is.

Only to someone who already hates him. Again, having poker chips on him is not the charge. Having counterfeit chips is the charge. The man is accused of cheating. The UCMJ doesn't allow for that. It's an internal matter. Can you show that Obama has anything to do with it at all?

And? Can you show any connection at all? If not, then it is highly unlikely, other than in your personal desire to prove Obama the root of all evil. You keep coming back to your pet beliefs. How about a little evidence for a change?

How many of them were actually fired by the President? You still have refused to respond to requests for evidence. So far no one has seen anything but your own claims and those of unquestionably biased sources. Please show the facts of each "firing" and show that the President was even indirectly responsible. Once you've bothered to do that we can examine each case on its own merits and see where it leads.

I understand. You believe of Obama because of his "nature". Not a problem. Anything is possible, and you could be right. On the other hand if you're going to actually debate a topic you need to show facts to back up your arguments. So far you haven't bothered. Also, you once again say you hope you are wrong. I can't argue with what's in your mind, but your manner of arguing this would indicate that you very much want to be right, and very much want Barack HUSSEEEEEEIN Obama to be the evil hobgoblin you claim him to be. Maybe he is, but you haven't shown it yet.

This from the guy who has done nothing but defend the Bush administration's conduct of the wars and the Iraq War in particular...

I'm not sure, but I sense a strong drop in temperature in formerly hot places and the existence of porcine aviation...


http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/resources...rticlePortrait



http://www.natureartists.com/art/cre...%20Fly%203.jpg




<O>

I never said they were not crimes.I said the real issue is to me it appears obama is using legal remedies to purge high ranking officers who disagree with him or if the rumors about the new litmus tests is true, give the answer he does not like.

Something that really aggravates me about some of my detractors on this forum is that because I hold contempt for many of the laws, I somehow do not know them, how things work etc? get real. Some laws are idiotic, ridiculous, or just outright unjust .Laws are passed by men, often time idiotic men(and women ) that have no idea what they are doing or if they do, it is for some nefarious purpose.Yes, I believe our system overall, I value it but I question it constantly, especially in modern america as the weight of the law is abused to fit the agenda of certain "evil" forces. A prime example is the blatant intellectual dishonesty shown by chief justice roberts in the obamacare decision.Roberts knows mandated fine is a penalty, a fine, not a tax, it defies the definition of what a tax is.However, he twisted things to fit his decision which is wrong.Great as our constitution is, it is open to manipulation by such unethical men and as are other laws.

Yes, can not prove right now that obama is purging generals based on their failure of their litmus test but a nobel peace prize nominee as I mentioned said a high ranking military officer told him of this.I believe it to be likely based on some extensive research of Barack Hussein Obama.The man's words, his actions, association, ideology, etc it all adds up.I could be wrong, hope I am but highly doubt it.

For the sake of argument, let's take as true that the military is being purged of some officers based on "Would you give the order to your forces to fire on American citizens if ordered to?".

How do you explain the fact that only 9 flag officers have said "No" and been fired? Why is there no covert recording from any one of these, or any other officers? Do you truly believe that any American president could get away with asking military officers of their willingness to shoot citizens, and that not one man has the integrity to stand up, tell the people what is happening, and be willing to go to jail or worse?

Or could it be possible that the reason there is no proof to show is that there is nothing to show proof of?

So embezzlement or fraud is okay because that law is insane or wrong? Can I gamble with your money then?


So one guy said someone told him something. And our Nobel prize winner supports which camp?

Which words, actions, association, ideology etc. exactly shows Obama's likely to have asked this of his generals? Where is the smoking gun of cause and effect? There are a lot of claims that BO has over stepped the mark on the constitution, however if that were true, then someone surely would be challenging these decisions in the Supreme court where constitutional cases are heard are they not. Or is he so clever that he's over stepping the constitution but making it look to that he's not? You can't have it both ways Bubbles. He's either clearly committed an over reach with his legislation or not. If he has then why isn't it being challenged? Most likely because it isn't happening anywhere but in the loony right's minds.