Funny, it is only conservatives I see that are talking about taking the money and businesses and leaving the country. So, for those who have a deep seated love of country can either learn to compete in an era of that mentality or drive yourself nuts trying to understand the conservative mindset when there is no rational explanation for it.
First of all, a government/administration that works doesn't deprive U.S. diplomatic personnel of the security they need and request to survive in a chaotic, terrorist-infested (*)(*)(*)(*)hole. Secondly, if you can't handle the notion of accountability in government, find a less demanding line of work in the private sector where you won't have to worry about answering for decisions that contribute to the deaths of our ambassadors and the people who protect them. Evidently, when it comes to wanting "a government that starts to work again", the people who voted for Mr. Obama yesterday had something else in mind.
I honestly don't see how this disgraceful debacle will lead to impeachment proceedings. Certainly, the gross negligence and incompetence involved here was both unacceptable and inexcusable, but I don't see how it rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Furthermore, while it is obvious that the president and his underlings have not leveled with the American people about what happened, I am not aware of the president having lied under oath as Mr. Clinton did prior to his impeachment.
More messianic descriptions of Obama from his fan club. I should start up a text file on my desktop like you do and save these.
Maybe liberals can pay taxes and get off the dole if they love America so much. I love your faux patriotism though. I wonder if you loved America from 2000-2008?
You're such an unpleasant person. I wish I knew what your face looked like so I could imagine the look on it last night.
Take a look at my profile, tough guy. I'm serious. This has got to be the 10th time I've seen a liberal member of this messageboard talk about hypothetical situations involving Obama walking on water, curing cancer, eliminating poverty and hunger, etc etc. Why do you guys view him that way? Is it because you're trying to fill some sort of religious void in your sad, miserable little welfare lives?
Indeed. However, I would fully expect any administration to come up with a legal rationale for such a killing, which the current administration did. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/w...se-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Now you may not care for their rationale, and I would be the first to say it is a slippery slope they are perched on, but they did come up with a rationale, a get out of impeachment for free card, if you would like.
Talon.. Congress has been slashing Embassy security since the Bush days. They slashed the budget again in 2009, 2010, 2011... The reason that Benghazi was so exposed is the the Mobile Deployment Security team was moved to other consulates and embassiess like Tunisia.
Aww, did I embarrass you? It's not exactly a secret you view Obama as your God. You only spend 10 hours a day every here defending him. Very devout.
Totally absolutely completely wrong. In a letter from the OMB to defense contractors (28 September, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-19.pdf) the white house stated "...that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance ofthe potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur..." That is not true, notices must be sent out if layoffs are "foreseeable", not just if they are a certainty. Furhtermore the OMB has no authority on which to base this ruling. If a contractor does layoff employees and fails to send the WARN Act notice, the company is subject to lawsuit by the employees. However, the OMB letter states "....To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff ofa type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of acti on consistent with DOL guid ance; then any result ing employee· compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attoroeys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of li tigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency,...." That means if the contractor willfully breaks the law, the DoD will pay all costs associated with breaking the law. That is conspiracy and bribery at a minimum. It is also premeditated and willful misconduct. The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4 - Impeachment 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.
I don't see anyone with a Mitt avatar tonight To them - this must be like a salted crisp in a paper cut.
The Democrats don't control the House and impeachment is exclusively a responsibility of the House. Now the Senate may not remove him from office regardless of the evidence (case in point Bill Clinton) but if the House didn't impeach then blame Republicans. Of note former President Bush authorized torture, in violation of Title 18, and roughly 40 prisoners died from it with 8 (as I recall) being classified as murder. So former President Bush was a co-conspiratory in acts of torture and murder and he wasn't impeached. Like I've said, our Congress comprised of both Democrats and Republicans, is political and doesn't enforce the criminal laws of the land when it comes to the President. They should but they don't. If they did then every president going back to at least Carter would have been impeached and removed from office.
First of all the labor laws are civil laws and not criminal laws so no criminal act is associated with not providing layoff notices. Additionally the memo does not state that sequestration will or might occur so the WARN notices are not mandatory. The government would have to provide a probable date for sequestration related to a contract before the WARN notices become mandatory. This appears to be a memo related to when the Congress was unable to reach a decision on raising the debt ceiling and the White House was uncertain as to the future related to some defense contracts. The government often indemnifies a vendor from potential loss because of the government’s actions. This is neither unusual nor illegal. It isn’t bribery but instead it’s a clear attempt by the executive branch to avoid disruptions in production that would result in additional costs to the government. Realize that if a valuable and qualified individual is given a WARN notice they are very likely to seek and obtain employment elsewhere. This creates a drain of highly talented individuals from the vendor’s workforce. Mitigating against this potential disaster by the President, even though it carries with it some financial risk, is less costly than having the vendor’s workforce depleted by unnecessary notifications of possible layoffs when they aren’t actually predicted.
