@Counter Intelligence – “The little leftist who cried racist…
“Of course your right – I was wrong to think that in a
country where at least half the population was blatantly & overtly racist
just 50 short years ago, racism is now a thing of the past.I was
wrong to think that many have simply gotten smarter (due to public ridicule) and
now hide their racism, sometimes even from themselves.I was wrong to
think that when people like Clive Bundy or Ted Nugent (a prime example of
someone who cannot admit to his own racism) spouts racist rants, they are
speaking for millions of like-minded individuals unwilling to speak up
themselves for fear of ridicule.Thank you for correcting
me…Strange though – I’ve never seen the kind of
hatred visited on a president (even before he took office) as I’ve seen
towards Obama. The mystery continues I guess… @Counter
Intelligence – “Ironically it is the illiberal left's
passive/aggression and hypocrisy that repels me far more than conservatism
attracts me.”That is ironic because I feel the same way about
the aggressive/aggressive far-right (utterly repelled).
@Tyler D "No doubt the only candidates who will meet this
criteria are of both the conservative and Caucasian persuasion"
The little leftist who cried racist has destroyed
progressive credibility to the point that anyone who introduces their comments
with such drivel may just have well screamed "I have no facts of value to
offer" According to CNN, 33% of the
population thinks Obama should be impeached compared to 30 percent support for
impeachment of President George W. Bush in 2006 and 29 percent support
impeachment for former President Bill Clinton in 1998. According to liberal pundit, Nate Silver, MSNBC talks of impeachment five
times more often than Fox. which would seem to indicate that the left is milking
impeachment talk as part of Obamas power structure in defiance of the fact that
that he is really no more a victim than Bush was. But his manipulative and
dishonest passive/aggressive "I am victim hear me roar" mentality makes
him a far more slippery and dangerous perpetrator.Ironically it is
the illiberal left's passive/aggression and hypocrisy that repels me far
more than conservatism attracts me.
Shane333"Nixon was impeached for spying on an opposing political
party."No he wasn't. Nixon was never impeached. But articles of impeachment were prepared against him. And then he
resigned.And Ford later pardoned him of all crimes.That
list of impeachable offenses did not include "spying on the opposing
political Party."And no, Obama is not about to let
"Conservative" whiners jeopardize national security. Surveilance, as
necessary will continue.Unless you're a terrorist or are aiding
abetting terrorists . . . don't sweat it. You're not affected.
Hey Rick for Truth -"If I remember correctly, die hard Democrats
created a movie where President Bush was assassinated.”That’s a pretty big IF.You either DON’T remember
correctly, or you remember a lie you saw somewhere . . .probably on a Right
Wing website.The “Death of a President" was a British
production, a fake documentary that showed the assassination of GW Bush.No it wasn’t done by “die hard Democrats.” It was
created by Brits.You may not realize it, but GW (I’m the
decider) Bush was widely and wildly reviled around the world. The international
community disliked Bush . . . In contrast to President Obama who is the most
admired world leader. Look it up.Face it, American
“Conservatives” are the world’s enemy, and the international
community is smart enough to realize that.
I am amazed at what I read here. How much of it is proven to have substance? I
don't think any. I wish people would have serious discussions about what we
can do going forward to improve situations in this country rather than criticize
a President that has made history. No President (or any other politician has
ever been perfect, but he's come closer than many). You can disagree all
you want, but he isn't going anywhere so please use your energy to find a
future President that you will admire (as I have admired President Obama).
It's not looking good right now for the conservative side, so try and
change that.A Happy Independent
@SchneeSueing the President is "crazy-talk", no doubt. You may
have stereotyped me and missed the fact that I don't support whatever House
Republicans do... I think Congress suing the President is "crazy".
Period.But I do see what they are protesting with this crazy act.
They feel they have to do SOMETHING to get his attention... if this works...
maybe it wasn't so crazy.I tend to agree with House Republicans
that the President is just ONE branch of the Government. And we have all 3
CO-Equal branches for a purpose. For a system of checks-and-balances on
government power, and to insure that one person can't enact their own
agenda or their party's agenda over the voice of the representatives of the
people (in Congress).But I really think suing him is crazy. There
are better ways to get his attention and to stop him from making Congress
irrelevant, by ruling by one branch fiat (that's a dictatorship, not a
representative-republic). Our current President is pretending that his branch
of government is SUPERIOR to the rest of the branches (instead of CO-Equal, as
the Constitution demands).
Social media has given Americans the attention span of a gnat.One
day they're upset about the border "crisis". The next day,
they're upset about the Ukraine "crisis". Today, they're
upset about the ISIS "crisis". Tomorrow, they'll be harping on the
Gaza "crisis".Firing missiles at whatever is trending on
Twitter is horrible policy.
If I remember correctly, die hard Democrats created a movie where President Bush
was assassinated. Extremism it not the sole prevue of the far Left. High Crimes
and misdemeanors against the Constitution must be alleged and passed through the
House, then a super majority must vote to convict in the Senate. The Presidents
actions are only to bait the Republicans into impeachment action to rouse the
left's voting base in the upcoming November Election.
Blaming America for the drug cartels is a pure guilt trip. People all over the
world are their customers. And the children came here because Obama is not
deporting them. It will continue until we stop it by sending them back. Does anyone really think that letting them stay will solve the problem
in the future?
Richard Nixon, if he were alive today and a Democrat, would not be impeached.
@ John Charity Spring, I've asked you before about the Lincoln quote, as
have others, and you've never responded. What ARE you talking about?"If lawlessness reigns, anarchy will be the inevitable result."
Of that, you are correct, but what are you saying? Did it apply in the prior
Administration as well, or is it just one sided?
@2 bitsIt doesn't matter if one side goes farther if that one side is
charging a President with breaking national and international law. With
Republicans they decided to sue him and then later decided what they should even
sue him for.
Gosh Webb –You’re using all the popular
“Conservative” Cliché’s . . . And PROJECTING to beat the
band.“Certainly, talk of impeaching the president is nutty
— but Democrats are the ones exploiting the issue.” Come
on LaVarr . . . It’s not Democrats who threaten impeachment. It’s
Republicans. Dems merely acknowledge that fact, and it if generates money for
the NDP, so much the better. BTW, I would like to extend a Thank You to those
loud Republicans out there who incessantly harp about impeachment. You’re
generating a massive amount of money for the Democratic Party. “Both political parties and both branches of government deserve outrage
and condemnation . . . ” Webb, you KNOW that’s not true.
Republicans may be magnanimous in sharing the blame, but the fact is that
Democrats are FOR good governance. And a growing number of Republicans are
AGAINST government altogether. That’s why it should be of no
surprise that when anti-government Tea Party types are elected, they do
everything possible to validate the premise that got them elected . . . That
government is bad. Perception has become reality. When Republicans dominate
government, then government IS in fact, bad.
No reasonable person can deny that traditional notions of American values is
under attack. That includes traditional values that influenced government. Now, we are faced with attack based politics in which politicians seek
to advance their own interests over that of the public. No civilized society
cannot withstand this discord.We cannot ignore impeachment as a tool
for saving America. If lawlessness reigns, anarchy will be the inevitable
result. As Abraham Lincoln famously stated "Whenever the vicious
portion of the population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and
thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw printing
presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at
pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this government cannot last."
@SchneeRe: "You must not pay much attention to House Republicans
today"....That's probably true. I don't pay much
attention to House Republicans. They are a joke (IMO). House Democrats and
the Senate... equally a joke.I don't pay much attention to what
they say on MSNBC either. Or FOX. What are they saying today... That House
Republicans have written up articles of impeachment for President Obama?Until they do... it's not the same. There will always be some
crazy-talkers (both sides). Some inside and outside Congress will bad mouth the
President (yes... even Obama). That's nothing new. Impeachment-talk is
"crazy-talk". But actually writing up articles of impeachment and
submitting them is WORSE. And the majority of your party voting to impeach the
President... is even MORE crazy (IMO). Yes... even when it's the evil
President Bush...IF House Republicans write up articles of
impeachment for President Obama, and proceed past political crazy-talk, and a
majority of them vote FOR impeachment (as Democrats did to Bush)... they will be
equal.Google both of them and at least read the opening paragraph...
one side went way further than talk...
@2 bits:I don't think Democrats are talking about impeachment of a
Democratic president. I do think Democrats are talking about Republicans who
are talking about impeachment of President Obama. If you disagree, please name
one Democrat who has suggested the House of Representatives impeach our current
president.Historically, the House of Representatives have launched
investigations to impeach at least 12 presidents. But an investigation is not
the same thing as an impeachment which has happened to only 2 presidents and
both were acquitted and not removed from office. The one which most certainly
would have removed a sitting president from office was against President Nixon.
On the other hand, it is a fact that U.S. House of Representatives
has never sued a sitting president in all of U.S. history.
@2 bits – “This may shock you, or not fit your stereotype for me
but... I think it was crazy-talk to impeach President Clinton for his
transgressions as well.”Actually I think you can be one of the
more interesting characters on this board because there are times you exhibit
some real independence of thought & perspective (vs. many who just parrot
talking points).Anyway, glad you think the Clinton episode was crazy
too, but I think it’s important to understand why. First, he did not lie
(directly) to Congress – he lied to a congressionally appointed special
prosecutor who used an open-ended deposition process to blindside him with an
embarrassing personal question. That he lied about it scarcely rises
to the level of high crimes & misdemeanors, but that hardly mattered to the
rabid partisans out for his blood. And I would venture to say that
most of our elected officials put in a similar circumstance could be in the same
hot water (and is why both sides are now scared to death to ever use a special
prosecutor again).Previous comment – should have been
“pound of FLESH.”
@2 bits" During the Bush Administration it was actual CONGRESSMEN who
did it."You must not pay much attention to House Republicans
@OneWifeOnly,Yes the picture shows 3 people holding up a handmade
sign. Nobody said they are Democrats. But I think you can find 3
crazy-talkers like this in EITHER party. Probably way more than 3. We had 251 of them in the House back when Bush was President. The vote in the
House was 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary
Committee on June 11 2008. In my eyes that's crazier than 3 people waving
their sign on a bridge.=======================@Tyler
DThis may shock you, or not fit your stereotype for me but... I
think it was crazy-talk to impeach President Clinton for his transgressions as
well. But remember... he was impeached for lying to Congress, not for what he
did with Monica. Perjury and lying to Congress are still a big thing,
especially when it's our President. But that whole episode was crazy
(IMO).I don't know if it was Nixon payback. And I don't
approve whether it was or not. I'm just saying payback happens in
politics... that's a fact of political reality (not something I like or
Well, the HEADLINE is correct. The rest of the article . . . . . ?
From the article: "Republicans have used the word “impeach” or
“impeachment” only four times."There was a photo
accompanying the article which was 3 people waving a handmade "Impeach
Obama" banner and the U.S. flag. I suppose we are to believe these
individuals are Democrats?
Shane333Cedar Hills, UTObama's administration has been
caught spying on Congress, spying on the American people, using the power of the
IRS to suppress political opponents, running guns to Mexican drug cartels (which
were then used to kill US Border patrol agents), abandoning a US ambassador to
die and then lying to the American people repeatedly about the cause, enacting
Executive Orders to alter laws when he doesn't have the Constitutional
authority to do so, etc. Any other president in US history would have been
impeached and run out in disgrace long ago. However, with a lapdog Senate and
lapdog media, impeachment isn't a realistic option for Obama.====== Seriously?The process is -- Drum up
the indictment.Hold a Congressional hearing.Vote.And THEN Impeach.The House GOP hasn't even past the 1st hurdle,
for a single instance you claim.i.e., CARZY talk, that's
what it is, and that's why....BTW -- your memory of the 8 years
under GW Bush is pathetic.
@2 bits – “IMO Impeachment is "crazy talk". Just as it was
back when Democrats proposed impeaching President Bush.”You
mean like when Reps actually did impeach President Clinton (only falling short
of votes) because they were able to trap him into a lie about a sexual liaison?
Do you really want to engage in a “who’s purer” debate when it
comes to following the constitutional direction on remedies for “high
crimes & misdemeanors?” My guess is the Right has never
forgiven the (almost) impeachment of Nixon just like they have never forgiven
the rejection of Bork (and almost Thomas) and until they extract their pound of
fresh we will continue to see this partisan playground nonsense.
Shane333, there is a lot of misinformation in your post, starting with your very
first sentence. Nixon resigned before the Articles of Impeachment went to the
full house. The Benghazi meme has been debunked several times (even by the
GOP's own investigations), the gun running was a hold out from Bush
policies. The IRS "scandal" has been disproved. And administrations have
delayed implementation of legislation in the past. (Bush and Part D).
@Shane333 – “… and he can be replaced with someone more honest
and competent.”No doubt the only candidates who will meet this
criteria are of both the conservative and Caucasian persuasion.
IMO Impeachment is "crazy talk". Just as it was back when Democrats
proposed impeaching President Bush.The difference is... today some
fringe people on the right talk about it. During the Bush Administration it
was actual CONGRESSMEN who did it. And Majority of Democrats in the House
supported the motion (not just the fringe Democrats). It would have come up for
a vote but Bush Presidency ended before they could do it.There's a difference between a few fringe people who really oppose the
President and his policies holding up signs and talking about it... and actual
mainstream elected representatives drafting the bill and bringing it up for a
vote in Congress (and the majority of Democrats in the House voting FOR it
BTW).So you can't say it never got serious consideration from
Democrats back when Bush was President. But majority of Democrats in Congress
voted FOR it!Google "Efforts to impeach Bush" and
"Efforts to impeach Obama"...Wikipedia has a good outline on both.
Democrats actually wrote up the articles of impeachment and voted FOR it.
Republicans didn't. But Democrats are whining...Politicians
should know... what goes around comes around (eventually).
Nixon was impeached for spying on an opposing political party.Obama's administration has been caught spying on Congress, spying on the
American people, using the power of the IRS to suppress political opponents,
running guns to Mexican drug cartels (which were then used to kill US Border
patrol agents), abandoning a US ambassador to die and then lying to the American
people repeatedly about the cause, enacting Executive Orders to alter laws when
he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so, etc. Any other
president in US history would have been impeached and run out in disgrace long
ago. However, with a lapdog Senate and lapdog media, impeachment isn't a
realistic option for Obama.The best that can be accomplished now is
to simply render Obama politically impotent and limit his ability to cause
further damage to the United State of America until his term ends and he can be
replaced with someone more honest and competent.