So now impeachment?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bluesguy, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He would be impeached, as Clinton was impeached and then of course the Senate would decide if he should be removed and that of course depends how up to his eyeballs he was in the cover up.
     
  2. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry.. you don't know your ass from a hot rock..
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So much for intellectual discourse.
     
  4. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I say no to impeachment...or investigating...or even questioning this administration. In fact....the right wing needs to get out of the way and let the progressive left run wild.

    America has chosen Big Bird, lady parts, and free condoms over ethics, the economy, and fiscal sustainability.

    give it to them....in spades.
     
  5. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is we poor folks will have to survive the onslaught. Not everyone can be rich and hide in a bunker.
     
  6. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So Obama and his administration told the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You're out of control margot.

    [video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n[/video]
     
  7. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't you worry, friend....an unrestrained progressive leftist administration will warehouse you in nice, government approved hammocks...all they require is for you to trade in your self-respect, individuality and liberty.
     
  8. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wonder what Mitt is doing today..

    :)
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probably flying off to that secret Cayman Island "How to avoid taxes and park your loot" convention the last Republican president is speaking at.
     
  10. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but "because anonymous people on an internet forum want him impeached" is not a misdemeanor. It is nothing more than pure, unadulterated, partisan hackery.
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two simple points.

    The Republican controlled House will not call for impeachment.
    The Democratic controlled Senate would never remove Obama from office.

    What we're seeing is the same "non-issues" being presented by "Republicans" that don't really have anything of value to say. They're not addressing ligitimate issues so they are fundamentally ignored and laughed at by everyone except the Bithers that are so far out in the ozone that nobody knows how their twisted minds work.
     
  12. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many successful Islamic terrorist attacks have there been in the United States since Obama was elected? Zero. How many US embassies and consulates were attacked under Bush and how many under Obama? 12 under Bush and 1 under Obama.
    I haven't heard a single lie from the Obama adminstration on the Benghazi attacks. Not one. Obama referred to them as terrorist attacks from day one where he stated that (the) terrorists would be tracked down.
    How many military mistakes did Obama make related to the Benghazi attacks? None, he followed the advice of his senior generals and the Pentagon.
     
  13. Gator

    Gator New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not true. Companies have to act on the law, not what the law might be in the future. Maybe sequestration will occur, maybe it will be partial, maybo none will occur. That is irrelevent to the WARN Act.

    It doesnt matter if the WARN Act falls under civil law, it is still the law and penalties and complaints are handled under US District Court.

    As for indemnification, the OMB does not have that authority. Indemnification is a contractual action, not a policy action, and the OMB letter has no legal standing. Indemnification can only be allowed in the contract between the company and its customer. Furthermore OMB has no authority to override the WARN Act. Notice the OMB letter does not absolve the companies from liability, but states the govt will pay the penalties and court costs for willfully violating the WARN Act.

    You can try to excuse the white house, but it wont work. The white house stepped into an area it has no authority to be in, and promised tax payer money to companies if they violated the law. It was an illegal end run around the law and Congress.
     
  14. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I haven't called for impeachment. I've only said there may be grounds for it and, just like with Nixon, there is no doubt the Obama administration has been stonewalling the investigation into what went wrong which is....in and of itself, grounds for impeachment!
    The election is over. Why won't Obama cooperate or does he use Fast and Furious as a template for all dealings with Congress?

    And yet the buck stops at the president's desk. If the State Department made a major mistake (someone did absolutely) then let's hear why and let's make sure no embassy in the future suffers the same fate as our consulate in Benghazi.

    This was blatantly wrong and if the Brits and Red Cross leaving Benghazi didn't tell the Obama people that we did indeed need more security (especially after several minor terrorist incidents at our consulate months before 9/11) then the ambassador's call for more help should have not been ignored.
    There is really no way to rationalize this by saying, Well, these things will happen.

    Would you call the break in at the Watergate hotel a case of bad judgment? That turned out to be impeachable.
    Causing the deaths of our ambassador and Navy SEALS must be infinitely worse than engaging in a "second rate burglary".


    You call it lax security. I don't see any basis for that.
    At any rate there is no case of the C.O. at the Marine base asking for more help to do his job and being turned down.
    Except for dead Americans as an end result, there is no equivalency here no matter how hard you try to convice people otherwise.

    :roll: :roll: :roll: I gave that three eye rolls for being so absurd, or where you in a coma during the Bush years?
    And you might change your statement a little bit to reflect the reality that the only party to actually chase a sitting president out of office through the impeachment procedure are the democrats.

    Clinton didn't learn the lesson of Nixon and his stonewalling and lies got him in impeachment trouble. Not his disgusting behavior. Obama is going down the same road.

    Lots of people did call for Bush's impeachment. How could you miss that? However since Bush got Congress to authorize our adventure in Iraq it's pretty hard to impeach him for that.
    As far as Iraq's botched reconstruction start a thread about it.

    Again, from my view, talk of impeachment is extremely premature unless Obama continues to lie about the attack in Benghazi and hinder investigation. Then he makes himself a target for impeachment, the only remedy the constitution gives us to deal with a president who believes himself to be above reproach and scrutiny.
    People died in Benghazi because he (and his State Department) totally dropped the ball. We know these facts to be true and Obama needs to treat this seriously.
     
  15. Indymom

    Indymom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Doing the right thing always matters.
     
  16. Indymom

    Indymom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There are too many inconsistancies, too much evidence the President was lying. We need to find out what he was lying about and why. The death of an Ambassador killed in a terrorist attack on US soil is pretty high up there on things to worry about.
     
  17. Libertine

    Libertine Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    THREAD
    [​IMG]
     
  18. Indymom

    Indymom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think we know what happened. At best, Obama didn't send backup during a terrorist attack (lazy, political, inept...take your pick why) and told everyone to go out at push the riots/video story to cover his tracks. At worst, Obama allowed the consoluate to be attacked because he wanted the Ambassador to be killed, and pushed the video story to cover his tracks. We need an independent investigation, and if the Senate is too chicken(*)(*)(*)(*) to do anything about, then we'll get it on record.
     
  19. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh. Inconsistencies.

    Cries for information before we knew what happened? Folks saying the president never said it was not a terror attack when he clearly did say it was an act of terror? Pretense that somehow the president is the one that orders specific security at satellite offices of embassies?

    Those sorts of inconsistencies?

    Sorry, I don;t see an impeachable act. I see partisans acting like complete fools, much akin to the Republicans during Clinton's tenure and the Democrats during Bush's tenure. Lobbing accusations hoping to sway our idiot populace.
     
  20. Indymom

    Indymom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We may get to impeachment, but I'm willing to wait to see what an independant investigation brings us. Inconsistancy is him claiming he thought it was a terrorist attack and pushing spontaneous riots for two weeks. That is an inconsistancy. DUH!!
     
  21. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that even mean? You know, not every piece of information is keystroke fast.

    You are not going to get to impeachment. Even if the president was wrong, being wrong is not an impeachable offense. Face reality. This witch hunt is nothing more than a bunch of partisan doing a circle jerk. It is a show they put on to provide fodder for right wing radio.
     
  22. Indymom

    Indymom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Where did I say I thought we are sure to get to impeachment? Rewind, and read again with some comprehension this time!

    This is too big to not at least get on record what the heck was going on, and let the chips fall where they may. The Ambassador (and others) deserve it.
     
  23. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are kidding yourself, Indy.. Congress has been slashing the budget for embassy security since Bush was in office... The guilt is on both sides of the aisle.. Time to face reality.. The GOP is in the weeds... and its time for serious introspection.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/08...a-wake-up-call-that-the-right-wing-will-hear/
     
  24. Indymom

    Indymom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Don't care. They had plenty of money for urgent matters. They can't convince me otherwise. This happened directly because of Obama and Clinton (maybe just Obama). Pointing back at Bush makes me roll my eyes.
     
  25. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your previous post would be the answer on that one.


    What were you saying about my comprehension?

    I don't know what "on record" is supposed to mean in this case. Sounds like a made up excuse for a highly partisan investigation into the known, coupled with incessant bleating by the right wing echo chamber whilst no one actually does the job they were elected to.
     

Share This Page