What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official GOP impeaches Obama*** (1 Viewer)

Fennis

Footballguy
<placeholder>

Its only a matter of time right? Until it happens feel free to place bets, guess dates, and decide which scandal will be used.

Some early contenders:

Benghazi -Mike Huckabee: "As bad as Watergate was — because it broke the trust between the president and the people — no one died"

- Jack Burkman - Benghazi was "much worse" than 9/11

- Jim Infofe- "Of all the great coverups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them, this is going to go down as the most serious. People may be starting to use the I-word.:

Solyndra- Michelle Bachmann: Solyndra “makes Watergate look like child’s play.”

Gun Control Steve Stockman: I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.

IRS George Will brought up Impeachment.

More in a Slate article:

  • Fast and furious: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner threatened to impeach administration officials and possibly the president over the botched gun-running investigation, telling Attorney General Eric Holder: “If we don’t get to the bottom of this — and that requires your assistance on that — there is only one alternative that Congress has, and it is called impeachment.”
  • Boston bombing: A Washington Times columnist called for impeaching Obama after the Boston Marathon bombing because he fails to realize that “we are in a clash of civilizations between radical Islam and the West.”
  • Joe Sestak: **** Morris, America’s best columnist, and Sean Hannity, America’s best TV host, agreed that it was a “de facto bribe” and “an impeachable offense” when the White House allegedly pushed former Pennsylvania senatorial candidate Joe Sestak out of a Democratic primary.
  • Guns: A whole slew of Republican lawmakers have floated impeaching Obama over post–Sandy Hook gun laws, and Rep. Steve Stockman even planned to introduce articles of impeachment in the House. Unfortunately, due to their efforts, Obama’s watered-down gun safety bill died in the Senate.
  • Debt: South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, then in the House, said that if Obama invoked the 14th Amendment to circumvent the debt ceiling, it would be an “impeachable act.” Rep. Steve King promised “Obama would be impeached” if the government defaulted.
  • Balanced budget: Rep. Mo Brooks in January proposed a constitutional amendment that would make failing to balance the nation’s budget an impeachable offense.
  • Immigration: Former Sen. Jon Kyl, then the No. 2 Republican senator, responded to Obama’s deferred action immigration policy by telling radio host Bill Bennett that “impeachment is always a possibility,” especially if there are “shenanigans involved.” Rush Limbaugh joined the fun, as did the restrictionist group AILPAC, which has a petition up on its website to impeach the president.
  • DOMA: Newt Gingrich (who has some experience with impeachment) suggested impeaching the president over his decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court while Herman Cain called it near-treason. Social conservative stalwart Rep. Trent Franks hinted at impeachment, too.
  • Bush tax cuts: Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said if Obama failed to extend the Bush tax cuts, “Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.”
  • Island giveaway conspiracy: A Texas congressional candidate wanted to impeach Obama in 2012 for supposedly giving away a string of islands to Russia.
  • Recess appointments: Fox News’ Neil Cavuto wondered if Obama could be impeached for making recess appointments. Sadly, a Fox legal analyst said no.
  • Libya: Bruce Fein, a lawyer who has written articles of impeachments against Clinton, George W. Bush and **** Cheney, did the same for Obama in 2011 over the military intervention in Libya, alleging that it violated the Constitution’s mandate that only Congress can declare war.
  • Birth certificate: A former GOP congressman who ran for office again in 2010 suggested the idea of moving to impeach Obama in order to pressure him to release his birth certificate.
  • Just existing: When a man told Rep. Michele Bachmann that President Obama should be impeached just because, Bachmann replied, “Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I agree, I agree.” Texas Republican Michael Burgess told a Tea Party group in 2011 that he would push to impeach Obama for just generally being liberal. When a reporter asked him later what the charges would be, Burgess said he wasn’t sure, but said “it needs to happen” so Republicans can tie up Obama’s legislative agenda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama's NCAA picks feature more chalk than a rock-climbing competition, and it's about time for Congress to get involved. Somebody had to say it.

 
Surprised the House hasn't gotten around to this already. I guess they're too busy voting to repeal ObamaCare for the 1000th time.

 
Much like when many on the left were calling to impeach Bush, do you really want the current VP to be president?

 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.

 
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.

 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.
 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.
Regardless, Its hard to take the GOP seriously (even with legitimate grievances) when everything to them is a huge scandal.

 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.
Legitimate grievances are being drowned out by sensationalism and contrived facts because those things play with the mouthbreathers. You need more George Wills and David Frums.

 
Walking down 6th Ave in NYC today, there were a bunch of '85 Bears fan-lookalikes handing out flyers. Didn't see what they said but there plenty of "Impeach Obama, Restore Glass-Steagall" signs nearby. So add that to the list.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.
Where have we seen this before? (see 2000-2008 Democrats)

 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.
I've never played the race card against the Rs in regards to Obama. But everything he said until the last paragraph is 100% spot on. The black part absolutely plays a factor to a lot of Americans because a lot of Americans feel that minorities get too much help and somehow Obama being black factors in. But I doubt at the Congressional member level that his race is a serious issue. Certainly for some, that's just human nature, but not for the endless streams of "worse than Watergate" cries levied out against him. Ignoring his race for the general mouth breathing public is, imo, a mistake though. It does play a factor.

 
Its not like the government secretly pulled a couple months of phone records on AP reporters or anything like that. :shrug: I don't want to go through an "I". We got enough distractions going on right now.

 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.
Regardless, Its hard to take the GOP seriously (even with legitimate grievances) when everything to them is a huge scandal.
You're right. Using the IRS to target specific conservative groups ONLY is not a scandal at all.

 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.
Regardless, Its hard to take the GOP seriously (even with legitimate grievances) when everything to them is a huge scandal.
You're right. Using the IRS to target specific conservative groups ONLY is not a scandal at all.
Impeach Obama!

 
:lmao: @ this thread.
So you have a guess to the date? If we look at the Clinton example, Obama will be impeached in December of 2014. I'm going with the under.
What if we use this example?
sure, use that as an example if you like. So you'll go with the over?
I'll flat out and say that Obama will not be impeached. Sure some may call for it, even try to pass resolutions for it like the Democrats did with Bush. But he will not be impeached.

 
Regardless, Its hard to take the GOP seriously (even with legitimate grievances) when everything to them is a huge scandal.
You're committing the common partisan fallacy of treating everyone on the other "team" as if they were one person. The GOP is thousands of politicians (and millions of voters), all with their own individual views. Just because George Will thinks one thing is a scandal and **** Morris thinks a different thing is and some state senator from Texas thinks a third thing is does not mean that the GOP, collectively, thinks all those things.

 
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.
Where have we seen this before? (see 2000-2008 Democrats)
Sure, but as I remember it, it was mostly a fringe movement. People contemplated it over Iraq (which quite frankly has probably been the only thing worth a possible impeachment since 2000) but beyond that and maybe torture, nothing gained this amount of traction. I guess the problem is that most of these are in fact fringe movements as well, they just get a lot more traction within the Republican party which makes them look silly.

The funny part is that probably the most impeachable thing that Obama has done was kill an American citizen without due process or engage in a war without Congressional support (which Bush also ignored from time to time). And at least Kucinich is consistent b/c he actually tried to impeach Obama over Libya and he originated most of the bills to impeach Bush.

 
You forgot minting platinum coins to pay off the debt?

Kidding.

The only really impeachable accusation I've heard is one strangely missing from the Slate list - the involvement in the selling of Obama's own US Senate seat with Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Jarret, Emanuel, the gang was all in there on that one and the administration had hardly begun.

This sounds like one of those john/prostitute, drug dealer/buyer situations. One party at one end goes to jail, but the other does not. And judges blocked all attempts at gaining emails or direct testimony in that case.

Now, does that sort of thing go on all the time in politics? Maybe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems like no one on this thread has even the slightest recollection of the Bush years. :lol:
:confused: what does the Bush years have to do with it?
I don't know. Maybe something like the gross hypocrisy of people like BST talking about how the GOP throws poop around.
I make a solemn oath... that at the start of the second Santorum term, I will start an ***Official Dems impeach Santorum*** thread and we will call out BST then.

 
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.
Where have we seen this before? (see 2000-2008 Democrats)
Sure, but as I remember it, it was mostly a fringe movement. People contemplated it over Iraq (which quite frankly has probably been the only thing worth a possible impeachment since 2000) but beyond that and maybe torture, nothing gained this amount of traction. I guess the problem is that most of these are in fact fringe movements as well, they just get a lot more traction within the Republican party which makes them look silly.

The funny part is that probably the most impeachable thing that Obama has done was kill an American citizen without due process or engage in a war without Congressional support (which Bush also ignored from time to time). And at least Kucinich is consistent b/c he actually tried to impeach Obama over Libya and he originated most of the bills to impeach Bush.
Wow. That's some selective memory. Kucinich and Wexler introduced a bill to impeach Bush. All democrats (minus 7 who didn't vote) voted to send it to the judiciary committee. Reasons ranged from Iraq to Katrina to 9/11 to Global Warming. Conyers files a resolution to look into impeaching Bush over Downing Street. 38 Dems cosponsored that. McKinney also submitted a bill calling for Bush's impeachment. Ellison, who brought a resolution to impeach Bush in the MInnesota State House got elected to the US house on the campaign promise of impeaching Bush.

The New Mexico Democratic Party adopted impeachment of Bush as part of their official platform. The Vermont State Democratic Committee voted to support impeachment of Bush. Democrat Hall, state rep of NH introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of Bush.

 
They've never accepted this President's legitimacy. Runs like a thread throughout his presidency. From complete obstruction on legislative agenda to the birthers to Palin's "Real Americans", to "food stamp president". He has governed slightly center left and you'd swear he was Hugo Chavez from the rhetoric.

There is a certain percentage of Americans that will be completely unable to accept a black man as president. Ever.
There is also a certain percentage of Americans that will never accept the political opposition often has legitimate grievances without feeling the need to bandy about intellectually vapid straw men such as the race card.
Regardless, Its hard to take the GOP seriously (even with legitimate grievances) when everything to them is a huge scandal.
You're right. Using the IRS to target specific conservative groups ONLY is not a scandal at all.
Your view is that President Obama personally directed the IRS to target specific conservative groups for his political gain. And no other groups at all, just those.

That's what you're saying? Just want to make sure I've got that so we can revisit it later.

 
Ever since Clinton both parties have been impeachment happy from the POTUS down to their assistant county clerk.

Let's not even argue that BS.

 
It seems like no one on this thread has even the slightest recollection of the Bush years. :lol:
:confused: what does the Bush years have to do with it?
I don't know. Maybe something like the gross hypocrisy of people like BST talking about how the GOP throws poop around.
I make a solemn oath... that at the start of the second Santorum term, I will start an ***Official Dems impeach Santorum*** thread and we will call out BST then.
Promises, promises.
 
It seems like no one on this thread has even the slightest recollection of the Bush years. :lol:
:confused: what does the Bush years have to do with it?
I don't know. Maybe something like the gross hypocrisy of people like BST talking about how the GOP throws poop around.
I make a solemn oath... that at the start of the second Santorum term, I will start an ***Official Dems impeach Santorum*** thread and we will call out BST then.
Promises, promises.
oath, oath

 
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.
Where have we seen this before? (see 2000-2008 Democrats)
Sure, but as I remember it, it was mostly a fringe movement. People contemplated it over Iraq (which quite frankly has probably been the only thing worth a possible impeachment since 2000) but beyond that and maybe torture, nothing gained this amount of traction. I guess the problem is that most of these are in fact fringe movements as well, they just get a lot more traction within the Republican party which makes them look silly.

The funny part is that probably the most impeachable thing that Obama has done was kill an American citizen without due process or engage in a war without Congressional support (which Bush also ignored from time to time). And at least Kucinich is consistent b/c he actually tried to impeach Obama over Libya and he originated most of the bills to impeach Bush.
Wow. That's some selective memory. Kucinich and Wexler introduced a bill to impeach Bush. All democrats (minus 7 who didn't vote) voted to send it to the judiciary committee. Reasons ranged from Iraq to Katrina to 9/11 to Global Warming. Conyers files a resolution to look into impeaching Bush over Downing Street. 38 Dems cosponsored that. McKinney also submitted a bill calling for Bush's impeachment. Ellison, who brought a resolution to impeach Bush in the MInnesota State House got elected to the US house on the campaign promise of impeaching Bush.

The New Mexico Democratic Party adopted impeachment of Bush as part of their official platform. The Vermont State Democratic Committee voted to support impeachment of Bush. Democrat Hall, state rep of NH introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of Bush.
You do realize that sending it to committee is just about the same as voting against it. They essentially killed the bill by sending it to committee.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/06/12/democrats_scuttle_proposal_to_impeach_bush/

By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president.

While fellow Democrats have frequently used the House floor to attack Bush for his policies on Iraq, healthcare, domestic surveillance, and many of Kucinich's other grievances, none has joined him in mounting an impeachment effort.

Democratic leaders have long objected to Kucinich's initiative, saying it would be divisive and in any case unsuccessful.

"The American people sent us there [to Congress] to get things done," Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters at a breakfast yesterday. "They didn't send us there to impeach the President."

No Democrats voted against the resolution, to send the measure to certain death in the Judiciary Committee, but 166 Republicans voted no - a tactic designed to force Democrats to address the measure publicly.

Their votes technically could have kept alive the possibility that the resolution could come up on the House floor, and Republicans wanted to expose Democrats for their "trivial and silly conspiracy theories," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House GOP leadership.

"There should be consequences when the Democratic leadership allows the House floor to be hijacked by the loony left," Steel said.
ETA: Funny that it was actually the Republicans by voting no who sought to bring it to the House floor to expose such things by the "loony left." I wonder what they feel about "trivial and silly conspiracy theories" now.

And oh yeah, the other things you mention seem like fringe movements.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.
Where have we seen this before? (see 2000-2008 Democrats)
Sure, but as I remember it, it was mostly a fringe movement. People contemplated it over Iraq (which quite frankly has probably been the only thing worth a possible impeachment since 2000) but beyond that and maybe torture, nothing gained this amount of traction. I guess the problem is that most of these are in fact fringe movements as well, they just get a lot more traction within the Republican party which makes them look silly.

The funny part is that probably the most impeachable thing that Obama has done was kill an American citizen without due process or engage in a war without Congressional support (which Bush also ignored from time to time). And at least Kucinich is consistent b/c he actually tried to impeach Obama over Libya and he originated most of the bills to impeach Bush.
Wow. That's some selective memory. Kucinich and Wexler introduced a bill to impeach Bush. All democrats (minus 7 who didn't vote) voted to send it to the judiciary committee. Reasons ranged from Iraq to Katrina to 9/11 to Global Warming. Conyers files a resolution to look into impeaching Bush over Downing Street. 38 Dems cosponsored that. McKinney also submitted a bill calling for Bush's impeachment. Ellison, who brought a resolution to impeach Bush in the MInnesota State House got elected to the US house on the campaign promise of impeaching Bush.

The New Mexico Democratic Party adopted impeachment of Bush as part of their official platform. The Vermont State Democratic Committee voted to support impeachment of Bush. Democrat Hall, state rep of NH introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of Bush.
You do realize that sending it to committee is just about the same as voting against it. They essentially killed the bill by sending it to committee.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/06/12/democrats_scuttle_proposal_to_impeach_bush/

>By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president.

While fellow Democrats have frequently used the House floor to attack Bush for his policies on Iraq, healthcare, domestic surveillance, and many of Kucinich's other grievances, none has joined him in mounting an impeachment effort.

Democratic leaders have long objected to Kucinich's initiative, saying it would be divisive and in any case unsuccessful.

"The American people sent us there [to Congress] to get things done," Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters at a breakfast yesterday. "They didn't send us there to impeach the President."

No Democrats voted against the resolution, to send the measure to certain death in the Judiciary Committee, but 166 Republicans voted no - a tactic designed to force Democrats to address the measure publicly.

Their votes technically could have kept alive the possibility that the resolution could come up on the House floor, and Republicans wanted to expose Democrats for their "trivial and silly conspiracy theories," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House GOP leadership.

"There should be consequences when the Democratic leadership allows the House floor to be hijacked by the loony left," Steel said.
And the other examples I listed?

 
The head of the IRS knew what was going on at least since May of last year. Just reported on the radio via CBS news. Then the DOJ is seizing the phone records of the AP. The FBI thinks it's alright to read e-mails without a warrant courtesy of those right wing fanatics at the ACLU.

Sprinkle on top Benghazi with Fast and Furious.

Yeah, I would like a very serious investigation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.
Where have we seen this before? (see 2000-2008 Democrats)
Sure, but as I remember it, it was mostly a fringe movement. People contemplated it over Iraq (which quite frankly has probably been the only thing worth a possible impeachment since 2000) but beyond that and maybe torture, nothing gained this amount of traction. I guess the problem is that most of these are in fact fringe movements as well, they just get a lot more traction within the Republican party which makes them look silly.

The funny part is that probably the most impeachable thing that Obama has done was kill an American citizen without due process or engage in a war without Congressional support (which Bush also ignored from time to time). And at least Kucinich is consistent b/c he actually tried to impeach Obama over Libya and he originated most of the bills to impeach Bush.
Wow. That's some selective memory. Kucinich and Wexler introduced a bill to impeach Bush. All democrats (minus 7 who didn't vote) voted to send it to the judiciary committee. Reasons ranged from Iraq to Katrina to 9/11 to Global Warming. Conyers files a resolution to look into impeaching Bush over Downing Street. 38 Dems cosponsored that. McKinney also submitted a bill calling for Bush's impeachment. Ellison, who brought a resolution to impeach Bush in the MInnesota State House got elected to the US house on the campaign promise of impeaching Bush.

The New Mexico Democratic Party adopted impeachment of Bush as part of their official platform. The Vermont State Democratic Committee voted to support impeachment of Bush. Democrat Hall, state rep of NH introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of Bush.
You do realize that sending it to committee is just about the same as voting against it. They essentially killed the bill by sending it to committee.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/06/12/democrats_scuttle_proposal_to_impeach_bush/

>By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president.

While fellow Democrats have frequently used the House floor to attack Bush for his policies on Iraq, healthcare, domestic surveillance, and many of Kucinich's other grievances, none has joined him in mounting an impeachment effort.

Democratic leaders have long objected to Kucinich's initiative, saying it would be divisive and in any case unsuccessful.

"The American people sent us there [to Congress] to get things done," Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters at a breakfast yesterday. "They didn't send us there to impeach the President."

No Democrats voted against the resolution, to send the measure to certain death in the Judiciary Committee, but 166 Republicans voted no - a tactic designed to force Democrats to address the measure publicly.

Their votes technically could have kept alive the possibility that the resolution could come up on the House floor, and Republicans wanted to expose Democrats for their "trivial and silly conspiracy theories," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House GOP leadership.

"There should be consequences when the Democratic leadership allows the House floor to be hijacked by the loony left," Steel

said.
And the other examples I listed?

So completely dispel the majority of your argument, then you just ignore it. Heck, I just proved that most of the left in Washington had no interst in impeaching Bush. And as for the rest, as I added above, I'd consider state legislatures of the fringe movement when they can't really do anything as state legislatures.

And again, I'd say, what would Steel say about these "trivial and silly conspiracy theories" or the "loony right."

 
The boys who cried wolf. So quick to look for faults and partisan it up that you can't take them seriously. And then when the things go against them, they don't apologize or admit wrongdoing, just jump to the next perceived impeachable offense.
Where have we seen this before? (see 2000-2008 Democrats)
Sure, but as I remember it, it was mostly a fringe movement. People contemplated it over Iraq (which quite frankly has probably been the only thing worth a possible impeachment since 2000) but beyond that and maybe torture, nothing gained this amount of traction. I guess the problem is that most of these are in fact fringe movements as well, they just get a lot more traction within the Republican party which makes them look silly.

The funny part is that probably the most impeachable thing that Obama has done was kill an American citizen without due process or engage in a war without Congressional support (which Bush also ignored from time to time). And at least Kucinich is consistent b/c he actually tried to impeach Obama over Libya and he originated most of the bills to impeach Bush.
Wow. That's some selective memory. Kucinich and Wexler introduced a bill to impeach Bush. All democrats (minus 7 who didn't vote) voted to send it to the judiciary committee. Reasons ranged from Iraq to Katrina to 9/11 to Global Warming. Conyers files a resolution to look into impeaching Bush over Downing Street. 38 Dems cosponsored that. McKinney also submitted a bill calling for Bush's impeachment. Ellison, who brought a resolution to impeach Bush in the MInnesota State House got elected to the US house on the campaign promise of impeaching Bush.

The New Mexico Democratic Party adopted impeachment of Bush as part of their official platform. The Vermont State Democratic Committee voted to support impeachment of Bush. Democrat Hall, state rep of NH introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of Bush.
You do realize that sending it to committee is just about the same as voting against it. They essentially killed the bill by sending it to committee.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/06/12/democrats_scuttle_proposal_to_impeach_bush/

<blockquote>

>By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president.

While fellow Democrats have frequently used the House floor to attack Bush for his policies on Iraq, healthcare, domestic surveillance, and many of Kucinich's other grievances, none has joined him in mounting an impeachment effort.

Democratic leaders have long objected to Kucinich's initiative, saying it would be divisive and in any case unsuccessful.

"The American people sent us there [to Congress] to get things done," Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters at a breakfast yesterday. "They didn't send us there to impeach the President."

No Democrats voted against the resolution, to send the measure to certain death in the Judiciary Committee, but 166 Republicans voted no - a tactic designed to force Democrats to address the measure publicly.

Their votes technically could have kept alive the possibility that the resolution could come up on the House floor, and Republicans wanted to expose Democrats for their "trivial and silly conspiracy theories," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House GOP leadership.

"There should be consequences when the Democratic leadership allows the House floor to be hijacked by the loony left," Stee

lsaid.
And the other examples I listed?
So completely dispel the majority of your argument, then you just ignore it. Heck, I just proved that most of the left in Washington had no interst in impeaching Bush. And as for the rest, as I added above, I'd consider state legislatures of the fringe movement when they can't really do anything as state legislatures.

And again, I'd say, what would Steel say about these "trivial and silly conspiracy theories" or the "loony right."

----------------(not sure why it's not putting the above in your quote block)----------------

In addition to Kucinich and Wexler, the bill had an additional 10 co-sponsors. That's about 5% of the Dems in the house that were in favor of that bill. Hardly a fringe movement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny that sporthenry is defending an actual impeachment charge while trying to mock Republicams who haven't even gone that far. Bravo sir. That's chutzpah.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top