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

[sporthenry]

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.

I found 4 cosponsors http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE01345: So 2 in addition to Kucinich and Wexler. And even if it was 5%, I'd still call it a fringe movement especially when your party almost unanimously votes to go let it die in committee.

 

[Rayderr]

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.

I found 4 cosponsors http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE01345: So 2 in addition to Kucinich and Wexler. And even if it was 5%, I'd still call it a fringe movement especially when your party almost unanimously votes to go let it die in committee.

Try this.

So what percentage of an elected party in a body of gov't does it take to no longer be a "fringe movement"?

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

Where did I defend the impeachment charge? TIA.

Bad choice of words. Downplaying is more accurate.

 

[sporthenry]

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.

Where did I defend the impeachment charge? TIA.

Bad choice of words. Downplaying is more accurate.

Well I said that when people were talking about impeaching Bush, it seemed more of the guys like Kucinich who were pushing for it. As far as downplaying it, I'm not the one who brought up the Bill. I was just explaining how Congress works when they want to kill a bill, they just send it to committee. If that is downplaying it, then so be it. If Republicans did the same, I'd say it was the same thing, it just seems there are a ton more of higher ranking Republicans who either mention impeachment or things like Watergate which would indicate it was worthy of impeachment.

Of course, I'm guilty of the recency phenomenon b/c my memory ain't what it used to be but most impeachment talk with Bush seemed more symbolic than actually trying to impeach him. Maybe that is wrong, but when Democrats voted to kill a bill, I'd say they weren't serious. Heck, if you want to bring up Kucinich as being serious, then also mention the guy was thinking about impeaching Obama over Libya so it isn't like he hasn't been consistent.

 

[Todd Andrews]

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.

What is your point? Bush was a hideously bad failure of a President who broke the entire world and now sits around in a daze painting doggie pictures.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

What is your point? Bush was a hideously bad failure of a President who broke the entire world and now sits around in a daze painting doggie pictures.

Wow. Next time someone needs an explanation of "completely missing the point and going off into loony land", I'm going to link them to your post.

 

[Todd Andrews]

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.

What is your point? Bush was a hideously bad failure of a President who broke the entire world and now sits around in a daze painting doggie pictures.

Wow. Next time someone needs an explanation of "completely missing the point and going off into loony land", I'm going to link them to your post.

When someone needs an example of KooKtardery I always link them to you, good buddy.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

I guess it's not so far fetched now, is it? Let's revisit this later.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

What is your point? Bush was a hideously bad failure of a President who broke the entire world and now sits around in a daze painting doggie pictures.

Wow. Next time someone needs an explanation of "completely missing the point and going off into loony land", I'm going to link them to your post.

When someone needs an example of KooKtardery I always link them to you, good buddy.

Yeah.....ooooookaaaayyyy then.

 

[sporthenry]

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.

I guess it's not so far fetched now, is it? Let's revisit this later.

See, we'll only hear about it if something actually comes up. I'll do my best to bump it every few months if that is what you want.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

I guess it's not so far fetched now, is it? Let's revisit this later.

See, we'll only hear about it if something actually comes up. I'll do my best to bump it every few months if that is what you want.

I was actually responding to 17 seconds implication that this is a "low-level" management oversight.

 

[timschochet]

Is Obama continuing the practice of torturing prisoners at Guantanamo? That, to me, would be an impeachable offense, as it was for Bush.

 

[sporthenry]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/chaffetz-doesnt-rule-out-impeachment-for-obama-over-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

 

[Hang 10]

In scandal-plagued Washington, lawmaker struggles to keep track of issues

With the rumbling of so much scandal ripping through Washington this week—woeful stories aboutBenghazi, the DOJ subpoena of journalists' phone records and the IRS unfairly targeting conservative groups—it's hard to keep track of all the terrible.

Even lawmakers sometimes struggle.

At Rep. Steny Hoyer's weekly meeting with reporters on Tuesday, the Maryland Democrat was asked if he was concerned about the DOJ seizing phone records from Associated Press journalists working in the House press gallery in the Capitol building.

Hoyer's answer was well-delivered: Articulate, clear, firm and precise.

One problem: He responded to the wrong scandal.

"The IRS activity was inappropriate, inconsistent with our policies and practices as a country, very concerning, needs to be reviewed carefully," Hoyer, one of the top-ranking House Democrats, said in response to a question from Fox News' Chad Pergram about the DOJ. "We need to ensure that this does not happen again, and we need to find out how long it continued, when it was stopped. It is my understanding—there was a front-page story on this at the [Washington] Post—it's my understanding that [iRS official] Lois Lerner, who was apparently overseeing this, at some point in time found out about this and said ..."

When Hoyer named Lerner, Pergram interrupted.

"We're talking about two things," Pergram, who apparently had not heard the first mention of the IRS, said from across the table, "You said Lois Lerner and the IRS."

Another reporter sitting closer to Hoyer, Public Radio International's Todd Zwillich, learned over and said softly, "He's talking about the AP story."

"Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, excuse me," Hoyer said, pausing briefly. "Whatever happened, we need to find out why it happened. But clearly it should not have happened. I don't know enough about whether there was a warrant sought."

Boom. He nailed it!

But Hoyer wasn't finished.

"I don't know fully the rationalization or justification that was being used, but the president's statement that it was outrageous, that there was no place for it and that they have to be held fully accountable is a statement in which I agree," Hoyer went on to say.

But President Barack Obama didn't comment about the DOJ story. And he certainly didn't call it "outrageous." In fact, the White House has declined to say much of anything about the DOJ investigation. Was Hoyer talking about the IRS story again? Yup.

Hoyer continued: "He then points out in another statement with which I agree: 'I can tell you that if you've got the IRS operating in anything less ...'" Hoyer's voice trailed off. "Oh I keep going IRS. I'm really fired up on the IRS."

Hoyer regrouped and returned to his answer about the DOJ.

"I don't have the president's statement on that, but I'm sure the president's statement on that was very much like that regarding the IRS," he said. (It wasn't.) "Neither of the activities is justifiable, outside the ambit in the case of the AP of having a legal mechanism where an interception of communications would have been warranted or justified by a court."

Now for the homestretch. Almost there!

"The House needs to look at this," Hoyer continued. "We need to find out exactly what happened and we need to make sure—that's why I'm confusing the two—that those folks who were involved in this are held accountable if in fact there was wrongdoing. Clearly we should not have either House lines, but particular the lines of the Fourth Estate—the press—subject to being intercepted without knowledge and without court oversight."

And with that, he moved on to other questions.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scandal-plagued-washington-lawmaker-struggles-keep-track-issues-175311063.html

 

[Fennis]

its gonna be Benghazi.

GOP-led House votes to establish select committee on Benghazi

 

[Fennis]

get your copy of Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment by Andrew C McCarthy on Amazon now

 

[tommyboy]

There will be no need to impeach. He'll be just about worthless lame duck in 6 months

 

[Rayderr]

its gonna be Benghazi.

GOP-led House votes to establish select committee on Benghazi

Not seeing the word impeachment in there.

 

[pantagrapher]

This is a craven attempt to energize the democratic base.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

We can dream of impeachment, but Boehner's nowhere near that dumb.

 

[Fennis]

its gonna be Benghazi.

GOP-led House votes to establish select committee on Benghazi

Not seeing the word impeachment in there.

keep watching, you'll be seeing it come out of there.

 

[Rayderr]

its gonna be Benghazi.

GOP-led House votes to establish select committee on Benghazi

Not seeing the word impeachment in there.

keep watching, you'll be seeing it come out of there.

Still not there.

 

[MaxThreshold]

its gonna be Benghazi.

GOP-led House votes to establish select committee on Benghazi

Not seeing the word impeachment in there.

keep watching, you'll be seeing it come out of there.

Still not there.

How about now?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/09/is-a-drive-to-impeach-barack-obama-on-its-way/

If you’re looking for some beach reading this summer, you might pick up a copy of this soon-to-be-released book: “Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment,” by National Review writer Andrew McCarthy. It’s hitting bookstores at the perfect time, just as John Boehner has appointed a select committee to investigate Benghazi, and will no doubt be required reading on Capitol Hill and at the Fox News studios.

Is it reasonable to surmise that a move to impeach Barack Obama is a realistic possibility?

It isn’t that no one has talked about impeaching Obama before, because they have. But for the last five years, impeachment has been the purview of the nuttier corners of the right — the conspiracist web sites, the chain emails, the ranting radio hosts. For much of that time, the complaints weren’t so much about specific alleged misdeeds as Obama’s fundamental illegitimacy. Impeach him because he isn’t American. Impeach him because ACORN and the New Black Panthers stole the election for him. Impeach him because while other presidents hired people known as “White House staff,” when this president does it they’re “czars” wielding unconstitutional powers. They could certainly give you a list of particulars if you asked, but what it came down to was that Barack Obama was, well, Barack Obama.

But now we have the Benghazi select committee, and a select committee is what you form when there may be crimes and misdemeanors to uncover. It has no other business to distract it, and it will be led by Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor who excels at channeling conservatives’ outrage.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean that Boehner or the party establishment he represents want impeachment, not by any means. They realize what a political disaster it was when they did it in 1998, and they understand that the effects would likely be similar if it happened again. But there are multiple Republican members of Congress who have at least toyed with the idea, and the committee’s hearings could build pressure in the Republican base for it.

How would that play out? The select committee hearings will provide an institutional pathway and the requisite media attention necessary to air all sorts of dramatic allegations against the administration (supported by evidence or not). They’ll get non-stop coverage on Fox News, where some personalities are already calling for impeachment. Conservative radio hosts will talk of little else for months. Spurred on by their media, base Republicans will begin pressuring their representatives, in phone calls and emails and town meetings and wherever those members of Congress go. And remember that your average Republican member comes from a safe Republican district, where the only political threat is from the right. While it may be too late for the 2014 election, potential primary candidates for 2016 will start popping up, saying, “Congressman X didn’t have the guts to impeach Barack Obama, and he won’t have the guts to go after Hillary Clinton. Elect me, and I will.”

All that would make many in the House conclude that coming out in favor of impeachment is the safest political play to make. And isn’t in the logical extension of everything they’ve been saying for the last five years about this socialist anti-American liberty-destroying president?

In all seriousness, an impeachment drive would be, in many ways, another iteration of the central conflict of this period of our political history, the one between a Tea Party pushing the GOP to ever more radical tactics and a party establishment warning of political catastrophe if they go too far. The GOP establishment didn’t want to shut down the government or cause a debt ceiling crisis, but they got pushed into them and didn’t get out until the political costs became undeniable. They’ll warn that impeachment would be a terrible mistake, and they might persuade their brethren to hold back. But it won’t be easy.

The biggest problem the pro-impeachment forces would face is that the Benghazi committee is unlikely to produce any particular action by Obama that they could point to and say, this is the crime for which he must be impeached. The real threat is that it may well produce something that’s good enough for them, even if the rest of the country is unconvinced. After all, even before anyone heard the name Monica Lewinsky, Republicans in the House were preparing to impeach Bill Clinton. All they needed was the controversy that took it from a fringe idea to a mainstream Republican idea, and then the momentum made it unstoppable.

 

[timschochet]

In all seriousness, an impeachment drive would be, in many ways, another iteration of the central conflict of this period of our political history, the one between a Tea Party pushing the GOP to ever more radical tactics and a party establishment warning of political catastrophe if they go too far. The GOP establishment didn’t want to shut down the government or cause a debt ceiling crisis, but they got pushed into them and didn’t get out until the political costs became undeniable. They’ll warn that impeachment would be a terrible mistake, and they might persuade their brethren to hold back. But it won’t be easy.

 

[tommyboy]

i think the tin foil hats are coming out on the left. there will not be an impeachment

 

[Rayderr]

i think the tin foil hats are coming out on the left. there will not be an impeachment

This is more about damaging a HIllary run in 2016 than anything.

 

[tommyboy]

Strategy would be to embarrass obama for two yrs by forcing him to veto all kinds of reforms.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Strategy would be to embarrass obama for two yrs by forcing him to veto all kinds of reforms.

I know, right?

Let the Republicans pass the Ryan budget and send it to his desk. Let's see a repeal of Obamacare make it through Congress. It'll be just like the government shutdown! What could go wrong?

 

[Fennis]

(Warning NSFW site)

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, “no mas.”

Without borders, there is no nation. Obama knows this. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. This is his fundamental transformation of America. It’s the only promise he has kept. Discrediting the price paid for America’s exceptionalism over our history, he’s given false hope and taxpayer’s change to millions of foreign nationals who want to sneak into our country illegally. Because of Obama’s purposeful dereliction of duty an untold number of illegal immigrants will kick off their shoes and come on in, competing against Americans for our jobs and limited public services. There is no end in sight as our president prioritizes parties over doing the job he was hired by voters to do. Securing our borders is obviously fundamental here; it goes without saying that it is his job.

The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt; many cities are on the verge of insolvency; our overrun healthcare system, police forces, social services, schools, and our unsustainably generous welfare-state programs are stretched to the max. We average Americans know that. So why has this issue been allowed to be turned upside down with our “leader” creating such unsafe conditions while at the same time obstructing any economic recovery by creating more dependents than he allows producers? His friendly wealthy bipartisan elite, who want cheap foreign labor and can afford for themselves the best “border security” money can buy in their own exclusive communities, do not care that Obama tapped us out.

Have faith that average American workers – native-born and wonderful legal immigrants of all races, backgrounds, and political parties – do care because we’re the ones getting screwed as we’re forced to follow all our government’s rules while others are not required to do so. Many now feel like strangers in their own land. It’s the American worker who is forced to deal with Obama’s latest crisis with our hard-earned tax dollars while middle class wages decrease, sustainable jobs get more scarce, and communities become unrecognizable and bankrupted due to Obama’s flood of illegal immigration.

Who’s looking out for the American workers? Who has their backs? Who fights for them?

We should.

President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It’s not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution’s role in protecting our rights.

It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.

The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

(Warning NSFW site)

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

...

This is wrong of me (so wrong) but she looks good in that pic.

 

[Boston]

An article by Pat Buchanan about impeachment that every GOPer should read...

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan.html

 

[Fennis]

(Warning NSFW site)

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

...

This is wrong of me (so wrong) but she looks good in that pic.

If that's wrong, I don't want to be right. She's a good looking older broad.

 

[Fennis]

An article by Pat Buchanan about impeachment that every GOPer should read...

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan.html

I'm pretty sure the second sign of the Apocalypse is Pat Buchanan is the voice of reason.

 

[poopdawg]

(Warning NSFW site)

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

...

This is wrong of me (so wrong) but she looks good in that pic.

Let's see the Left make a better one of those... - Al Bundy

 

[drummer]

This thread is the pool floaty for Max.

 

[skol asylum]

Sarah would have been a big hit in Germany around 1930 with her hate and fear mongering.

 

[timschochet]

Sarah still on the warpath. 58% of Republicans now favor impeachment.

 

[Rayderr]

Sarah still on the warpath. 58% of Republicans now favor impeachment.

57% actually. But I find the 35% of independents and 13% of democrats in favor to be interesting.

But all a moot point since Boehner has come out and said there will be no impeachment by the house.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sarah still on the warpath. 58% of Republicans now favor impeachment.

57% actually. But I find the 35% of independents and 13% of democrats in favor to be interesting.But all a moot point since Boehner has come out and said there will be no impeachment by the house.

Three things:

1) Boehner has very little control over his caucus.

2) It's possible the lawsuit will get thrown out specifically because Congress already has a way of addressing their concerns via impeachment.

3) From the look of things, Obama's just getting started with the Executive Orders. The GOP isn't going to like it at all if he gets into Bush Jr. territory.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Seriously. This is what our government has come to, paranoid fundraiser letters and emails based on the hope that the opposition party will impeach. This is like some horrible passive aggressive relationship you just cannot get out of.

 

[greenroom]

So is this where the Dems are looking to impeach Pres Obama? At least that is what is being relayed by the GOP. It's the Dems that want to impeach!....lol

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

Stock market moving along, 401Ks for the top 5-10% in this country has fattened up the last 2-3 years, not many American soldiers in harms way, housing is recovering in bigger cities where more people live, yeah it sounds like a good time to impeach the guy.

 

[Rayderr]

So is this where the Dems are looking to impeach Pres Obama? At least that is what is being relayed by the GOP. It's the Dems that want to impeach!....lol

Looking to impeach, no. Hoping that he gets impeached, yes.. Impeaching Obama would be a huge tactical mistake for the GOP and would pretty much guarantee a Dem win in 2016. So, yeah, they are hoping it happens.

 

[badmojo1006]

(Warning NSFW site)

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

...

This is wrong of me (so wrong) but she looks good in that pic.

She looks stoned in that picture

 

[Sabertooth]

(Warning NSFW site)

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

...

This is wrong of me (so wrong) but she looks good in that pic.

She looks stoned in that picture

Even better.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So is this where the Dems are looking to impeach Pres Obama? At least that is what is being relayed by the GOP. It's the Dems that want to impeach!....lol

Looking to impeach, no. Hoping that he gets impeached, yes.. Impeaching Obama would be a huge tactical mistake for the GOP and would pretty much guarantee a Dem win in 2016. So, yeah, they are hoping it happens.

Impeaching Obama would probably be a tactical mistake by the Republicans. The more important point, though, is that it's crazy and sets a horrible precedent. "The guy is making policy decisions that I don't like" should not be good grounds for impeachment. If the Republicans ever get their act together and win another presidential election, they will not look back fondly on the decision to create a parliamentary government through the impeachment process.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

(Warning NSFW site)

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

...

This is wrong of me (so wrong) but she looks good in that pic.

She looks stoned in that picture

True, a caption contest would be good there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So is this where the Dems are looking to impeach Pres Obama? At least that is what is being relayed by the GOP. It's the Dems that want to impeach!....lol

Looking to impeach, no. Hoping that he gets impeached, yes.. Impeaching Obama would be a huge tactical mistake for the GOP and would pretty much guarantee a Dem win in 2016. So, yeah, they are hoping it happens.

Impeaching Obama would probably be a tactical mistake by the Republicans. The more important point, though, is that it's crazy and sets a horrible precedent. "The guy is making policy decisions that I don't like" should not be good grounds for impeachment. If the Republicans ever get their act together and win another presidential election, they will not look back fondly on the decision to create a parliamentary government through the impeachment process.

Clinton went and drove everyone over the edge by banging an intern and then all the other stuff that went with it. Great president, personal disaster, Obama's the opposite, great family man but presidential trainwreck. Considering how things stood in 2008 the GOP could not have hoped for better.

 

[skol asylum]

Demographics alone are going to make it harder and harder for the GOP to have electoral victories going forward, especially if they keep reinforcing their small tent philosophy.