Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want to see his presidency through to the bitter end. I want to watch destroyed whatever Barry O' Sermon on the Mount fantasy all the idiots that voted for this POS TUS believed in.
Good stories for the grandkids.
The seeds of our destruction were already planted when we started really trying to crank down on immigration. We don't have enough people in our country making more then 2 babies per couple, to sustain our economy for more then 10 years.
That isn't Obama, it isn't Bush, it wasn't Clinton. It was the White House, The Senate, and the House of Representatives over the last 30 years that did this. All of them, both parties.
Unless we start immigration to keep our population growth rate at higher then 2, we are doomed, and our political process won't be to blame, it'll be laziness and a lack of ability to deal with problems.
That is truly laughable. Whose talking points are you reading from?
There is more than enough "evidence" for impeachment. There is a long list of impeachable offenses. How about "failure to execute the laws of the land" for starters. One of the primary responsibilities of the President is to see that the laws are upheld and enforced (through the Justice Department). He has failed to enforce laws that he doesn't like. That is not his option.
How about changing law? How many times has he unilaterally changed the ACA?
The House of Representatives is doing it's job. The biggest bottleneck is the Senate, controlled (let me remind you) by DEMOCRATS.
Oversight, is one of the jobs of the House of Representatives. It's unfortunate that the Obama administration has made it necessary to spend much time investigating abuses (like the IRS targeting of conservative organizations) of power, and of other "scandals" like Benghazi, "Fast and Furious," and many others that are ongoing. But, that is their job. It's part of the system of checks and balances that the founders wisely designed into our system.
If there is such a mountain of evidence then your hero's in the House need to do their job, are you holding them accountable for not doing their job, are you calling for their impeachment? No, I thought not, just more selective outrage.
Rep. Gowdy was not arguing in favor of impeachment, he was arguing in favor of passing the resolution authorizing the lawsuit over Mr. Obama's misuse of executive power. This is not willful ignorance, it is acceptance of the reality that there is no hard evidence of Mr. Obama's involvement in things like the IRS scandal.
While Mr. Obama's abuse of executive power in enforcement is wrong, it is not an impeachable offense.
The seeds of our destruction were already planted when we started really trying to crank down on immigration. We don't have enough people in our country making more then 2 babies per couple, to sustain our economy for more then 10 years.
That isn't Obama, it isn't Bush, it wasn't Clinton. It was the White House, The Senate, and the House of Representatives over the last 30 years that did this. All of them, both parties.
Unless we start immigration to keep our population growth rate at higher then 2, we are doomed, and our political process won't be to blame, it'll be laziness and a lack of ability to deal with problems.
Don't agree with the entirety of your post's premise but the above underlined phrase is a good title for it on many levels given the second bolded statement.
Rep. Gowdy was not arguing in favor of impeachment, he was arguing in favor of passing the resolution authorizing the lawsuit over Mr. Obama's misuse of executive power. This is not willful ignorance, it is acceptance of the reality that there is no hard evidence of Mr. Obama's involvement in things like the IRS scandal.
While Mr. Obama's abuse of executive power in enforcement is wrong, it is not an impeachable offense.
This is true, but he clearly outlined the abuses of this President which are impeachable offenses. Did he not? He was talking about the unilateral changing of law, and failure to enforce the laws passed by Congress.
Let the lame duck hobble away after serving-out his term. This is what we've done for all the others (except Nixon), and it's what we'll do for the next corporate brown nose when he/she is elected to the presidency. In the mean time, let's quit pretending that there is any substantive difference between The Democratic Party and The Republican Party.
This is true, but he clearly outlined the abuses of this President which are impeachable offenses. Did he not? He was talking about the unilateral changing of law, and failure to enforce the laws passed by Congress.
I don't agree that those are impeachable offenses, because they are political in nature. Perhaps I should say I don't agree that they should be impeachable offenses. Impeachment of Presidents for political purposes has failed twice, and the only other time it was about to be used in earnest was with Nixon - who resigned in advance of impeachment. Nixon's offenses were politically motivated but were not political in nature - they were criminal in nature - and I suspect impeachment would have succeeded in that case.
The Congress should certainly respond strongly to Mr. Obama's excessive behavior, but they should respond in a way that is likely to succeed. That is currently impossible legislatively due to Sen. Reid's iron fist control of the Senate. At present the lawsuit is all they have available - whether it will be a useful endeavor remains to be seen. I tend to hope it is useful, as we clearly need some mechanism short of impeachment to compel intransigent Presidents to be more cooperative.
If the GOP should take control of the Senate in 2014, they should work hard to pass useful legislation - compromise solutions to actual problems (like the ACA), and let Mr. Obama own his veto or learn to work with the opposition.
"He hasn't done anything impeachable?" Are you serious? Or, should I ask, "Are you that blind?"
How about failure to enforce duly enacted laws? How about failure to enforce our immigration laws? How about changing laws unilaterally, on his own, bypassing Congress? (I refer of course to the ACA). How about failure to uphold the Constitution?
Impeachment is only something that should be done in serious situations. If it becomes political, then it's lost its purpose. You don't simply impeach somebody you don't like.
To all those opposed to impeachment, how do you think Obama should be dealt with?
What is the point of impeachment, when there is such a power struggle going on in politics today.
Impeachment is pointless.
I would like to see a public lynching and hanging, but then that would make me racist all because Obama happens to be ½ black, raised by a white woman and never the son of a slave.
I assume most of you wouldn't let a petulant child get away with bad behavior, so I'm sincerely asking, what is your solution to Obama's gross misconduct while occupying the office of the Presidency?
I hope conservatives attempt to impeach President Obama over their insane conspiracy theories about his lawlessness.
It will show people once again how insane conservatives have become.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't agree with the entirety of your post's premise but the above underlined phrase is a good title for it on many levels given the second bolded statement.
