*A well argued case for impeaching Obama

[JoeBlam]

The Solyndra swindle alone should be grounds for impeachment.

 

[Freewill]

What does this have to do with ‘impeachment’?

Where is your ‘evidence’ Obama committed a ‘crime.’

As with teleprompters and birth certificates, ‘impeachment’ is yet another pathetic, desperate example of the partisan right’s inability to accept defeat, the will of the voters, and the blame they deserve.

Here's your evidence to which you will ignore, just another brown skinned boy killed.

Al-Awlaki Asks Why 16-Year-Old Grandson Was Killed by Drone Strike

He was not a threat, direct or otherwise to America. Neither were those around him. The administrations excuse? It was that the boy should have had a better father. Cold, damn cold bastards.

Neither was Iraq.

Liberal BS. So you justify the killing of an innocent boy, for no damn reason, with a war that was voted on by both sides of the House? Really? You want to always measure Obama by Bush, that is just too funny.

 

[rightwinger]

Top reasons to mpeach Obama

1. He is a Muslim
2. No valid birth certificate
3. Refusal to release college records
4. Excessive TelePrompTer reading
5. He is a socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist
6. Excessive golf play

Hey it doesn't meet the standard of a blowjob, but you go with what ya got

Reductio ad absurdum the usual crutch of those on the losing end.

The drone program and the UNCONSTUTIONAL killing of Americans should be enough but it won't be because no one appears to care about brown people, kinda of funny in a sick way.

Terrorists fear Obama

Impeach him for that

 

[velvtacheeze]

Didn't you oafish bumpkins learn your lesson from the flopped & failed attempted coup against Clinton?

Conservative stupidity ceaselessly marches on.

Fail at Clinton impeachment, lost the Iraq War, followed by the Bush Recession, and the MCain't and Romneybot Presidential campaigns. Knock it off.

 

[bodecea]

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority. Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”-George Will

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

You guys are really getting desperate, aren't you?

Getting? Beer gate...Mustard Gate...Dog Gate...Flag Gate....just a few of the silly outrages we've seen.

 

[velvtacheeze]

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

No it isn't. It's a good representation of the desperation, hand-wringing, and sore-loser-mentality of the Republican party.

For there to be a 'loser', does there not have to be a winner?

I see no winners in the disaster called Obama's America

-Geaux

Wives and children of US soldiers disagree. We'd be bogged down in Iraq, Syria and at war with Iran by now if McCain or Romney had won.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority. Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”-George Will

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

No, it is not a well argued case for impeachment. Even the author of the article doesn't say he should be impeached.

That is something you added...baselessly I might add.

 

[Geaux4it]

No it isn't. It's a good representation of the desperation, hand-wringing, and sore-loser-mentality of the Republican party.

For there to be a 'loser', does there not have to be a winner?

I see no winners in the disaster called Obama's America

-Geaux

Wives and children of US soldiers disagree. We'd be bogged down in Iraq, Syria and at war with Iran by now if McCain or Romney had won.

Wow, you use a crystal ball or cards and incense to come to that conclusion?

-Geaux

 

[regent]

Impeachment is a political move not a legal one, impeachment is clothed, however, to look like a legal process. No president to date has been removed from office by the process, but the threat caused one president to resign. On some occasions the threat is used on presidents that seem stronger than the other party would like, i.e. Truman. A "high crime" is not an American crime, it was a British term and has no definition in America. One of the crimes Johnson was charged with was yelling at the Congress in a loud voice.
Just more politics.