Obama impeachment bill now in Congress

[eflatminor]

I suspect he is an embareassed republican brand of LIbertarian.

You suspect incorrectly.

I'm guessing it was the Republicans that most supported the WPA. Feel better?

 

[Avorysuds]

the right liked the changes right until a non republican won office

And the progressives (you) hated the changes until a Dem was in office.. Now its more war all the time!!!!

Funny watching both sides make an ass of themselves and thing they sound smart while doing it.

Tell me again how Paul is crazy lol.

 

[Avatar4321]

Holy freakin' smokes. This place is like an asylum. Is everything distorted and stretched and twisted and scorched until it is unrecognizable?

I mean, come on, I know politics is bad but a few days back here after a long absence is like walking into bizzaro world. The people HERE think Washington is crazy?

Washington is crazy.

But thats because the people are. If we fix ourselves, Washington will fix itself.

 

[eflatminor]

So.....Bush should have been impeached? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal?

Congress was illegal in those cases. Rather than voting for or against war, they voted to give the President the right to determine if war was necessary. It was a monumental passing of the buck and there is no room in the Constitution that allows for that.

 

[Avorysuds]

I have an Idea, lets all complain about how the other side keeps abusing the powers our side gave both sides when they passed their laws.

 

[Sweet Willy]

it should be noted again, that only TWO presidents have broken this quasi-law. Clinton and Obama. Nothing will come of impeachment proceedings. It's all a pony show.

Don't forge the elephants. I like the elephants to be in the pony show too!

But come on, really, there aren't any impeachment proceedings going on here, this is another baloney topic headline that isn't even remotely true. An NC rep has basically decided to remind us that impeachment exist. "Obama Impeachment Bill in Congress" is a phony line dreamed up by the OP for fun or something. Why is anyone even engaging half this stuff here? I mean, I guess I am, and I guess I might fall into the trap of suddenly beginning to call people stupid .... and then they can call me stupid and then little green lights go out and come on .....

Yeah... a little bit of interesting stuff here butt seriously, this joint is over run with panicked frantics babbling non sense. As much as I do buy into open dialog that fosters understanding, I just don't see the point in this atmosphere. No one here is listening to each other. People are posting absurdities for shock value and name calling opportunities. No wonder the place is so popular!

 

[Inthemiddle]

So.....Bush should have been impeached? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal?

Congress was illegal in those cases. Rather than voting for or against war, they voted to give the President the right to determine if war was necessary. It was a monumental passing of the buck and there is no room in the Constitution that allows for that.

Okay, so when Bush did it, it was Congress that should have been impeached, for giving him the option. When Obama does it, it's him who should be impeached for exercising the same option.

 

[amrchaos]

Ever president has follwoed the war powers act of receiving congressional approval over the 60 day mark except two presidents. Clinton and Obama.

He broke this quasi-law, like it or not. He did not get approval from congress.

What is Congress going to do?

Play politics with it, gain as many votes to stay in office and then.......NOTHING.

And they wonder why people become fanatics for Ron Paul. Listen to what he is saying and consider the crap that our politicians do on a daily basis.

 

[eflatminor]

So.....Bush should have been impeached? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal?

Congress was illegal in those cases. Rather than voting for or against war, they voted to give the President the right to determine if war was necessary. It was a monumental passing of the buck and there is no room in the Constitution that allows for that.

Okay, so when Bush did it, it was Congress that should have been impeached, for giving him the option. When Obama does it, it's him who should be impeached for exercising the same option.

You'll not put hypocrisy in my mouth. It was NOT okay what Bush did. Secondly, what Bush and his Congress did was a different offense that what Obama and his Congress did. Both are impeachable offenses.

 

[BreezeWood]

it should be noted again, that only TWO presidents have broken this quasi-law. Clinton and Obama. Nothing will come of impeachment proceedings. It's all a pony show.

only Two ??? how about Truman and Eisenhower, the joint venture -

Korean War

In the United States, the war was initially described by President Harry S. Truman as a "police action" as it was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations

The Truman administration also faced internal criticism regarding its commitment to anticommunism at home. Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had recently begun his infamous hunt for communists within the U. S. Government.

Not to mention all the other "war making" Asian and S American wars conducted by the CIA and every Administration since WW II.

Who are you kidding ???

 

[TakeAStepBack]

War Powers Act passed congress in 1973 there, time traveler.

 

[eflatminor]

only Two ??? how about Truman and Eisenhower, the joint venture -

The WPA was enacted well after those presidents served.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ever president has follwoed the war powers act of receiving congressional approval over the 60 day mark except two presidents. Clinton and Obama.

He broke this quasi-law, like it or not. He did not get approval from congress.

What is Congress going to do?

Play politics with it, gain as many votes to stay in office and then.......NOTHING.

And they wonder why people become fanatics for Ron Paul. Listen to what he is saying and consider the crap that our politicians do on a daily basis.

The congress is also in neglect on this one, absolutely. They voted against the initiative, and then voted against defunding the libya intervention.

This should have been addressed already if the impotent congress were to have any back bone and quit sitting by as spectators. Obama broke the law, congress didn't do shit about it. This is a pony show from the house rep in S.C perhaps his constituency was twisting him to submit something. Either way, nothing will come of this.

 

[BreezeWood]

War Powers Act passed congress in 1973 there, time traveler.

US Constitution - September 17, 1787

Section. 8.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

ok, and all the conflicts till 1973 were just fine by the Republicans ???

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So.....Bush should have been impeached? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal?

Congress was illegal in those cases. Rather than voting for or against war, they voted to give the President the right to determine if war was necessary. It was a monumental passing of the buck and there is no room in the Constitution that allows for that.

.....Especially when BU$HCO wasn't.....

.....forthcoming!!!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Stick to one here, breeze. this isn't a partisan issue. The conflicts that came after WWII became more steady from the exec adn dodging congressional authority by naming acts of war as something other than acts of war. Which is what the WPA was all about. Making sure the president didn't commit to any long term military action named anything besides war, without congressional authority.

I'm against every action since WWII on a constitutional basis, but since we're not addressing that, we're addressing the WPA of 1973, lets try and stay within the topic at hand.

Obama broke the law and the offense is impeachable. but again, it isn't going to happen.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ever president has follwoed the war powers act of receiving congressional approval over the 60 day mark except two presidents. Clinton and Obama.

He broke this quasi-law, like it or not. He did not get approval from congress.

What is Congress going to do?

Play politics with it, gain as many votes to stay in office and then.......NOTHING.

Welcome to....
2010!!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Can someone give Shaman a pencil instead of crayons already?

 

[Inthemiddle]

You'll not put hypocrisy in my mouth. It was NOT okay what Bush did. Secondly, what Bush and his Congress did was a different offense that what Obama and his Congress did. Both are impeachable offenses.

What is the difference in composition between "this" Congress and "that" Congress? "This" Congress cannot rationally impeach Obama for exercising a law, because most of them were part of "that" Congress, that embraced the then President exercising the law.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You'll not put hypocrisy in my mouth. It was NOT okay what Bush did. Secondly, what Bush and his Congress did was a different offense that what Obama and his Congress did. Both are impeachable offenses.

What is the difference in composition between "this" Congress and "that" Congress? "This" Congress cannot rationally impeach Obama for exercising a law, because most of them were part of "that" Congress, that embraced the then President exercising the law.

What are you blathering about?
The problem here is that Obama BROKE the law, therefore his "exercise" was that of a high crime with a potential impeachment. (that will never happen).