Should Obama be impeached (a poll with an extra difficulty level)

[RadiomanATL]

meh. You are boring me. I come here to be entertained and the "derp" collection you have, while it may be entertaining to you, is not exactly my cup of tea. I prefer the more refined comedy of poop and fart jokes.

2Parties, in the immortal words of Eric Cartman, what's the big fuckin' deal bitch?

What? I'm going to bed. Was hoping for some funnier stuff from someone here (raging about mexicans taking their jobs, Obama being black, the end of the world etc.). USMB has been disappointing lately. Your Dos Equis thing was the best one because those commercials kick-ass. Serious business threads like this are boring as hell and 4chan has never been funny...

 

[Article 15]

meh. You are boring me. I come here to be entertained and the "derp" collection you have, while it may be entertaining to you, is not exactly my cup of tea. I prefer the more refined comedy of poop and fart jokes.

2Parties, in the immortal words of Eric Cartman, what's the big fuckin' deal bitch?

What? I'm going to bed. Was hoping for some funnier stuff from someone here (raging about mexicans taking their jobs, Obama being black, the end of the world etc.). USMB has been disappointing lately. Your Dos Equis thing was the best one because those commercials kick-ass. Serious business threads like this are boring as hell and 4chan has never been funny...

Nuttin' it's just that you're usually cool.

Isn't that the pedo site>?

 

[Article 15]

They wouldn't prosecute a durr for a little hurr durr derp, right?

 

[RadiomanATL]

They wouldn't prosecute a durr for a little hurr durr derp, right?

I don't know, but I think I'm going to go herp-a-derp in my dreams now.

Later.

 

[Kalam]

In other words, no herp-a-derp.

Herp-a-derp.

 

[Ozmar]

There are no actual grounds for impeachment. Based on that alone, I would have to say no.

 

[xotoxi]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

this is stupid politics

impeachment is serious...if clinton can't get impeached for perjury...what exactly has obama done?

Clinton was impeached.

no he was not. he was CHARGED in the house and acquitted in the senate

thus, not formally impeached

Wrong. He was not found guilty in the Impeachment trial. BUT there was a trial. Just like with Andrew Johnson.

 

[topspin]

this shit is hillarious, are the neocons so fucking desparate because all they can roll out is some clown Mcain crushed last time?

 

[DiveCon]

this shit is hillarious, are the neocons so fucking desparate because all they can roll out is some clown Mcain crushed last time?

uh, did you post in the wrong thread?

 

[hipeter924]

Yes. But I would impeach everyone. Presidents cost too much, especially in a recession. I am one of those few remaining people that believes in a government where people do their jobs for free or at a small salary because they are there to help the country, not use it as a vehicle for their extravagant lifestyle choices at the expense of everyone else's tax bills.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yes. But I would impeach everyone. Presidents cost too much, especially in a recession. I am one of those few remaining people that believes in a government where people do their jobs for free or at a small salary because they are there to help the country, not use it as a vehicle for their extravagant lifestyle choices at the expense of everyone else's tax bills.

You know, considering the way that the PAC's and the lobbyists throw money at Congress and the Senate, as well as the fact that everything is PAID FOR by the US taxpayer, I'm kinda wondering why they get so much for a check.

Good idea, tell 'em they work for a dollar a day, with room and board provided.

 

[Liability]

He is a freaking jackass and the worst President in our lifetimes, probably ever.

But, since there is no viable evidence that he has committed any high crimes or misdemeanors, then the "vote" has to be "no."

Alas.

ya cant really vote on impeachment because there is no evidence for the impeachment proceedings to begin with

If some schmuck in the House put a proposed Article in the hopper to "Impeach President Barack Hussein Obama" I would, were I a member of that disgraceful body, take a good long look at the "reasons" for purportedly supporting such a move.

If I determined that there was no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, then I would vote against sending that bill to committee or reporting it out of committee or supporting the proposed Article of Impeachment should it reach the floor.

Voting against it (i.e., voting "no") is supported by the very lack of evidence to which you make reference.

 

[Liability]

He is a freaking jackass and the worst President in our lifetimes, probably ever.

But, since there is no viable evidence that he has committed any high crimes or misdemeanors, then the "vote" has to be "no."

Alas.

Actually, I'd consider the worst admin to be the one previous to Obama.

You know.....the guys that took out Wall St regulations, made back room deals with BP and invaded the wrong fucking country?

I think the crooks were called the Texas Mafia.

Your post (and the opinions you express in that post) is a matter of your mere opinion and political preference. It is also a matter of a distortion of the factual record.

In reality, however, there is little doubt that this current infestation of the Oval Office is EVEN WORSE for America than old Jiminy Cricket Carter was.

As evidence of the contention that your post is based on opinion, not fact, I challenge you to demonstrate (with links and brief quotes, etc) exactly what "Wall Street regulations" were taken "out" by the prior Administration.

What back room deals between BP and the prior Administration can you verify in similar fashion?

And why is it that the single biggest recipient of BP financial (campaign) support (i.e., lots MONEY) was -- yes -- Barack Obama? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
And what kind of "oversight" did Obama impose on BP that the prior Administration had failed to impose?

 

[DiveCon]

He is a freaking jackass and the worst President in our lifetimes, probably ever.

But, since there is no viable evidence that he has committed any high crimes or misdemeanors, then the "vote" has to be "no."

Alas.

ya cant really vote on impeachment because there is no evidence for the impeachment proceedings to begin with

If some schmuck in the House put a proposed Article in the hopper to "Impeach President Barack Hussein Obama" I would, were I a member of that disgraceful body, take a good long look at the "reasons" for purportedly supporting such a move.

If I determined that there was no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, then I would vote against sending that bill to committee or reporting it out of committee or supporting the proposed Article of Impeachment should it reach the floor.

Voting against it (i.e., voting "no") is supported by the very lack of evidence to which you make reference.

exactly
there has to be a vote on impeachment proceedings FIRST

 

[Liability]

ya cant really vote on impeachment because there is no evidence for the impeachment proceedings to begin with

If some schmuck in the House put a proposed Article in the hopper to "Impeach President Barack Hussein Obama" I would, were I a member of that disgraceful body, take a good long look at the "reasons" for purportedly supporting such a move.

If I determined that there was no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, then I would vote against sending that bill to committee or reporting it out of committee or supporting the proposed Article of Impeachment should it reach the floor.

Voting against it (i.e., voting "no") is supported by the very lack of evidence to which you make reference.

exactly
there has to be a vote on impeachment proceedings FIRST

Oh. Ok. I see we are actually in agreement.

To be clear, therefore, I respond to the poll question to DENY that there is any basis presently known to warrant the initiation of impeachment proceedings.

And to the extent this is what you were saying, I agree with you.

My dislike of this President's political policies, actions and behaviors do NOT constitute a basis for suggesting that he warrants an impeachment proceeding.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Lets not stoop to the Democrat level and start screeching about Impeachment every day. We heard enough of that hysterical B.S. the previous eight years. This President has had some questionable dealings like bribing candidates out of races but nothing has been proven. So far he has done nothing that would justify calling for Impeachment. Lets not be Democrats on this stuff. We're supposed to be better than that.

 

[Liability]

Lets not stoop to the Democrat level and start screeching about Impeachment every day. We heard enough of that hysterical B.S. the previous eight years. This President has had some questionable dealings like bribing candidates out of races but nothing has been proven. So far he has done nothing that would justify calling for Impeachment. Lets not be Democrats on this stuff. We're supposed to be better than that.

Look at the vote totals. Hell, click on the votes to reveal who has voted "for" impeachment and who has said "no."

The very POINT of the OP is pretty much exactly what you just said.

Nobody on the right is actually trying to argue "for" impeachment.

Bubba deserved his impeachment, and arguably a conviction. He got the former, not the latter.

W deserved neither. He got neither.

President Obama (at least to date) deserves neither. It is incredibly unlikely that he will face either.

 

[Sheldon]

Related to another thread here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/130072-first-call-obama-should-be-impeached-6.html#post2659057

So. Should Obama be impeached?

Wait, don't answer so fast now. If you vote "yes", then you must lay out a case for actual high crimes and misdemeanors. No innuendo. No "'cause I really disagree with his policies". No OMZG teh SOCIALIST!!1!!1eleventy!1!.

You must lay out a real case as to how he, himself has broken the law and violated the constitution with verifiable facts. (BTW: signing laws that you disagree with doesn't meet the standard).

You must lay out a real case that has a passing shot at meeting the standard of a civil court decision (thats the closest standard that I can come up with that would mirror what people would consider reasonable).


In other words, no herp-a-derp.


Ready?


Vote!

Que?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Lets not stoop to the Democrat level and start screeching about Impeachment every day.

i'm not.

i'm asking for those on the fringe that scream for 'OMG, TEH EMPEECHMENT' to support the case for impeachment.