We will Impeach Obama if he follows the Constitution: Republican Congressman

[Liability]

Which constituted a high crime or misdemenor in what way? Was it worth it? Putting pressure on a President that was involved in rebuilding America's economy? Hunting for Osama Bin Laden? Seriously?

It also degraded what impeachment should actually be used for...and that would be removing a President that could be injurious to the Nation.

In fact..it turned the whole procedure into a farce. Which is the point.

Radical conservatives are seeking to nullify the American Government.

Perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice. these are felonies.

I don't remeber seeing dick sucking on the articles of impeachment.

And none of that was ever proven.

Which is why the impeachment failed to remove Clinton from office..and helped Osama Bin Laden destroy the World Trade Center.

Thank you fuckers.

Yeah. Bubba wasn't "distracted" by blowjobs from fat interns or anything. But having to deal with the consequences of his own glaring dishonesty was just too much for him. He couldn't keep his mind on dealing with the threat of al qaeda AND on defending his own dishonesty at the same time.

Yeah, that's it.



Even by the generally limp "standards" of lefty apologists, that was pretty ******* dishonest, Sallow.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution has socialism in it.

It also has taxes.
It also has protection for indivdual liberty.
It also has federal supremacy.

Where is the socialism in the Constitution? I'm dying to know. And what the hell is "federal supremacy?" The Founding Fathers certainly never used that term.

It's conservatives who are "Anti-Constitutional". Started with the Tories..went on to the Confederates and now we are seeing it with the Tea Party.

ROFL! There are too many idiocies in that sentence to refute in a single post.

 

[Sallow]

Perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice. these are felonies.

I don't remeber seeing dick sucking on the articles of impeachment.

And none of that was ever proven.

Which is why the impeachment failed to remove Clinton from office..and helped Osama Bin Laden destroy the World Trade Center.

Thank you fuckers.

Yeah. Bubba wasn't "distracted" by blowjobs from fat interns or anything. But having to deal with the consequences of his own glaring dishonesty was just too much for him. He couldn't keep his mind on dealing with the threat of al qaeda AND on defending his own dishonesty at the same time.

Yeah, that's it.



Even by the generally limp "standards" of lefty apologists, that was pretty ******* dishonest, Sallow.

You guys like the whole "guilt by association" thingie. You've been using it pretty hard and heavy with Obama.

Who funded the muj?
Who went into business with Osama Bin Laden's brother? (Hint: Arbusto)
Who failed to recognize the threat from Al Qaeda instead, chose to go after China and Russia?
Who failed to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden after 9/11?

Bear in mind..I ain't calling any of the players in that whole shit-fest anti american.

But they were monumentally stupid to the point of extreme negligence. And lots of it was due to putting the interest of themselves above the interest of the country. (hint - Saddam tried to kill his daddy).

 

[Truthseeker420]

Offtopic.com

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act'

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act' - West Ashley, SC Patch

Obama's a Failed Leader who thinks bank ATM's are killing the economy, he should not be allowed to continue to drive the economy off the cliff.

China has divested $1 Trillion in US Treasuries, PIMCO divested all of their US Treasuries, S&P and Moody have issued credit warning because of Obama crack addict like spending habits.

We need to remind everyone we have a Failed Leader as POTUS "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies." -- Barack Hussein Obama, Failed Leader, Community Organizer and low-level socialist agitator

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...ent-on-atms-conservatives-are-such-liars.html

 

[Liability]

And none of that was ever proven.

Which is why the impeachment failed to remove Clinton from office..and helped Osama Bin Laden destroy the World Trade Center.

Thank you fuckers.

Yeah. Bubba wasn't "distracted" by blowjobs from fat interns or anything. But having to deal with the consequences of his own glaring dishonesty was just too much for him. He couldn't keep his mind on dealing with the threat of al qaeda AND on defending his own dishonesty at the same time.

Yeah, that's it.



Even by the generally limp "standards" of lefty apologists, that was pretty ******* dishonest, Sallow.

You guys like the whole "guilt by association" thingie. You've been using it pretty hard and heavy with Obama.

Who funded the muj?
Who went into business with Osama Bin Laden's brother? (Hint: Arbusto)
Who failed to recognize the threat from Al Qaeda instead, chose to go after China and Russia?
Who failed to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden after 9/11?

Bear in mind..I ain't calling any of the players in that whole shit-fest anti american.

But they were monumentally stupid to the point of extreme negligence. And lots of it was due to putting the interest of themselves above the interest of the country. (hint - Saddam tried to kill his daddy).

Maybe you can start by backing up your bullshit, first, Shallow.

What have I said about President Obama that talks in terms of guilt by association?

Now, tell me who had the power and present ability to get bin Laden BEFORE 9/11/2001 ever arrived -- hint: it was a President who LATER claimed to have perceived bin Laden as THE major threat he later turned out to be.

And WHO failed to act based on some hyper-technical liberally inspired drivel about legal niceties that never DID have a valid ******* place in the god-damned analysis?

I have not called Bubba anti-American and neither have I called President Obama anti-American even though he does seem to oddly dislike much about the Republic over which he presides as Chief Executive.

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution has socialism in it.

It also has taxes.
It also has protection for indivdual liberty.
It also has federal supremacy.

Where is the socialism in the Constitution? I'm dying to know. And what the hell is "federal supremacy?" The Founding Fathers certainly never used that term.

It's conservatives who are "Anti-Constitutional". Started with the Tories..went on to the Confederates and now we are seeing it with the Tea Party.

ROFL! There are too many idiocies in that sentence to refute in a single post.

The military and the postal service. Both socialism.

And.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Pick up the thing and read every so often. I am tired of constantly giving you lessons.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah. Bubba wasn't "distracted" by blowjobs from fat interns or anything. But having to deal with the consequences of his own glaring dishonesty was just too much for him. He couldn't keep his mind on dealing with the threat of al qaeda AND on defending his own dishonesty at the same time.

Yeah, that's it.



Even by the generally limp "standards" of lefty apologists, that was pretty ******* dishonest, Sallow.

You guys like the whole "guilt by association" thingie. You've been using it pretty hard and heavy with Obama.

Who funded the muj?
Who went into business with Osama Bin Laden's brother? (Hint: Arbusto)
Who failed to recognize the threat from Al Qaeda instead, chose to go after China and Russia?
Who failed to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden after 9/11?

Bear in mind..I ain't calling any of the players in that whole shit-fest anti american.

But they were monumentally stupid to the point of extreme negligence. And lots of it was due to putting the interest of themselves above the interest of the country. (hint - Saddam tried to kill his daddy).

Maybe you can start by backing up your bullshit, first, Shallow.

What have I said about President Obama that talks in terms of guilt by association?

Now, tell me who had the power and present ability to get bin Laden BEFORE 9/11/2001 ever arrived -- hint: it was a President who LATER claimed to have perceived bin Laden as THE major threat he later turned out to be.

And WHO failed to act based on some hyper-technical liberally inspired drivel about legal niceties that never DID have a valid ******* place in the god-damned analysis?

I have not called Bubba anti-American and neither have I called President Obama anti-American even though he does seem to oddly dislike much about the Republic over which he presides as Chief Executive.

Which brings us back to the whole impeachment thing...and the Republicans failing to give the President authorization to use special forces to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. That's the history ace. All Clinton had to play with is missiles and bombs..which he used on Iraq and in the Balkans..and tried to bomb Bin Laden out of existence.

And the Republicans are now playing the same game with President Obama. Failing to give him support in his campaign to blast Gaddafi out of existence. Gaddafi's a big player in the terrorist world. His shennigans even have the Arab League signed on to what's going on in Libya. The Republicans, yet again, are dropping the ball on going after terrorism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was a god dam Constitutional law professor. What's the matter with you?

He is also a socialist anti constitutional president. Idiot.

The Constitution has socialism in it.

It also has taxes.
It also has protection for indivdual liberty.
It also has federal supremacy.

It's conservatives who are "Anti-Constitutional". Started with the Tories..went on to the Confederates and now we are seeing it with the Tea Party.



This is what you guys are all about.

The Constitution has socialism in it? Where?

 

[Kuros]

Impeachment? In this partisan atmosphere?

Its page 13, and I can't bother to read every post, and I hope that this point has already been made, but . . .

Impeachment itself would be easy, as all it needs is a majority house vote. But conviction requires 2/3ds of the Senate. 2/3ds. You can't get 3/5ths of the Senate to agree on anything, how are you going to get 2/3ds to impeach a Democratic President when the majority of Senators are Democrats themselves?

 

[Sallow]

He is also a socialist anti constitutional president. Idiot.

The Constitution has socialism in it.

It also has taxes.
It also has protection for indivdual liberty.
It also has federal supremacy.

It's conservatives who are "Anti-Constitutional". Started with the Tories..went on to the Confederates and now we are seeing it with the Tea Party.



This is what you guys are all about.

The Constitution has socialism in it? Where?

Answered in the thread already.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution has socialism in it.

It also has taxes.
It also has protection for indivdual liberty.
It also has federal supremacy.

Where is the socialism in the Constitution? I'm dying to know. And what the hell is "federal supremacy?" The Founding Fathers certainly never used that term.



ROFL! There are too many idiocies in that sentence to refute in a single post.

The military and the postal service. Both socialism.

And.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Pick up the thing and read every so often. I am tired of constantly giving you lessons.

I get it, you are an idiot who does not understand the proper definition of the term socialism. Start by watching this video, then admit that neither the post office, the military, nor anything else you quoted, has anything to do with socialism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution has socialism in it.

It also has taxes.
It also has protection for indivdual liberty.
It also has federal supremacy.

It's conservatives who are "Anti-Constitutional". Started with the Tories..went on to the Confederates and now we are seeing it with the Tea Party.



This is what you guys are all about.

The Constitution has socialism in it? Where?

Answered in the thread already.

And already debunked. The nest time someone calls Obama a socialist you will be able to rpve why he isn't one once you understand what socialism actually is.

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution has socialism in it? Where?

Answered in the thread already.

And already debunked. The nest time someone calls Obama a socialist you will be able to rpve why he isn't one once you understand what socialism actually is.

Why..because you say it's debunked?

You guys love to play with semantics.

Every government is some form of socialism. It's just a matter of how much and who it favors. Conservatives want it to favor the rich. Liberals want it to favor everyone else.

Simple as that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Answered in the thread already.

And already debunked. The nest time someone calls Obama a socialist you will be able to rpve why he isn't one once you understand what socialism actually is.

Why..because you say it's debunked?

You guys love to play with semantics.

Every government is some form of socialism. It's just a matter of how much and who it favors. Conservatives want it to favor the rich. Liberals want it to favor everyone else.

Simple as that.

How is pointing out the actual definition of socialism from an economist that actually studies it and understands it throwing semantics around?

Socialism has tow parts. One is the public provision of non public goods, and the other is the use of central planning.to carry that out. Mail and the military are both public goods, it is therefore not socialism for them to exist. Nor does being part of the military make you a part of a socialist organization. If you insist that they are, despite knowing the actual definition of socialism, you are the one that is throwing semantics around.

Obama bailing out GM was not socialism because he kept the control of GM inside GM. Tell people that, and feel free to refer them to me, the anti Obama crusader, and I will tell them the same thing.

 

[bripat9643]

The military and the postal service. Both socialism.

True. So what? How does that make socialism good? We can abolish the Post Office, but how do you privatize the military?

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Pick up the thing and read every so often. I am tired of constantly giving you lessons.

How does list of powers prohibited to the states equate to "federal supremacy," a term the Founding Fathers never used? There are also plenty of powers prohibited to the federal government, like all the ones not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That equates to states supremacy, doesn't it?

 

[Sallow]

And already debunked. The nest time someone calls Obama a socialist you will be able to rpve why he isn't one once you understand what socialism actually is.

Why..because you say it's debunked?

You guys love to play with semantics.

Every government is some form of socialism. It's just a matter of how much and who it favors. Conservatives want it to favor the rich. Liberals want it to favor everyone else.

Simple as that.

How is pointing out the actual definition of socialism from an economist that actually studies it and understands it throwing semantics around?

Socialism has tow parts. One is the public provision of non public goods, and the other is the use of central planning.to carry that out. Mail and the military are both public goods, it is therefore not socialism for them to exist. Nor does being part of the military make you a part of a socialist organization. If you insist that they are, despite knowing the actual definition of socialism, you are the one that is throwing semantics around.

Obama bailing out GM was not socialism because he kept the control of GM inside GM. Tell people that, and feel free to refer them to me, the anti Obama crusader, and I will tell them the same thing.

One economist? There are many economists. And many economic theories.

So..what you are trying to do is the frame Socialism around a lexicon that you can control. And that's ridiculous. Socialism, at it's core, is collectivistism. It's the notion that you can share a burden among many individuals. Of course there are degrees to this.

What you and your ilk have no problem with is when tax payer liquidity is funneled to the wealthy.

What you are your ilk have a problem with is when tax payer liquidity is used to help the poor.

And that is the major rift between conservatives and liberals.

 

[Sallow]

The military and the postal service. Both socialism.

True. So what? How does that make socialism good? We can abolish the Post Office, but how do you privatize the military?

I don't want to "abolish" anything. I am a firm believer that capitalism should drive the economy and socialism should pick up the loose ends. I like the safety net. I think the military is much to important to the nation to be "privatized". That notion is as old as the hills. Read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" or Machiavelli's "The Prince". Both caution against the use of mercenaries.

How does list of powers prohibited to the states equate to "federal supremacy," a term the Founding Fathers never used? There are also plenty of powers prohibited to the federal government, like all the ones not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That equates to states supremacy, doesn't it?

Oh gosh..really?

 

[Vanquish]

Surely no one is contesting the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, right? It wasn't meant to negate states' rights, but is important doctrine in legal interpretation. I know the FF's agree.

As far as the actual definition of socialism - I think using terms correctly is important, personally. It's retarded how that word has been coopted by some loons on the right to fearmonger people into hating liberals...when real, Soviet socialism isn't what modern liberals are shooting for at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The military and the postal service. Both socialism.

True. So what? How does that make socialism good? We can abolish the Post Office, but how do you privatize the military?

Actually, no. Just because the government does something it does not mean it is socialism. It is only socialism if the government steps in and provides a non public good. Both of those are public goods. especially the military. The fact that UPS does a better job than the post office shows that even public goods should not necessarily be provided by the government, but it does not make it a non public good.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Pick up the thing and read every so often. I am tired of constantly giving you lessons.

How does list of powers prohibited to the states equate to "federal supremacy," a term the Founding Fathers never used? There are also plenty of powers prohibited to the federal government, like all the ones not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That equates to states supremacy, doesn't it?

Not in Sallow's world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One economist? There are many economists. And many economic theories.

Then you should not have any problem whatsoever finding another economist that defines socialism the way you like and countering my argument. If you can't, I will go on assuming that my argument with citations trumps your argument without citations or even a definition that I can actually see.

So..what you are trying to do is the frame Socialism around a lexicon that you can control. And that's ridiculous. Socialism, at it's core, is collectivistism. It's the notion that you can share a burden among many individuals. Of course there are degrees to this.

No, what I am trying to do is frame socialism in a context that is clearly defined and not subject to the vagaries on individual interpretation. This prevents both sides of the discussion from using the same word and actually meaning something else. The right uses socialism for anything that the government does that they do not like, and you try to define it as being anything the government does in order to justify it for what you like, and others on the left use it to talk about social justice.

I am a writer, and I understand words. I know that words represent concepts and ideas, and that those ideas have to be defined if we are to actually hold a conversation. If I am looking at a map of New York and you are looking at a map of LA and I try to give you directions, or even just try to understand where you are, we will never understand each other.

If you do not like the definition I provided feel free to actually provide one that is as easy to understand and use so we can talk from the same point of reference.

Collectivism, at its core, is about the good of the group over the good of the individual. While socialism can fit into that, so does communism and totalitarian nationalism like we say in WWII Germany. Socialism is really about the government controlling production, and we do not have that in the United States.

What you and your ilk have no problem with is when tax payer liquidity is funneled to the wealthy.

That is pretty funny, and actually illustrates my point.

I do not what you think my ilk is, but I have repeatedly called for an end to all corporate welfare, closing all tax loopholes, and expanding the tax base. I am not sure how that equates to me being part of a group that wants to funnel tax money to the wealthy, because the last thing I support is Obama's polices to do that.

What you are your ilk have a problem with is when tax payer liquidity is used to help the poor.

Really? Can you provide examples of me and my ilk doing that? Or do you just expect me to run away and hide in shame after being called whatever you just called me?

And that is the major rift between conservatives and liberals.

That one side of the debate is not grounded in reality? That is a good point, when are you going to start discussing things with me based on what I actually say, rather than the imaginary position you ascribe to me?