why has MSNBC 448 Obama impeachment mentions in July alone??

[rightwinger]

This myth isn't going to fly. Give it up.

The Republicans finally woke up to the fact that crazy talk about impeachment isn't going to help them politically,

and since all they care about is political power, they're now desperately trying to blame impeachment talk on Democrats.

The problem is that Republicans are trying to distance themselves from impeachment talks and Democrats won't let them

So Republicans don't talk about impeachment.
Democrats keep saying that the Republiocans want it.

And the dumbass low information Democrat voters are left thinking the Republicans want to impeach Obama....

Priceless.

I can't recall anyone in the GOP saying they want impeachment.
It's the Democrats fanning the fire saying the GOP wants impeachment.

Republicans want nothing to do with impeachment.....BEFORE an election

They filed impeachment charges against Clinton six weeks after the election

 

[kaz]

I'm willing to bet that they will start articles of impeachment w/in 6 months after the mid-terms....Especially if they retain a majority in the House.

What would you like to bet me in this regard?

I don't know what "start articles of impeachment" means, it's hand waiving. Someone writing something is meaningless. I am saying they will not impeach Obama.

What would you like to bet me in this regard?

OK. The bet is whether the Republicans impeach Obama. That means they pass articles of impeachment, it doesn't mean someone writes them or there is a vote, it has to pass.

If you win, I'll put in my sig any one line statement you want me to admitting I was wrong. If I win, you don't have to do anything because I don't really care.

 

[Rozman]

Harry Reid is the one preventing bills passed in the House from seeing the light of day.

 

[kaz]

True.

And both are idiotic and unwarranted.

Many on the right must believe the 'lawsuit' will offer some short-term political advantage, likely to appease the partisan extremists.

And if there's one thing you Marxists can't abide it's an "extremist." LOL.

Do you even know what a "Marxist" is when you call people that?

I call people Marxists who support the planks of the Communist manifesto. Particularly ones who use the rhetoric from the manifesto. So for example, Democrats.

 

[Rozman]

So the GOP is against impeachment but some can see the future...
Nice talent.

 

[rightwinger]

First, you don't know what deflection means. You're on the internet, you realize you could just open a tab and google it, no?

Second, so to you, when Democrats present a budget it's take it or leave it, and leaving it makes the Republicans responsible for shutting down the government and "extortion," and Democrats don't have to offer Republicans anything, Republicans just have to give them their way.

I knew that, I just wanted you to say it. Democrat budgets are to be passed as is, period. Got it.

It was a continuing resolution NOT a budget

A continuing resolution allows the government to continue operations at existing funding. Blocking a continuing resolution mandates a shutdown

Republicans used the impending shutdown in an attempt at extortion. Obama didn't bite

A distinction without a difference. So the Democrats offered a budget and didn't compromise. Then when they didn't get that, they offered a continuing resolution and didn't compromise on that either.

Why are you the holy ******* sainted emperors of the country that to not give you what you want is to shut down government when you offer zero in return? Where does it say in the Constitution that the Democrats get to set the budget and Republicans only get to persuade them?

The next post will not be you backing up any of your crap. The Democrats said they wanted their budget and offered nothing. Now, deflect away.

There was no budget offered.

The issue was a continuing resolution to allow government to continue operating until a budget was worked out

Republicans chose to keep the government from operating

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mr. Impeachment. Once the Right's best friend. Now it's 'Mr. who? Impeachment...?

...hmmm...can't say as I ever met the man...."

 

[TooTall]

This myth isn't going to fly. Give it up.

The Republicans finally woke up to the fact that crazy talk about impeachment isn't going to help them politically,

and since all they care about is political power, they're now desperately trying to blame impeachment talk on Democrats.

Most Republicans in the Congress know better than to impeach Obama. If they wanted to, they could easily impeach him on any given day since they took the majority in the House.
They also know that conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate and that is not going to happen, even if they get a majority in the Senate this year.

The crazy talk is all on MSNBC. Watch Al Sharpton any night and he will say impeachment several dozen times.

 

[TooTall]

Yet. People are trying to find out if they are holding that card until after the mid-terms. I'm betting they are.

You're not "betting" they are, you are making a blind, unsubstantiated accusation and presenting it as if it's an argument.

I'm willing to bet that they will start articles of impeachment w/in 6 months after the mid-terms....Especially if they retain a majority in the House.

What would you like to bet me in this regard?

Starting and voting for impeachment are two different things. One Congressman can start articles of impeachment, but if one does, it won't be brought to the floor for a vote. I would bet that articles of impeachment would not see a vote even if Obama was caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

 

[TooTall]

The problem is that Republicans are trying to distance themselves from impeachment talks and Democrats won't let them

The Speaker of the House stated that there are no plans to impeach. The Democrats need to keep saying the opposite because it's a useful fundraising tactic.

Let me ask you, how do feel about republicans fundraising off of Benghazi and the IRS?

I don't have a problem with that since both of those things happened and have not been fully explained. Making up a story about impeachment is nonsense, but a lot of Democrats fall for it.

 

[TooTall]

I'm guessing they were reporting on what Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and other prominent Republicans were saying.

How come they aren't reporting what the Speaker of the House said?

Are you too stupid to realize that a scan for 'impeachment' mentions on MSNBC would include those mentions by Speaker Boehner?

Yes, I think you are.

They may have shown a clip of Speaker Boehner saying there were no plans to impeach Obama a few times. Watch Al Sharpton and hear a few dozen mentions of impeachment, and I doubt he ever shows a clip of Boehner. If he did, it would still be 40 or 50 times from Al and 1 or 2 from Boehner.

 

[hazlnut]

um... because they are the left-leaning news/editorial outlet and mentioning the tea brains talking about impeachment (which is groundless) raises money for the dems...


I answered.

What do I win?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This myth isn't going to fly. Give it up.

The Republicans finally woke up to the fact that crazy talk about impeachment isn't going to help them politically,

and since all they care about is political power, they're now desperately trying to blame impeachment talk on Democrats.

Most Republicans in the Congress know better than to impeach Obama. If they wanted to, they could easily impeach him on any given day since they took the majority in the House.
They also know that conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate and that is not going to happen, even if they get a majority in the Senate this year.

The crazy talk is all on MSNBC. Watch Al Sharpton any night and he will say impeachment several dozen times.

They knew they didn't have 67 votes against Clinton. That didn't stop them then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So...

...how many of USMB's impeachment hounds are now under the bus thanks to the efforts of USMB's 'we never supported impeachment' conservatives?

I guess an effort to dig up the names of those poor souls (i.e. USMB'ers who have in the past been all for impeachment) should be dredged up,

if for no other reason than to put some personality into all those people you born again anti-impeachment cons are now calling imbeciles.

 

[TooTall]

Of course the Republicans want to keep dicussion of impeachment off the the table in an election year. They did the same thing with Bill Clinton

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 mid-term elections. Impeachment proceedings were initiated during the post-election, "lame duck" session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress.

The House impeached Bill Clinton on Dec 19 1998 six weeks after the 1998 congressional election was completed

The Speaker of the house said impeachment is not on the table.

When did he say that. Pelosi challenged him to take impeachment off the table the way she did regarding Bush when she was speaker. She made the challenge yesterday. Is there something current in the news or is he still refusing to take it off the table?

Pelosi is certifiable at best. Asking a Speaker of the House to ignore the Constitution is batshit crazy. Just because she does is not justification for others to do it.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

If Obama is found to have committed any of the crimes stated in the Constitution, he should be impeached.

 

[TooTall]

This myth isn't going to fly. Give it up.

The Republicans finally woke up to the fact that crazy talk about impeachment isn't going to help them politically,

and since all they care about is political power, they're now desperately trying to blame impeachment talk on Democrats.

Most Republicans in the Congress know better than to impeach Obama. If they wanted to, they could easily impeach him on any given day since they took the majority in the House.
They also know that conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate and that is not going to happen, even if they get a majority in the Senate this year.

The crazy talk is all on MSNBC. Watch Al Sharpton any night and he will say impeachment several dozen times.

They knew they didn't have 67 votes against Clinton. That didn't stop them then.

They thought that Democrats in the Senate were honorable men, but they were wrong. Clinton lost to Paula Jones, lost his law license and was fined for lying under oath. He is truly one of the best confidence men on the planet.

 

[TooTall]

At least 15 Republican Congressional Representatives have called for, threatened or voiced support for impeachment. And persons normally viewed as Republican spokespersons are talking their heads off suggesting impeachment.

I realize as a liberal you can't process or follow simple discussions, so I'll dumb it down for you. He means no one with credibility to do it is talking impeachment. He didn't mean no one literally. I mean that was blatantly obvious, but since other liberals can't actually read with more than minimal comprehension either, I'll give you a pass on that one. Even though I can't possibly see how you did not get what he meant. Obama isn't going to be impeached. Not gonna happen no matter how much you want it to.

Tell me again how you're the intelligent party, lol.

You don't need to dumb it down for me. I comprehend and understand that the only people with credibility that means anything are elected members of congress who actually vote on whether to impeach a President or not. Let me dumb it down for you. Elected members of the House of Representatives vote to impeach a President or not impeach a President. If over a dozen of them talk about impeaching a President it means an impeachment vote is possible.

A dozen? No way will that mean a vote is possible. The Speaker controls what bill are voted on.

Under the rules of the House, the Speaker schedules floor votes on pending legislation. The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within his/her party — even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it.

 

[kaz]

There was no budget offered.

The issue was a continuing resolution to allow government to continue operating until a budget was worked out

Republicans chose to keep the government from operating

Ah, was that another year Oboobma didn't offer a budget? Should have known.

So spending Constitutionally must start in the House. Republicans controlled the House. Democrats said no to the Republican spending plan and said theirs had to be passed, which was the year long spending levels they wanted.

We are still here with your view that either spending is exactly as Democrats say or any shutdown is the fault of the Republicans. Are you at any point going to have anything in your pants, or are you going to continue with the "no it isn't" strategy.

I'll make it as broad as I can for you. Since you blame Republicans, show me an example of behavior Democrats exemplifying what you wanted Republicans to do.

 

[rightwinger]

There was no budget offered.

The issue was a continuing resolution to allow government to continue operating until a budget was worked out

Republicans chose to keep the government from operating

Ah, was that another year Oboobma didn't offer a budget? Should have known.

So spending Constitutionally must start in the House. Republicans controlled the House. Democrats said no to the Republican spending plan and said theirs had to be passed, which was the year long spending levels they wanted.

We are still here with your view that either spending is exactly as Democrats say or any shutdown is the fault of the Republicans. Are you at any point going to have anything in your pants, or are you going to continue with the "no it isn't" strategy.

I'll make it as broad as I can for you. Since you blame Republicans, show me an example of behavior Democrats exemplifying what you wanted Republicans to do.

Sorry

But your post makes absolutely no sense. Maybe you can get someone else to explain it for you

 

[Camp]

The Speaker of the house said impeachment is not on the table.

When did he say that. Pelosi challenged him to take impeachment off the table the way she did regarding Bush when she was speaker. She made the challenge yesterday. Is there something current in the news or is he still refusing to take it off the table?

Pelosi is certifiable at best. Asking a Speaker of the House to ignore the Constitution is batshit crazy. Just because she does is not justification for others to do it.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

If Obama is found to have committed any of the crimes stated in the Constitution, he should be impeached.

So you were mistaken about your claim that the speaker said impeachment was off the table. That was your comment. A little tidbit of misinformation. What is called a "seed" LIE.