Will obama's SOTU Tonight Get Him Impeached?

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
I understand he's supposed to go 'full dictator' on us Tuesday :eek: night. He's supposed to tell us that he's going to move forward with 'his' ideas whether Congress grants him the power or not.

Last I checked.... Well, discuss.

I think, if he does announce his willingness to act without Congressional approval, that we (Patriotic Americans) Impeach him in the House and take enough seats in the Senate to Convict him come next January.

I don't like the idea of Impeaching a President, but when he threatens to violate the Constitution.... And then does (he has already, several times)... I think he's ASKING to be Impeached.

It's almost like he's saying, "Bring it on."

Which brings to mind another thought..... 'Impeach and fail to convict'? What repercussions, if any, would that present for Republicans?

I'm not going to watch the SOTU, so somebody else will have to tell me whether he really does go Full Dictator Tuesday night
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,636
Reaction score
26,776
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
I understand he's supposed to go 'full dictator' on us tonight. He's supposed to tell us that he's going to move forward with 'his' ideas whether Congress grants him the power or not.

Last I checked.... Well, discuss.

I think, if he does announce his willingness to act without Congressional approval, that we (Patriotic Americans) Impeach him in the House and take enough seats in the Senate to Convict him come next January.

I don't like the idea of Impeaching a President, but when he threatens to violate the Constitution.... And then does (he has already, several times)... I think he's ASKING to be Impeached.

It's almost like he's saying, "Bring it on."

Which brings to mind another thought..... 'Impeach and fail to convict'? What repercussions, if any, would that present for Republicans?

I'm not going to watch the SOTU, so somebody else will have to tell me whether he really does go Full Dictator tonight
He has no respect for our system of government, he needs to get some remedial education
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
so you liked that picture of a baby without a head carried by a little boy huh?
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
I understand he's supposed to go 'full dictator' on us tonight. He's supposed to tell us that he's going to move forward with 'his' ideas whether Congress grants him the power or not.

Last I checked.... Well, discuss.

I think, if he does announce his willingness to act without Congressional approval, that we (Patriotic Americans) Impeach him in the House and take enough seats in the Senate to Convict him come next January.

I don't like the idea of Impeaching a President, but when he threatens to violate the Constitution.... And then does (he has already, several times)... I think he's ASKING to be Impeached.

It's almost like he's saying, "Bring it on."

Which brings to mind another thought..... 'Impeach and fail to convict'? What repercussions, if any, would that present for Republicans?

I'm not going to watch the SOTU, so somebody else will have to tell me whether he really does go Full Dictator tonight
Another dingleberry 'Conservative' having wet dreams. Will these adolescent intellects ever learn anything?

President Obama will leave office on 20Jan17, turning over the office of POTUS to the duly elected next President. And you fools will be just as stupid and foolish then as now.
 

Where_r_my_Keys

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
15,272
Reaction score
1,842
Points
280
The list of Impeachable offenses committed by this clown are endless.

I don't believe however that a bill of Impeachment carries over from one Congress to the next. Could be wrong.

As it stands right now, we know that Obama was at the MINIMUM, aware of the impending attack on the Libya Mission, and began to conceal his complicity through the advance staging of an otherwise irrelevant youtube video. We know that the plan was to tout the video, to have local Islamic clerics around the ME stir up protests and that on 9-11, a protest would erupt outside the US Mission, and from that 'spontaneous protest', SO OUTRAGED would the pious Islamic Faithful BE... that an attack would erupt, destroying the opportunity for the Benghazi mission to continue in its pursuit of the HUNDREDS of SHOULDER FIRED MISSILES that Bill's Wife gave to Al Qaeda, from the Libyan stash, after poor Kadahfi passed, so suddenly.

Which of course, because it came up SO SUDDENLY, the President was SO FAR out of pocket that to this DAY, no one knows where he was. He told the gang at the white house to 'do whatever they needed to do' and skee-daddled to highly secret and sensitive points, unknown.

When he did so, HE FORGOT to tell them, "IF some group of Islamic Faithful happen to be protesting an OUTRAGEOUS ASSAULT ON ISLAM by a anti-Muslim Video-Bully and THAT ERUPTS INTO A HIGHLY ORGANIZED ASSAULT ON THE MISSION: SEND HELP IMMEDIATELY." So, no one could DO ANYTHING! Because 'they did not possess the authority.

Although we DO know that General Ham, the CO of Afri-corps was INSTANTLY fired and replaced, when he attempted to send help with his standing Quick Reaction Force. So, we know someone over there had the authority to DO THAT, we just don't know who that was.

But we DO know, that the consistent and unanimous, clearly rehearsed assertions from Obama and his 'team' were that the Benghazi attack was the result of the Video, when we ALSO know that EACH PERSON, >TO THE INDIVIDUAL< making that claim, ABSOLUTELY KNEW, without exception or qualification, that the attack had NOTHING TO DO WITH "INNOCENT PROTESTORS" and WAS the result of a pre-planned, highly organized, well equipped and quite capable enemy force, with DETAILED knowledge of the inner workings of the compound.

And there's only ONE possible reason that someone would claim promote the Video, then claim in defiance of the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, known from the FIRST MINUTES OF THE ATTACK, where NO PROTEST OF ANY KIND HAD TAKEN PLACE, that the Video was the reason, and that reason is: "THAT WAS THE PLAN".

So, yeah. I'd say he needs to be impeached.

Then removed from office.

Then charged with treason. Tried on the evidence. Convicted by a jury of his peers on the weight of the damning evidence.

Then HUNG by his pencil neck from the tallest limb that can be found on the grounds of the White House.

There could be no more fitting end to despotic regime of that loathsome reprobate.
 
Last edited:
OP
Edgetho

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
I understand he's supposed to go 'full dictator' on us tonight. He's supposed to tell us that he's going to move forward with 'his' ideas whether Congress grants him the power or not.

Last I checked.... Well, discuss.

I think, if he does announce his willingness to act without Congressional approval, that we (Patriotic Americans) Impeach him in the House and take enough seats in the Senate to Convict him come next January.

I don't like the idea of Impeaching a President, but when he threatens to violate the Constitution.... And then does (he has already, several times)... I think he's ASKING to be Impeached.

It's almost like he's saying, "Bring it on."

Which brings to mind another thought..... 'Impeach and fail to convict'? What repercussions, if any, would that present for Republicans?

I'm not going to watch the SOTU, so somebody else will have to tell me whether he really does go Full Dictator tonight
Another dingleberry 'Conservative' having wet dreams. Will these adolescent intellects ever learn anything?

President Obama will leave office on 20Jan17, turning over the office of POTUS to the duly elected next President. And you fools will be just as stupid and foolish then as now.
We impeached Bill the rapist Clinton for a lot less.

Since you don't have the intellect to think further ahead than your next coffee break, let me pose a question to you moronic douchebags on the left....

Is obama just posturing or is he seriously considering the dictator route?

Is he just trying to get the Republicans in Congress to give in or is he serious?

I'm thinking he's serious. I think he really does go into full-on dictator mode.....

And I think the Republicans in the House impeach him for it.

I'll tell you something else....

If he does go full-on dictator, we take 15 seats in the Senate leaving us only needing 5 dimocraps to side with us to throw him on the street.

And I think it happens. I think he will skew the economy so bad, I think dimocraps, even from fairly solid Blue States, will be so afraid of losing their positions....

I think he gets Impeached AND Convicted.

In 1998, I told people that the rapist would be Impeached.

He was. And I was right. As usual.

I also said he wouldn't be Convicted. I was right about that, too.

And i said it would cost ManBearPig the election.

I get kinda accustomed to being right. I'm even right about being right.

I'm not calling for the Lying-Cocksucker-In-Chief's impeachment just yet because I'm not convinced (yet) that he has the stones to risk impeachment AND conviction.

We'll see.
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
because you have no real case is why

hell Bush commited a war crime by using WP as a anti personel weapon and you defended that
 
OP
Edgetho

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
The list of Impeachable offenses committed by this clown are endless.

I don't believe however that a bill of Impeachment carries over from one Congress to the next. Could be wrong.

As it stands right now, we know that Obama was at the MINIMUM, aware of the impending attack on the Libya Mission, and began to conceal his complicity through the advance staging of an otherwise irrelevant youtube video. We know that the plan was to tout the video, to have local Islamic clerics around the ME stir up protests and that on 9-11, a protest would erupt outside the US Mission, and from that 'spontaneous protest', SO OUTRAGED would the pious Islamic Faithful BE... that an attack would erupt, destroying the opportunity for the Benghazi mission to continue in its pursuit of the HUNDREDS of SHOULDER FIRED MISSILES that Bill's Wife gave to Al Qaeda, from the Libyan staff, after poor Kadahfi passed, so suddenly.

Which of course, because it came up SO SUDDENLY, the President was SO FAR out of packet that to this DAY, no one knows where he was. He told the gang at the white house to 'do whatever they needed to do' and skee-daddled to highly secret and sensitive points, unknown.

When he did so, HE FORGOT to tell them, "IF some group of Islamic Faithful happen to be protesting an OUTRAGEOUS ASSAULT ON ISLAM by a anti-Muslim Bully and THAT ERUPTS INTO A HIGHLY ORGANIZED ASSAULT ON THE MISSION: SEND HELP IMMEDIATELY." So, no one could DO ANYTHING! Because 'they did not possess the authority.

Although we DO know that General Ham, the CO of Afri-corps was INSTANTLY fired and replaced, when he attempted to send help with his standing Quick Reaction Force. So, we know someone over there had the authority to DO THAT, we just don't know who that was.

But we DO know, that the consistent and unanimous, clearly rehearsed assertions that the Benghazi attack was the result of the Video, when we ALSO know that EACH PERSON, TO THE INDIVIDUAL, who has made the claim, ABSOLUTELY KNEW, without exception of qualification, that the attack had NOTHING TO DO WITH "INNOCENT PROTESTORS" and WAS the result of a pre-planned, highly organized, well equipped and quite capable force, with DETAILED knowledge of the inner workings of the compound.

And there's only ONE possible reason that someone would claim that the Video was the reason, when they knew it was not and that reason is "THAT WAS THE PLAN".

So, yeah. I'd say he needs to be impeached.

Then removed from office.

Then charged with treason. Tried on the evidence. Convicted by a jury of his peers on the weight of the damning evidence.

Then HUNG by his pencil neck from the tallest limb that can be found on the grounds of the White House.

There could be no more fitting end to despotic regime of that loathsome reprobate.
Not supposed to, I think.

But Clinton's did.

http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/ackerman2.html


THE CASE AGAINST LAMEDUCK IMPEACHMENT is a small book both physically -- measuring only six and 7/8ths inches down and four and 1/4 inches across -- and in length, just 77 pages long. Bruce Ackerman, the Stirling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, wrote the book in the last two weeks of 1998. He argues that the two articles of impeachment the House of Representatives voted against President Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998, should have expired fifteen days later on January 3, 1999, when the life of the 105th Congress ended.

Ackerman was trying to persuade President Clinton to instruct his attorneys to challenge the validity of the articles of impeachment, and to convince Senators that they should proceed to trial on the articles unless they were readopted by the new House elected in November, 1998, and convening on January 3rd. He was, of course, also trying to influence the public as to the correctness of this position. Ackerman's argument is framed in terms of constitutional interpretation. But, as he readily acknowledges, it is set in the political context that both articles were approved by close votes and the new House of Representatives would have more Democrats than its predecessor had.

As we know, he did not succeed in this effort. The Senate accepted the articles and tried the president on them. Neither Clinton's defense team nor the Senate Democrats urged that carrying over the articles of impeachment from one Congress to the next was unconstitutional, so there was no serious discussion about the issue. Nonetheless, Ackerman makes some interesting constitutional arguments against lameduck impeachment that are worth describing here. He also believes that the resolution of the lameduck impeachment issue has major consequences for the future of our national political structure; this belief warrants a brief analysis.
 
OP
Edgetho

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
Will obama's SOTU Tonight Get Him Impeached?
That would be great.
It's tomorrow night. My bad.

Shows how much I follow that lying, deceitful, hateful, racist, Anti-American, scumbag piece of human refuse
 

Esmeralda

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
28,585
Reaction score
21,325
Points
2,415
Location
Washington State
I understand he's supposed to go 'full dictator' on us Tuesday :eek: night. He's supposed to tell us that he's going to move forward with 'his' ideas whether Congress grants him the power or not.

Last I checked.... Well, discuss.

I think, if he does announce his willingness to act without Congressional approval, that we (Patriotic Americans) Impeach him in the House and take enough seats in the Senate to Convict him come next January.

I don't like the idea of Impeaching a President, but when he threatens to violate the Constitution.... And then does (he has already, several times)... I think he's ASKING to be Impeached.

It's almost like he's saying, "Bring it on."

Which brings to mind another thought..... 'Impeach and fail to convict'? What repercussions, if any, would that present for Republicans?

I'm not going to watch the SOTU, so somebody else will have to tell me whether he really does go Full Dictator Tuesday night
Are you capable of any kind of rational thought at all? :rolleyes:
 
OP
Edgetho

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
I understand he's supposed to go 'full dictator' on us Tuesday :eek: night. He's supposed to tell us that he's going to move forward with 'his' ideas whether Congress grants him the power or not.

Last I checked.... Well, discuss.

I think, if he does announce his willingness to act without Congressional approval, that we (Patriotic Americans) Impeach him in the House and take enough seats in the Senate to Convict him come next January.

I don't like the idea of Impeaching a President, but when he threatens to violate the Constitution.... And then does (he has already, several times)... I think he's ASKING to be Impeached.

It's almost like he's saying, "Bring it on."

Which brings to mind another thought..... 'Impeach and fail to convict'? What repercussions, if any, would that present for Republicans?

I'm not going to watch the SOTU, so somebody else will have to tell me whether he really does go Full Dictator Tuesday night
Are you capable of any kind of rational thought at all? :rolleyes:
Yes, but since that appears to about the best you can come up with, I seldom bother.
 

Esmeralda

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
28,585
Reaction score
21,325
Points
2,415
Location
Washington State
I understand he's supposed to go 'full dictator' on us Tuesday :eek: night. He's supposed to tell us that he's going to move forward with 'his' ideas whether Congress grants him the power or not.

Last I checked.... Well, discuss.

I think, if he does announce his willingness to act without Congressional approval, that we (Patriotic Americans) Impeach him in the House and take enough seats in the Senate to Convict him come next January.

I don't like the idea of Impeaching a President, but when he threatens to violate the Constitution.... And then does (he has already, several times)... I think he's ASKING to be Impeached.

It's almost like he's saying, "Bring it on."

Which brings to mind another thought..... 'Impeach and fail to convict'? What repercussions, if any, would that present for Republicans?

I'm not going to watch the SOTU, so somebody else will have to tell me whether he really does go Full Dictator Tuesday night
Are you capable of any kind of rational thought at all? :rolleyes:
Yes, but since that appears to about the best you can come up with, I seldom bother.
Don't bother to respond. It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.
 

Where_r_my_Keys

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
15,272
Reaction score
1,842
Points
280
The list of Impeachable offenses committed by this clown are endless.

I don't believe however that a bill of Impeachment carries over from one Congress to the next. Could be wrong.

As it stands right now, we know that Obama was at the MINIMUM, aware of the impending attack on the Libya Mission, and began to conceal his complicity through the advance staging of an otherwise irrelevant youtube video. We know that the plan was to tout the video, to have local Islamic clerics around the ME stir up protests and that on 9-11, a protest would erupt outside the US Mission, and from that 'spontaneous protest', SO OUTRAGED would the pious Islamic Faithful BE... that an attack would erupt, destroying the opportunity for the Benghazi mission to continue in its pursuit of the HUNDREDS of SHOULDER FIRED MISSILES that Bill's Wife gave to Al Qaeda, from the Libyan staff, after poor Kadahfi passed, so suddenly.

Which of course, because it came up SO SUDDENLY, the President was SO FAR out of packet that to this DAY, no one knows where he was. He told the gang at the white house to 'do whatever they needed to do' and skee-daddled to highly secret and sensitive points, unknown.

When he did so, HE FORGOT to tell them, "IF some group of Islamic Faithful happen to be protesting an OUTRAGEOUS ASSAULT ON ISLAM by a anti-Muslim Bully and THAT ERUPTS INTO A HIGHLY ORGANIZED ASSAULT ON THE MISSION: SEND HELP IMMEDIATELY." So, no one could DO ANYTHING! Because 'they did not possess the authority.

Although we DO know that General Ham, the CO of Afri-corps was INSTANTLY fired and replaced, when he attempted to send help with his standing Quick Reaction Force. So, we know someone over there had the authority to DO THAT, we just don't know who that was.

But we DO know, that the consistent and unanimous, clearly rehearsed assertions that the Benghazi attack was the result of the Video, when we ALSO know that EACH PERSON, TO THE INDIVIDUAL, who has made the claim, ABSOLUTELY KNEW, without exception of qualification, that the attack had NOTHING TO DO WITH "INNOCENT PROTESTORS" and WAS the result of a pre-planned, highly organized, well equipped and quite capable force, with DETAILED knowledge of the inner workings of the compound.

And there's only ONE possible reason that someone would claim that the Video was the reason, when they knew it was not and that reason is "THAT WAS THE PLAN".

So, yeah. I'd say he needs to be impeached.

Then removed from office.

Then charged with treason. Tried on the evidence. Convicted by a jury of his peers on the weight of the damning evidence.

Then HUNG by his pencil neck from the tallest limb that can be found on the grounds of the White House.

There could be no more fitting end to despotic regime of that loathsome reprobate.
Not supposed to, I think.

But Clinton's did.

http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/ackerman2.html


THE CASE AGAINST LAMEDUCK IMPEACHMENT is a small book both physically -- measuring only six and 7/8ths inches down and four and 1/4 inches across -- and in length, just 77 pages long. Bruce Ackerman, the Stirling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, wrote the book in the last two weeks of 1998. He argues that the two articles of impeachment the House of Representatives voted against President Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998, should have expired fifteen days later on January 3, 1999, when the life of the 105th Congress ended.

Ackerman was trying to persuade President Clinton to instruct his attorneys to challenge the validity of the articles of impeachment, and to convince Senators that they should proceed to trial on the articles unless they were readopted by the new House elected in November, 1998, and convening on January 3rd. He was, of course, also trying to influence the public as to the correctness of this position. Ackerman's argument is framed in terms of constitutional interpretation. But, as he readily acknowledges, it is set in the political context that both articles were approved by close votes and the new House of Representatives would have more Democrats than its predecessor had.

As we know, he did not succeed in this effort. The Senate accepted the articles and tried the president on them. Neither Clinton's defense team nor the Senate Democrats urged that carrying over the articles of impeachment from one Congress to the next was unconstitutional, so there was no serious discussion about the issue. Nonetheless, Ackerman makes some interesting constitutional arguments against lameduck impeachment that are worth describing here. He also believes that the resolution of the lameduck impeachment issue has major consequences for the future of our national political structure; this belief warrants a brief analysis.
I thought so. I have some vague recollection of Ackerman's argument. Thank you for the info.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top