• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To Standard For Impeachment

Oh man....This is just too good....:lamo As if liberal progressives are somehow smarter, more enlightened, and repubs are just too damned dumb not to do as they say....*shakes head*... Wow!

Don't project j. Just a question. Were we or were we not right? Both sides can be dumb. Its not an attack like that. it's just an analysis. And one of which we do have some early results on.
 
You attribute his impeachment proceeding to partisanship ? Seriously ? He lied under Oath, committed perjury, something that would get our average American citizen in a whole bunch of hot water.

High crimes and misdemeanors....for Republicans only right ?

Most average Americans would never get asked if they were committing adultry.

Gee...maybe we should ask the next Republican President if he jerks off to porn, how often, and to what types of porn then comb his computer records and see if he was lying.
 
Lying under oath, that's pretty much okay in your book? Yes, it was the House that was wrong here, not Clinton. That about right?
Most Presidents don't have to testify in court for these types of offenses.

I'm not sure you're point here! You type something mockingly in your first couple of sentences then basically type something I agree with.

You are right...most Presidents don't have to testify about infidelity in court...because no American gives a ****! Some of the most popular Presidents in US history were having affairs in office. So Congressional Republicans asked a question they should of never asked that has no bearing on Clinton's duty to the American people and...yes a man lied about an affair!

So sure...yes he lied under oath...but as I mentioned in another post...I could easily compile a list of questions for any Republican President that would make him lie out of embarrassment/hiding a person fact.

The fact is...Congressional Republicans acted like dicks and looked like dicks during this whole fiasco. In history books people will guffaw at how ****ing nutty Republicans were (assuming they become respectable agains).
 
I'm not sure you're point here! You type something mockingly in your first couple of sentences then basically type something I agree with.

You are right...most Presidents don't have to testify about infidelity in court...because no American gives a ****! Some of the most popular Presidents in US history were having affairs in office. So Congressional Republicans asked a question they should of never asked that has no bearing on Clinton's duty to the American people and...yes a man lied about an affair!

So sure...yes he lied under oath...but as I mentioned in another post...I could easily compile a list of questions for any Republican President that would make him lie out of embarrassment/hiding a person fact.

The fact is...Congressional Republicans acted like dicks and looked like dicks during this whole fiasco. In history books people will guffaw at how ****ing nutty Republicans were (assuming they become respectable agains).

So wrong. You focus on the irrelevant, like other Presidents affairs, when the material fact is that he lied under oath. Other Presidents didn't. I am pretty sure it will be the perp, Clinton, that will be remembered as an abuser of women.
 
So wrong. You focus on the irrelevant, like other Presidents affairs, when the material fact is that he lied under oath. Other Presidents didn't. I am pretty sure it will be the perp, Clinton, that will be remembered as an abuser of women.

Rubbish. First of all everybody lies during a deposition, since by its nature there's a dispute and the two sides disagree. If you sought perjury charges against every businessman who was deposed and said "I didn't breach that contract" half of America's CEOs would be in jail.

Second, the deposition was so friggin' weird, with the inept judge allowing a freakish and incoherent definition of "sex" which went on for two pages. God only knows what the question meant. Clinton had no duty to make sense out of the garbled nonsense.

The impeachment was pure politics, funded by rightwing loonies who set up the Paula Jones case with the help of an inept and biased judge.

But I am disappointed that the Democrats didn't impeach Bush. The GOP needs to be punished.
 
Rubbish. First of all everybody lies during a deposition, since by its nature there's a dispute and the two sides disagree. If you sought perjury charges against every businessman who was deposed and said "I didn't breach that contract" half of America's CEOs would be in jail.

Second, the deposition was so friggin' weird, with the inept judge allowing a freakish and incoherent definition of "sex" which went on for two pages. God only knows what the question meant. Clinton had no duty to make sense out of the garbled nonsense.

The impeachment was pure politics, funded by rightwing loonies who set up the Paula Jones case with the help of an inept and biased judge.

But I am disappointed that the Democrats didn't impeach Bush. The GOP needs to be punished.

damn, such much silliness and hatred in a few sentences. One of these days we will really find out what causes this inane loathing of the GOP
 
So wrong. You focus on the irrelevant, like other Presidents affairs, when the material fact is that he lied under oath. Other Presidents didn't. I am pretty sure it will be the perp, Clinton, that will be remembered as an abuser of women.

Yes...what he lied under oath about is irrelevant. We should all ignore context and only focus on the fact he lied under oath and was impeached.
 
The point of the article is the lawlessness of BHO's means of effecting the change, not the details thereof.
And the point of my post was to point out the false claim that: "Obama has also ignored the mid-1990s welfare-reform law, allowing states to strip the “work” out of workfare"


You know, the statement you with which you ended your post?
 
Rubbish. First of all everybody lies during a deposition, since by its nature there's a dispute and the two sides disagree. If you sought perjury charges against every businessman who was deposed and said "I didn't breach that contract" half of America's CEOs would be in jail.
Ah, the "everbody does it" excuse, like a 3rd grader. Grow up.
Second, the deposition was so friggin' weird, with the inept judge allowing a freakish and incoherent definition of "sex" which went on for two pages. God only knows what the question meant. Clinton had no duty to make sense out of the garbled nonsense.
Oh, it was weird. Another great one. You should have called his lawyers before he got disbarred, I'm sure that would have saved him.

The impeachment was pure politics, funded by rightwing loonies who set up the Paula Jones case with the help of an inept and biased judge.
What? Politics in Washington??? You've got to be kidding!

But I am disappointed that the Democrats didn't impeach Bush. The GOP needs to be punished.
You are like the republicans that want Obama impeached. Not happening. Please detail how Bush would have been impeached, because it was not possible.
 
The point of the article is the lawlessness of BHO's means of effecting the change, not the details thereof.

It wasn't lawless. This discretion was granted by Congress.
 
And the point of my post was to point out the false claim that: "Obama has also ignored the mid-1990s welfare-reform law, allowing states to strip the “work” out of workfare"


You know, the statement you with which you ended your post?

Yes, and you were incorrect again.
 
Facts say otherwise, though I know you're not a fan of facts when they get in the way of your propaganda.

I'm just not prepared uncritically to accept the Executive's justification for its unilateral actions.
 
I'm just not prepared uncritically to accept the Executive's justification for its unilateral actions.
Except that's not what we were talking about just now. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed.

Please stick to one topic or the other, that way I know on which one I need to obliterate you.
 
Except that's not what we were talking about just now. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed.

Please stick to one topic or the other, that way I know on which one I need to obliterate you.

I have not switched topics. I do not accept that Congress granted the Executive the unilateral authority to alter the requirements of the welfare reform law. I believe the Executive wanted to act lawlessly, but has been forced (thus far) to back down.:peace
 
I have not switched topics.
You have. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed. You were wrong on that.

I do not accept that Congress granted the Executive the unilateral authority to alter the requirements of the welfare reform law.
You do not accept what Congress themselves wrote. Interesting.

I believe the Executive wanted to act lawlessly, but has been forced (thus far) to back down.:peace
For argument's sake, let's say this is true. If they have backed down, then they did not act lawlessly, even if they so desired. Thus your entire premise is blown up.


Again, pick one topic and stick with it. I can destroy you on either one.
 
You have. We were talking about how the work requirement was not removed. You were wrong on that.

You do not accept what Congress themselves wrote. Interesting.

For argument's sake, let's say this is true. If they have backed down, then they did not act lawlessly, even if they so desired. Thus your entire premise is blown up.


Again, pick one topic and stick with it. I can destroy you on either one.

The Executive attempted to act lawlessly to gut welfare reform, conforming to a pattern of lawless behavior. Congress granted no such authority to the Executive to unilaterally amend welfare reform, and GAO determined that the Executive was acting beyond its authority in attempting to do so. When a criminal is dissuaded from crime by security measures, he is no less a criminal.:peace
 
When a criminal is dissuaded from crime by security measures, he is no less a criminal.:peace
Uh, yes, he is. What a ridiculous thing to say. One is only a criminal if one violates the law.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
 
No, he doesn't. In today's Nation, if the Repub machine gunners say it enough times, it is true.

We have watched this throughout August. Now Syria and Obamacare are 'tied'.

And we will only see the House in session for 40 days in the last 4 months of the year. Part-time Boehner/Can'tor.

Uh, yes, he is. What a ridiculous thing to say. One is only a criminal if one violates the law.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
 
Uh, yes, he is. What a ridiculous thing to say. One is only a criminal if one violates the law.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

When I use the word "criminal" that means a person with a history of criminal acts. Now, please return to the topic.
 
When I use the word "criminal" that means a person with a history of criminal acts. Now, please return to the topic.
You simply could have answered "no" and saved yourself some time twisting yourself into a pretzel.
 
You simply could have answered "no" and saved yourself some time twisting yourself into a pretzel.


I don't believe I'm the one who's been contorted. You have declined to offer a defense of your position. Should I conclude that you cannot?
 
Back
Top Bottom