• 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!

Poll: Should President Obama Be Impeached? Read on...

Should President Obama be Impeached?

  • Total voters
    56
digsbe said:
I voted yes, I meant to vote no. Obama shouldn't be impeached for the killing of a terrorist leader.
Click to expand...

you're a mod cant you fix that? lol
 
digsbe said:
I voted yes, I meant to vote no. Obama shouldn't be impeached for the killing of a terrorist leader.
Click to expand...

Did you used to live in Florida?

I smell a hanging chad!
 
Three words for anyone voting yes to consider:

President Joe Biden.
 
cpwill said:
Three words for anyone voting yes to consider:

President Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

Good thing to know that you prefer politics to the rule of law.
 
No, we cannot impeach Obama while Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush remain unindicted, and that's just the cold hard truth. I would, however, like to see President Obama primaried.
 
No. Hunt them down.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Damn that Obama for making people in the 2002-2007 period for taking out such idiotic loans and for forcing banks to make those loans

I guess he has surpassed Barney Frank as the most powerful person in the world
Click to expand...
It is true that Democrats in general have really screwed up the US economy. It is also true that the one term Marxist president Obama has been making every possible effort to wreck our capitalist economy in order to replace ti with a socialist economy more to his liking. This is not his to decide.
 
Redress said:
Good thing to know that you prefer politics to the rule of law.
Click to expand...

no, but I think probably a few do - and it's always a good point for those to consider what their second and third order effects will be.

as for the rule of law? we are at war - and he was at war with us; yet in relation to what international law exists to cover that area of human interaction, he violated the necessary precepts to be able to claim its' protections. al-Awlaki's rights under the rule of law thereby became whatever we chose to extend to him.
 
Misterveritis said:
It is true that Democrats in general have really screwed up the US economy. It is also true that the one term Marxist president Obama has been making every possible effort to wreck our capitalist economy in order to replace ti with a socialist economy more to his liking. This is not his to decide.
Click to expand...

What is this? Corporatists, the MIC, and bankers are doing very well under Obama. While you are right that Obama's economic policies are awful, you are wrong to claim that he is some sort of radical Marxist trying to turn America into a socialist paradise.

Its just business as usual in Washington.
 
cpwill said:
no, but I think probably a few do - and it's always a good point for those to consider what their second and third order effects will be.

as for the rule of law? we are at war - and he was at war with us; yet in relation to what international law exists to cover that area of human interaction, he violated the necessary precepts to be able to claim its' protections. al-Awlaki's rights under the rule of law thereby became whatever we chose to extend to him.
Click to expand...

But that was not your answer. Your answer was to look at the political repercussions. Kinda late to go back now and say you didn't mean that.
 
Muhammed said:
By his own admission he is not a natural born citizen of the US, therefore he is obviously not constitutionally eligible to be president.
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg
 
No, Obama shouldn't be impeached, why? What other great choice do you have? I'd rather have a Liberal idiot in power than a Conservative idiot.
 
Antiderivative said:
What is this? Corporatists, the MIC, and bankers are doing very well under Obama. While you are right that Obama's economic policies are awful, you are wrong to claim that he is some sort of radical Marxist trying to turn America into a socialist paradise.

Its just business as usual in Washington.
Click to expand...
This is true where self interest trump all else and many a freshman who enter Congress with mere pennies leave as millionaires..
 
Juiposa said:
No, Obama shouldn't be impeached, why? What other great choice do you have? I'd rather have a Liberal idiot in power than a Conservative idiot.
Click to expand...
idiots non the less and they will have a adverse affect on you, me and the rest, the constitution is a excellent guide line for our government so hold the politicians feet to the fire or throw them out..
 
Redress said:
But that was not your answer. Your answer was to look at the political repercussions. Kinda late to go back now and say you didn't mean that.
Click to expand...

no, my answer was to point out to those voting in favor of impeachment (I voted "no" because he hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment), some of whom I suspected would be doing so for partisan reasons, that there were alternate factors to consider.
 
Juiposa said:
No, Obama shouldn't be impeached, why? What other great choice do you have? I'd rather have a Liberal idiot in power than a Conservative idiot.
Click to expand...

The last time a liberal was in power was Jimmy Carter. Implying that Obama is a liberal is misnomer to say the least. However, this is what modern day liberalism has sunk to. They believe that a President who is more right than Nixon is a liberal.

deltabtry said:
This is true where self interest trump all else and many a freshman who enter Congress with mere pennies leave as millionaires..
Click to expand...

Crony capitalism is a huge problem in our country and the only politician who takes this issue seriously is Ron Paul.
 
Antiderivative said:
The last time a liberal was in power was Jimmy Carter. Implying that Obama is a liberal is misnomer to say the least. However, this is what modern day liberalism has sunk to. They believe that a President who is more right than Nixon is a liberal.



Crony capitalism is a huge problem in our country and the only politician who takes this issue seriously is Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
Labels this is where it has gotten us and to no ends. I call myself a very conservative but not to the current contemporary meaning. All I have seen in Washington are senior corrupt politicians enabling or at least attempting to corrupt the freshman.

Bottom line I have had enough but I am just one.
 
Muhammed said:
By his own admission he is not a natural born citizen of the US, therefore he is obviously not constitutionally eligible to be president.
Click to expand...

Ah, you are one of those. OK, well, we need humor here, so it's cool.
 
Wait...I am SO confused...those poll results are so backwards compared to the positions given in other threads. Seems to me the people that believe that Obama is a war criminal and is guilty of violting those poor terrorists constitutional rights by executing them dont support impeachment, yet those that think he was in the right think he SHOULD be impeached for executing an American...

very strange, this partisan ideology thing.

If you believe the man is responsible for violating an American citizens constitutional rights and outright murdering him...how can you believe he should still be commander in chief? How can you not wish to see him charged criminally?
 
VanceMack said:
If you believe the man is responsible for violating an American citizens constitutional rights and outright murdering him...how can you believe he should still be commander in chief? How can you not wish to see him charged criminally?
Click to expand...

Because unfortunately our legal system offers no other option to the president, aside from letting Awlaki off the hook entirely. It's something that needs to be changed (I'm not comfortable with the president deciding to execute people either), but one can hardly fault Obama for acting on the only option available to him.
 
Maybe this will help folks with their decision.


Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.
Click to expand...
War Powers Resolution(the SEC. cited above):

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Id bet that most that voted yes to impeachment only voted yes for to smack obama...they dont believe for a second he should or could be impeached for this
He did the country a service...like him or not...and he saved american lives.
 
Nope.
People know that these kinds of people can't be brought alive captured. There are too many possible leaks, capturing is a 100 times more difficult than killing, and a failure will be a blow to the US as a whole.
Considering the circumstances, Obama did what was needed to do, although I, along with many, would have prefered him getting a huge public circus of a trial with all the embarrassment it can muster, then throw him into a horrible, hell-like prison for the rest of his life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom