• 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!

Would you support impeaching President Obama?

Would you support impeaching President Obama?

  • Total voters
    59
TheDemSocialist said:
...And when the IRS was targeting liberal and left wing churches under Bush that was just "ehhh **** happens"...
Click to expand...

You mean the ones that the IG investigated and found no targeting occurred? Those ones?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wait? How at all is that a "trufer alert"?
Click to expand...

You're insinuating that Bush was negligent, by not stopping the 9/11 attack. You obviously equated it to an impeachable crime.

BTW, there's more evidence of wrong doing against Obama than there was against Nixon, so you might wanna slow your roll.

Johnson illegally bugged Nixon's 1968 campaign. No one bitched about that.
 
Dickieboy said:
That can certainly be asserted but only from the perspective of hindsight. You DO remember that the Iraq resolution passed the House with 40% of the Democrats (minority party) and the Senate with 58% of the Democrats (minority party) voting for it. Now if you can find such support in the current Congress for the actions in Benghazi you MAY be able to breath life into that strawman...as it is now we just don't know ALL THE FACTS but perhaps 4-8yrs down the road the 'scandal' MAY look very different...we'll see. ;)
Click to expand...
How do you know you don't have all the facts? Hasn't Roger Ailes hired a script writer yet?
 
First off, arguably most, if not all, previous attempts to impeach the President (as in, the office itself) were fueled with partisan animus more than they were to dispense justice.

However, there are more convincing cases than others. You have nothing on the President yet that could even justify moving forward.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No. He should not be impeached. Its insanity to say he should, and its mainly partisan bull**** as usually.
2youwqw.jpg
Click to expand...

You now how you people look like cry babies when you post stuff like this?

Clinton didn't get impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for committing perjury. Are you claiming it's ok for the President of The United States to commit a crime, as long as he's a Libbo?

You people demanded accountability for decades...right up 'til your boy got elected; goodbye accountability and hello cry babies.
 
apdst said:
You're insinuating that Bush was negligent, by not stopping the 9/11 attack. You obviously equated it to an impeachable crime.
Click to expand...
Well saying he was warned that Al-Qaeda was determined to attack in the US
AUGUST '01 BRIEF IS SAID TO WARN OF ATTACK PLANS - New York Times
Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
Bush told of hijack warning weeks before 9/11 | World news | The Guardian

Thats not "trufer" ****, these are facts this isnt saying "oh Bush put bombs in the buildings" **** this is facts.

BTW, there's more evidence of wrong doing against Obama than there was against Nixon, so you might wanna slow your roll.
Click to expand...
:lamo:lamo
Oh my god :lamo


Johnson illegally bugged Nixon's 1968 campaign. No one bitched about that.
Click to expand...
And you call me the "trufer"
 
Absolutely not. That would make him a martyr, and the next five Democrat presidents would proclaim that they were "finishing the wrongly interrupted Obama Administration."

Democrat Drones would lap that up like dogs lapping up their own vomit, just with less charm and appeal.

People who vote for childish fantasies have to have their noses rubbed vigorously into Reality in order to effect a cure.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Well saying he was warned that Al-Qaeda was determined to attack in the US
AUGUST '01 BRIEF IS SAID TO WARN OF ATTACK PLANS - New York Times
Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
Bush told of hijack warning weeks before 9/11 | World news | The Guardian

Thats not "trufer" ****, these are facts this isnt saying "oh Bush put bombs in the buildings" **** this is facts.


:lamo:lamo
Oh my god :lamo



And you call me the "trufer"
Click to expand...

Like I said...trufer alert. I bet the next thing you're going to tell us, is that Bush was born in Kenya.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No. He should not be impeached. Its insanity to say he should, and its mainly partisan bull**** as usually.
2youwqw.jpg
Click to expand...

That's what impeachment has always been. The terms for impeachment are vague, and honestly, it works more as a political tool than a tool of justice. It just so happens that it is the "nuclear option" requires serious problems to go along with that-like a completely obstinate President (toward his Party).

I'm less in favor of ousting a President than most here would ever be. It's just that the impeachment trigger is less precise than we give it credit for.
 
apdst said:
Like I said...trufer alert. I bet the next thing you're going to tell us, is that Bush was born in Kenya.
Click to expand...

:roll:
Oh god.... Yes there could be no early warning signs for 9/11! None! :lamo
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Really!?
Abortion?
LGBT rights?
Click to expand...

Some political issues aren't necessarily political.

An anti-war sermon is definitely political.

Be glad the IRS doesn't really crack down on political speech in churches...Jesse and Al wouldn't have an audience, anymore.
 
apdst said:
There wasn't enough specific evidence for anyone to stop anything.
Click to expand...

Wait so now we get to cherry pick warnings that "are specific enough"? Man oh man. Kinda like Obama and Libya? Oh wait not that one cuz you know he has a 'D' next to his name.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wait so now we get to cherry pick warnings that "are specific enough"? Man oh man. Kinda like Obama and Libya? Oh wait not that one cuz you know he has a 'D' next to his name.
Click to expand...

OMG...ok, show us the specific evidence that would have allowed someone, anyone, to stop the 9/11 attacks.
 
apdst said:
Some political issues aren't necessarily political.
Click to expand...
Some political issues arent political? Did you seriously just say that :doh

An anti-war sermon is definitely political.
Click to expand...
Wait? "Thou shall not kill"? Numerous anti-war quotes in the bible. If LGBT rights and abortion isnt political? Then what is or is not political?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And when 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 that was just "ehhh **** happens"..



And when the IRS was targeting liberal and left wing churches under Bush that was just "ehhh **** happens"





Yea... I can name several right off the back. Jackson, and Nixon.
Click to expand...

After 9/11/ President G.W. Bush didn't spend eight years blaming President Clinton's failed terrorism policies.

I know exactly which radical leftist church that was being investigated by the IRS, All Saints Church in Pasadena, California. I was invited to attend that church by one of my liberal friends. The Preacher tells you who to vote for and just about every radical leftist political organization has tables and booths set up every Sunday morning including Cold Pink, Party for Socialism and Liberation, A*N*S*W*E*R* Coalition, and a few dozen more. Even socialist have secretly turned to God.

Nixon and Watergate today looks more like a traffic violation comparable to a burned out tail light compared to the current corrupt Obama administration. No body was killed during the Watergate burglary or during the cover up.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Some political issues arent political? Did you seriously just say that :doh


Wait? "Thou shall not kill"? Numerous anti-war quotes in the bible. If LGBT rights and abortion isnt political? Then what is or is not political?
Click to expand...

You're embarressing yourself, now.
 
apdst said:
OMG...ok, show us the specific evidence that would have allowed someone, anyone, to stop the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

Oh wait so we are gonna cherrypick? Ok!

"
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible....Yet, the White House failed to take significant action."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

"U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific."
Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
 
If anything I would give this president an award for the love and wisdom he has bestowed on us all, especially the latest wisdom of changing our war strategy against terror. Brilliant move by a brilliant strategic thinker and educator. From healthcare to gitmo to benghazi to catholics and birth control, the intellectual prowess cannot be matched or contested, and for that I applaud this mythical man and patriot...I open my pocket books to fund this unrivaled genius...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom