Poll: One-third say impeach Obama

originally posted by: stumason
Surely as a result of the previous Administrations "Patriot Act", rampant xenophobia and "War on Terror"?

A lot of it did start under Bush (and before) but you can only pass the buck so much. he still supported it and allowed it to grow.

originally posted by: stumason
Granted, they are average films, but surely not the fault of the President...................

I'd say the films are well bellow average but we both know thats not were not talking about.

originally posted by: stumason
Such as? And how come Bush Jnr doesn't fall into this category as well?

www.theguardian.com...
This covers the gist of his war crimes. Why do people keep asking about Bush? I wanted him done for the Iraq invasion and I still do. Just because he got away with stuff doesn't mean that he or anyone else should have.

originally posted by: stumason
Examples?

www.washingtontimes.com...
washingtonexaminer.com...
www.spj.org...

originally posted by: stumason
Was this something he was directly involved or complicit in, or simply a Government department doing what Government departments do, namely, fudge up from time to time?

there is circumstancial evidence he may have been involved, but that should be rigourously investigated and if he was involved he should be impeached for that.

Obama has already been relieved of his duty, I wonder who is in charge.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
And then what? Biden? Really? Biden?
Really?

He is Obama's ace in the hole to get to the end of his term no matter what he does.

originally posted by: monkofmimir
A lot of it did start under Bush (and before) but you can only pass the buck so much. he still supported it and allowed it to grow.

We all know Clinton and Bush started much of this, but Obama has taken it to all new crazy levels, that is what he does.

Spending, all new crazy levels. War on Terror, all new crazy levels. Socialized medicine, all new crazy levels. Attack on the Constitution, all new crazy levels. Recession recovery, all new crazy levels of failure there.

Its like saying that because other Presidents stole an apple off a tree and Obama robed a bank it is all the same, since both are stealing. The big difference is we could recover from anything that any other president did, I'm not so sure about this time.

He SHOULD be impeached for his intentional 'oversight' of the law (a law he himself signed) when he went around congress and released five terrorists in order to get back one lone American Army deserter. But he won't be impeached. 'They' don't let that happen.

originally posted by: monkofmimir
A lot of it did start under Bush (and before) but you can only pass the buck so much. he still supported it and allowed it to grow.

I don't recall anywhere near the level of calls for impeachment (or any, for that matter) though when he was in power. It all seems a little, well, fishy that there is such a vociferous campaign against Obama and one has to wonder, why?

originally posted by: monkofmimir
www.theguardian.com...
This covers the gist of his war crimes. Why do people keep asking about Bush? I wanted him done for the Iraq invasion and I still do. Just because he got away with stuff doesn't mean that he or anyone else should have.

Hmmmm, the Guardian is a left-wing rag which things as much as shooting an enemy who is firing at you is a War Crime - it is interesting in that it thinks because the US is only involved in Afghanistan that it cannot fight it's enemies wherever the be found. Using the definitions set out in that article, merely firing a weapon where civilians might be is a "war crime".

Much like "hate crimes", or "racism" etc, its a word that is bandied about so much it's actually lost much of it's meaning. A true war crime is the deliberate targeting and killing of non-combatant's, for example, which simply is not the case with these drone strikes. Killing people accidentally is, unfortunately, part of War and it's highly suspect that people should be wringing their hands on the side lines and crying "war crime" any time it happens.

originally posted by: monkofmimir
www.washingtontimes.com...
washingtonexaminer.com...
www.spj.org...

Your own articles point out his Administration has done far more with FOI requests than any previous Admin. It goes on to say Government departments like the CIA and Pentagon have been difficult or obstructive, but that is modus operandi for such types of organisations, really, and unless you want the President to personally intervene on every FOI request to the CIA, I fail to see how he can be held that accountable for your Spooks being secretive, as that is the way they have always been.

originally posted by: monkofmimir
there is circumstancial evidence he may have been involved, but that should be rigourously investigated and if he was involved he should be impeached for that.

Circumstantial evidence, in a Court of Law, will be thrown out as soon as it is admitted. Granted, if he has done something untoward, this should be investigated, but calling for him to be impeached based on hearsay is ludicrous.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: monkofmimir
A lot of it did start under Bush (and before) but you can only pass the buck so much. he still supported it and allowed it to grow.

We all know Clinton and Bush started much of this, but Obama has taken it to all new crazy levels, that is what he does.

Spending, all new crazy levels. War on Terror, all new crazy levels. Socialized medicine, all new crazy levels. Attack on the Constitution, all new crazy levels. Recession recovery, all new crazy levels of failure there.

Its like saying that because other Presidents stole an apple off a tree and Obama robed a bank it is all the same, since both are stealing. The big difference is we could recover from anything that any other president did, I'm not so sure about this time.

I don't remember Obama starting any wars. Or turning a blind eye to torture. Or screwing up those wars with blatant stupidity and incompetence.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: xuenchen

Hmm. I can understand the sentiment; but, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the president have to commit a crime to be impeached? Or is it also to be a way for dissastisfied citizens to oust the man in power?

Probably Yes.

And many people think he has.

you're wrong, most people thinks he hasn't....but, you're free to keep thinking that way along with the other 33%.

I'm not actually surprised by this.

This president more than any other has had to deal with a systematic smear campaign since before he was inaugurated into office.

Every single issue has been spun to be a "scandal" by conservative media.

Even after the lies are routed out for the BS they are, the conservative media has continued to use them as though they were true.

"Repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth" has become the conservative media mainstay.

Or, as Bush would say:



Every hiccup, every flub, every failed policy has been used to denounce this president, and try for his ouster. I'm sure that with the midterm elections coming up, that conservatives will be using Impeachment as a platform to get elected on.

Now, will it work?

No, of course not. Why?

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.

Treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Bribery:

or other high crimes and misdemeanors:

This does not cover imagined, fantasized, mythical, fictitious crimes, treasons, bribes, high crimes and misdemeanors.

(or, pretty much anything FOX News, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or any other conservative media personality pulls out of their tuckus.)

Some of you may remember the last time a Democrat president was in the oval office and was impeached, do you know what happened to the GOP the next election? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller?

archives.cnn.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The democrats gained in both the house and the senate for their troubles.

Ah conservatives, their folly to remember the past will doom them to repeat it once again, further weakening the party that's already pretty fractured and debased at this point in time.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: xuenchen

Hmm. I can understand the sentiment; but, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the president have to commit a crime to be impeached? Or is it also to be a way for dissastisfied citizens to oust the man in power?

Probably Yes.

And many people think he has.

originally posted by: jimmyx
you're wrong, most people thinks he hasn't....but, you're free to keep thinking that way along with the other 33%.

Of course I said Many not "Most" as you clearly suggest.

And thanks for allowing me to think.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Impeached for what?? Being president with the wrong skin colour? Oh wait, it's a Xuenchen thread, never mind!

Thanks for the slap in the face.

I'm sure the President appreciates your efforts.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I don't remember Obama starting any wars. Or turning a blind eye to torture. Or screwing up those wars with blatant stupidity and incompetence.

"screwing up those wars with blatant stupidity and incompetence" Really?

He took what Bush started and made it worst, not better. He should have let the Patriot Act die a slow death, but he has embraced it. There is little he has done in regards to Iraq/Afghanistan that has not been a total screw-up on his part. He has also pushed 2500 drone strikes so far, with no real war going on, 8 times that of Bush. Remember his speeches about a transparent Government? Well he has basically shut down the FOIA and is about the most secret president we have ever had. He wasted close to a trillion dollars on the recession that just now after close to 6 years we see some light, all other presidents had their recessions over in a 1 1/2 years...Bush, Clinton, Reagan...


That is my point, the man does everything on a ludicrous level that makes anything any other presidents may have done seem small in comparison.

DP

originally posted by: monkofmimir

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Oh come off it, these calls for impeachment are ridiculous. The man's done nothing wrong apart from to do his best to clean up the vast pile of rubble left by Bush, a man who should have been impeached three times over. Let's face facts - the moment that Obama set foot in the White House the GOP started to go raving mad.

1. NSA spying worse than watergate by many, many magnitudes
2. Fast and furious
3. All the war crimes he has commited
4. His censorship of the media
5. The IRS scandal

And these are just the 5 biggest reasons off the top of my head.
Yes Bush should have been impeached too but its kinda funny how progressives claim a higher moral standard yet when one of their leaders is shown to be a evil monster they are so quick to point out the flaws in the gop as if that somehow makes anything they do okay.

The attitude could be summed up as "We'll he may be a war criminal but at least he isn't a republican"

They don't care.

They think Obama is like George Washington, and never told a 'lie'.

TRUTH !

Quite the shame that the standards that were set for the last guy by his critics just don't seem to apply for the current guy.

Obama might be looking for the "easy way" out.

And he could be suffering from a psychological complex.

Maybe that's why the White House is "Talking" it up so much.

An Obama impeachment and (possible) removal would set the stage for the ultimate blame game and eternal damnation of all involved.

The perfect cover for the mass failures, incompetence, and ineptitudes and general sloppiness.

Secure in the knowledge that impeachment is not the same as removal from office, Mr. Obama brings up the topic on his own and with bold defiance. Martyrdom goes well with a Messiah complex and Mr. Obama’s speeches are a non-stop litany of depicting himself as a victim of Republicans.

Already operating beyond the constitutional bounds of presidential power, Mr. Obama’s strategy is to push the bounds further rather than pulling back. He dares political foes to make his day.

Impeachment would be his crowning badge of victimhood, the ultimate symbol to rally his base, asking that they protect him by guaranteeing a Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate. A simple Republican majority would lack the necessary two-thirds required to remove an impeached president from office, but that nicety of arithmetic would get lost in the political rhetoric.

Obama wants to be impeached ?

These right wing sites are good for a laugh. They use everything from the CNN site for their article but what is the one thing they don't use? The title of the article itself I wonder why? Btw here is the title they wouldn't use.
CNN/ORC Poll: Majority say no to impeachment and lawsuit

As I said before, the only definitely impeachable thing that's proven he did was drone bomb an American without a trial. But since Republicans love bombing people and don't believe that Americans working with terrorists should have their constitutional rights, they drum up all this other crap.

I say impeach Obama and Biden at the same time!

impeach is just the first step for removal

start petitions to recall or impeach Pelosi and a handful of others too

I get my chance to vote against my turnkote Senator L. Graham (sc) this cycle
(sheeze, you should hear all the 'spin' he's doing on being the Leadership of Anti-Obamacare... from day-one crapp)




an earlier poster noted among other excesses by Obama is his excessive spending...
like making every agency buy uneeded Billion$ in Ammo or DHS spend Billion$ for FEMA Camps that sit unused....

see the whole ploy with that policy was to insure all these Agencies with uneeded bullets/Ammo/ urban Tanks,/ FEMA Camps etc.
was to maximize those Agencies growth-of-Funding in the years going forward (you recall the extra 3% annual growth of 'budgets' for every Agency across-the-board ??? ~~ those frozen Funds comprise what is known as "Sequestration" monies)
So ~ in actuality ~ Obama put in place a protocol that would eliminate the Congress Duty to 'control-the-purse strings of the nation...

still another scheme that 'steals' power from the Constitutional duties of Congress, enacted by this WH occupant in the spirit of defiance and larceny. both behaviors & practices are in opposition to his 'Oath of Office'

a reply to: skunkape23

Right
Right
and
Ohhhh so right.