Are There Grounds To Impeach Obama?

[Soggy in NOLA]

As disasterous a President as I think he is.. amongst other things... let's not even go there.

 

[MaggieMae]

no

Another brilliant, insightful post by del, a true model on how everybody should discuss things on a message board

I'm guessing Del was responding to the OP question: Are there grounds to Impeach Obama or am I grasping at straws? Is this worth pursuing?

 

[Dr Gregg]

No..you are not allowed to speak your mind or give your opinion if you disagree with Dr Gregg or anyone on the left for that matter.

I guess you are always free to make stupid, non factual posts and arguments, and completely lie, just like I"m free to call you out on being so dishonest, or even more when you continue to ignore facts to keep on spouting the lies. Too many assholes out there like that we have to constantly deal with in the world, that make life annoying and hell for many people.

Everybody with intelligence should get annoyed at shit like that, and when people try to simplify the complexities of life to fit their ideology, that's disingenuous

So Patek, in your mind is calling Obama a "marxist" and other nonsense spewed on this board on a daily basis (like the OP claiming Obama should be impeached),considered an honest argument?

I guess I just have a low tolerance for complete and utter dumbasses thinking opinions=facts

(don't think you are a dumbass Jarhead, by the way)

I made my statement several pages back concerning the OP......and your immature reply makes my case for me. I disagreed with you and you attacked my OPINION.

I've seen you spew nonsense constantly, and also attack me on many of occasions with no arguments, and here you are like good phony crying about being attacked

Shall we show more of your idea of acting like an adult (In PM's no less)

Unemployed and stupid is no way to go through life....grow up.

 

[MaggieMae]

And the left has PETA, Code Pink and the ACLU.

You forgot ACORN

Ah yes, what's a day without ACORN for a Texan?!

 

[Dr Gregg]

no

Another brilliant, insightful post by del, a true model on how everybody should discuss things on a message board

I'm guessing Del was responding to the OP question: Are there grounds to Impeach Obama or am I grasping at straws? Is this worth pursuing?

Came right after my post so thought he was responding to my post, which he wasn't

 

[MaggieMae]

And the left has PETA, Code Pink and the ACLU.

PETA and Code Pink are not liberal or Democratic organizations.

The ACLU is a liberal org, not a Democratic one.

The DNC is a big tent party.

The GOP made a big deal about trying to be a big tent party during the 90s. that is an acknowledgment that they weren't. they failed. Any party that is so in lock step as the GOP has been is a small tent party. Ideological purity is what the Tea Party wants and what many in the GOP want


you are admitting the American conservative movement and the Tea Party are the right wing version of PETA, AND CODE PINK. Those two groups are crazy and no friends of Democrats or liberals.

Would you at least be willing to say that PETA, CODE PINK and the ACLU are made up mainly of Democrats? Because I would be willing to bet that was the point he was making.

Since when is PETA political at all? The last time I witnessed a protest by that group was a bunch of them trying to close down a building that held fur coats for summer storage. Strange, there were no signs holding up likenesses of Hitler or Mao or even an effigy of a burning Bush.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I guess you are always free to make stupid, non factual posts and arguments, and completely lie, just like I"m free to call you out on being so dishonest, or even more when you continue to ignore facts to keep on spouting the lies. Too many assholes out there like that we have to constantly deal with in the world, that make life annoying and hell for many people.

Everybody with intelligence should get annoyed at shit like that, and when people try to simplify the complexities of life to fit their ideology, that's disingenuous

So Patek, in your mind is calling Obama a "marxist" and other nonsense spewed on this board on a daily basis (like the OP claiming Obama should be impeached),considered an honest argument?

I guess I just have a low tolerance for complete and utter dumbasses thinking opinions=facts

(don't think you are a dumbass Jarhead, by the way)

I made my statement several pages back concerning the OP......and your immature reply makes my case for me. I disagreed with you and you attacked my OPINION.

I've seen you spew nonsense constantly, and also attack me on many of occasions with no arguments, and here you are like good phony crying about being attacked

Shall we show more of your idea of acting like an adult (In PM's no less)

Unemployed and stupid is no way to go through life....grow up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t07J4oFGHsY]YouTube - Jean Martirez - Yawn ) / Off the air video from FOX 11 Los Angeles News[/ame]

 

[Dr Gregg]

PETA and Code Pink are not liberal or Democratic organizations.

The ACLU is a liberal org, not a Democratic one.

The DNC is a big tent party.

The GOP made a big deal about trying to be a big tent party during the 90s. that is an acknowledgment that they weren't. they failed. Any party that is so in lock step as the GOP has been is a small tent party. Ideological purity is what the Tea Party wants and what many in the GOP want


you are admitting the American conservative movement and the Tea Party are the right wing version of PETA, AND CODE PINK. Those two groups are crazy and no friends of Democrats or liberals.

Would you at least be willing to say that PETA, CODE PINK and the ACLU are made up mainly of Democrats? Because I would be willing to bet that was the point he was making.

Since when is PETA political at all? The last time I witnessed a protest by that group was a bunch of them trying to close down a building that held fur coats for summer storage. Strange, there were no signs holding up likenesses of Hitler or Mao or even an effigy of a burning Bush.

And I think its pretty bipartisan that PETA are nuts, good intentions, but way overboard and unrealistic.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment

Obama has sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” I do not believe he has. I think that there are grounds to impeach

The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.

Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Documents From the Starr Referral

The framers intended impeachment to be a constitutional safeguard of the public trust, the powers of government conferred upon the President and other civil officers, and the division of powers among the legislative, judicial and executive departments. The framers sought to avoid the creation of a too-powerful executive. “Attempts to subvert the Constitution."
Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories:
(1) Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government;
(2) Behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office
(3) Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or gain.


Obama Is Bypassing the Senate
He is “Exceeding the Constitutional Bounds of the power…of another branch of government”

Obama appointing Czars left and right is a violation of the Constitution. Presidents in the past have had Czars but they usually act as advisors and do not make policy. Obama has specifically appointed these people to make policy

The Following is an article by Thomas Lifson on July 06, 2009: Constitution Apparently Declared Optional by Obama Administration

American Thinker Blog: Constitution apparently declared optional by Obama administration

With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate's constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a "provisional basis" until the Senate ratifies the treaty.


Are there grounds to Impeach Obama or am I grasping at straws? Is this worth pursuing?


Once the Republicans can clean house and gain control, I say "Yes We Can".

Yes, you are most definitely grasping at straws.

But thank you ever so much for the continued baseless malevolence towards the President of the United States.

If you can't tolerate the results of a free and fair election, please leave the country. You are NOT an American!

 

[MaggieMae]

In 15 short months, Obama has been able to change a tradition of over 200 years = "no taxation without representation". America in 2010 is now, "No representation without taxation".

To Obama, the constitution is a relic of a former era......a tradition to be burned with the flag.

So what's your read on the meaning of "no taxation without representation"?? Am I to understand that I should have refused to pay my taxes as soon as we invaded Iraq and "stayed the course" because my "representatives" voted to go to war and continue funding it even though I disagreed? I wonder if I can get a rebate...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment

Obama has sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” I do not believe he has. I think that there are grounds to impeach

The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.

Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Documents From the Starr Referral

The framers intended impeachment to be a constitutional safeguard of the public trust, the powers of government conferred upon the President and other civil officers, and the division of powers among the legislative, judicial and executive departments. The framers sought to avoid the creation of a too-powerful executive. “Attempts to subvert the Constitution."
Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories:
(1) Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government;
(2) Behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office
(3) Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or gain.


Obama Is Bypassing the Senate
He is “Exceeding the Constitutional Bounds of the power…of another branch of government”

Obama appointing Czars left and right is a violation of the Constitution. Presidents in the past have had Czars but they usually act as advisors and do not make policy. Obama has specifically appointed these people to make policy

The Following is an article by Thomas Lifson on July 06, 2009: Constitution Apparently Declared Optional by Obama Administration

American Thinker Blog: Constitution apparently declared optional by Obama administration

With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate's constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a "provisional basis" until the Senate ratifies the treaty.


Are there grounds to Impeach Obama or am I grasping at straws? Is this worth pursuing?


Once the Republicans can clean house and gain control, I say "Yes We Can".

Obama has never appointed anyone with the title of "Czar" - that is a media nickname. Stop being a fucking idiot and focus ... the term "czar" is functionally meaningless. Its a term media applies as they see fit, and as of recently, its a term the right likes to apply to as many people as possible to excite the mass of idiots like yourself into a false patriotic constitutional frenzy.

 

[MaggieMae]

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Looks great written on a message board...now if only you would send that message to the ACLU....we might see that become reality.

I have a better idea: Why don't you pick out some cases the ACLU brought that were NOT based on protecting Constitutional civil liberties. Bear in mind that I too think some of them can be pretty frivolous and lame, and the courts decide accordingly, but the ACLU does what their charter expects them to do.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I too think some of them can be pretty frivolous and lame

Thank you for agreeing with me. I can't think of any right off the top of my head but maybe tomorrow.....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Abuse of power.

He engineered the SEC investigation on the eve of his Banking Takeover.

Abuse of Power!

You aren't alone in that thought, belive me. The evidence is there. He follows Alinsky to the nth degree.

Alinsky again?

 

[Yurt]

no

here we go again...

again? did i miss something? i'm always the last the one picked

 

[MaggieMae]

maybe if jarhead could discuss things by actually backing up what they said, instead of just claiming what they say to be fact, then there wouldn't be a misperception. But no, he runs off like a little baby. Can't act civil to people and make insulting posts, then cries and claims other's arent' civil. Right

save the bullshit for somebody who's never had the *pleasure* of interacting with your whiny ass, doc.

i'm not buying, and i don't think you'll find many that are.

have a nice day.

Dels answer to everything, everybody posting is a whiner.


And like anybody should listen to a punk that does nothing but insult people all day, rarely ever actually contributing to the thread or posting an argument other than some snide little quip Good day loser

When a thread gets derailed because two people get into a one-on-one having nothing to do with the subject matter, you're both WHINERS to me. Why you can just go to PMs and fight is beyond me. Nobody's interested in who said what in what post.

 

[Dr Gregg]

save the bullshit for somebody who's never had the *pleasure* of interacting with your whiny ass, doc.

i'm not buying, and i don't think you'll find many that are.

have a nice day.

Dels answer to everything, everybody posting is a whiner.


And like anybody should listen to a punk that does nothing but insult people all day, rarely ever actually contributing to the thread or posting an argument other than some snide little quip Good day loser

When a thread gets derailed because two people get into a one-on-one having nothing to do with the subject matter, you're both WHINERS to me. Why you can just go to PMs and fight is beyond me. Nobody's interested in who said what in what post.

Except the multiple other posters besides jarhead and I that kept asking what was said.

But that's the nature of pretty much every thread on the forum of trolls.

Oh, and this thread was a train wreck from the opening post

 

[MaggieMae]

Abuse of power.

He engineered the SEC investigation on the eve of his Banking Takeover.

Abuse of Power!

Huh? Which "banking takeover"?? And which SEC investigation?

 

[MaggieMae]

When Republicans win Congress they need to subpoena Geither, the Warmers and ACORN.

Who are the warmers? And why Acorn? Geitner appears before some congressional body at least once a week and gets hammered by Republicans.

Pay attention.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey Cal Gal and Del:

Thanks for your support.
Sometimes I lose control. Rare, but hey, chit happens.

JAR *** head, I supported you. The minute CaliBoil waves her skanky wand some of you go lunatic


note: edited

Cal Gal may not be your cup of tea, but she is mine. I will defend her anytime I think she is right; and protect her when I think she is wrong.

And exactly where did I go lunatic?

And I noticed the edit. That is why I responded. I was kind of confused why you resorted to calling me names. I can take it no problem. But what did I do to deserve it? Call you a straight shooter?

Cali, is part of a group of nitwits who have stalked me and shit, and I am over playing with them. I was not really angry, I just posted a quick reply when I saw the nitiwt, and I hit send. I don't take any of their shit to heart,never did. Out of boredom, I send them some of what they dish out. I could just as easily ignore them forever---It works, but I get bored and my instincts take over---which is to shit on assholes. It's an involuntary thing. It takes no effort. It just sucks when people like you get caught in the middle. . SO I've decided to feed them once in a while.

calm down and stop coming to the defense of trolls who say they can stand on their own. or, get in the way. either way is okay by me. nothing personal.

D