Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

[IlarMeilyr]

52/48 the will of 52% of the people--------not "the people".

Moronic statement. Yes, it is the "will" of the people. That's how the Constitution works.

In some matters. Not in all..

In this case, yes. SCOTUS has spoken on ACA, your opinionand doesn't matter or mine about election percentages.

Whoa. You are bleating like a demented sheep, at this point, Fakey.

The 52- 48 reference was not about the SCOTUS.

The topic of the THREAD is Benghazi, not gun control legislation or "gay" marriage.

Also, have you ever considered EDITING your gibberish before submitting it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 52- 48 reference was not about the SCOTUS.

And my point was quite clear about SCOTUS (it's not an election issue of "we the people") and the 52% majority does represent the people.

You reactionary statists are hoots. This is why your types have little influence, if that, at the national level.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The 52- 48 reference was not about the SCOTUS.

And my point was quite clear about SCOTUS (it's not an election issue of "we the people") and the 52% majority does represent the people.

You reactionary statists are hoots. This is why your types have little influence, if that, at the national level.

Your attempt at making a "point" was, as always, quite pointless.

But I do laugh at your pathetic reliance on your faux use of the term "reactionary."

You have a way with words, Fakey:

your opinionand doesn't matter or mine about

WTF? You are one dopey lolberal hack.

 

[hazlnut]

This should get all the turds in here to start foaming at the mouth:

On October 27th, 2012, only days before the presidential election, I wrote:

If Barack Obama is reelected, will he face impeachment over Benghazi — a yet more unpleasant and far more wrenching result than to lose an election?

It could happen — and in my estimation should happen — the way revelations are playing out over the bloody terror attack that took four American lives and has led to weeks of prevarication and obfuscation.

The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself — with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject.

It’s not the crime, but the cover-up, we learned in an earlier impeachment, only in this case the crime may be just as bad or worse.”

Roger L. Simon » Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 52- 48 reference was not about the SCOTUS.

And my point was quite clear about SCOTUS (it's not an election issue of "we the people") and the 52% majority does represent the people.

You reactionary statists are hoots. This is why your types have little influence, if that, at the national level.

Your attempt at making a "point" was, as always, quite pointless.

That you don't get it is why the mainstream laughs at your pretend con reactionaries.