or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Obama Going to be Impeached?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Obama Going to be Impeached? - Page 2

post #41 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 


I'll tell you what I will mention about this abhorrent act from the IRS. The IRS for at least 30 years is famous for wrongly investigating people of all walks of life. Not just conservatives. This was just more of the same only it has political overtones. The response to this is just as bad if it carries those same overtones in an attempt to sling mud in a particular direction..  

 

What a crock. We hare talking about a LEADER of the IRS who has been proven to have met with the White House throughout the Obama mandate and whose emails to the White House have conveniently gone missing.

 

This isn't low-level employees working on their own, as the left wishes to spin it. And it doesn't just "have political overtones", it's a blatant attempt to abuse the law and harass conservatives. The emails of the head of the IRS don't disappear unless someone desperately wants them to disappear. And no-one has to be a rocket scientist to figure out who stands to benefit from this happening.

 

You can try all you want to blame the victims here, but it's obvious what's going on.

 

Even Bush and his neo-con cronies didn't tried to use the IRS to intimidate the other side. Liberals are simply corrupt to the core.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #42 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

What a crock. We hare talking about a LEADER of the IRS who has been proven to have met with the White House throughout the Obama mandate and whose emails to the White House have conveniently gone missing.

This isn't low-level employees working on their own, as the left wishes to spin it. And it doesn't just "have political overtones", it's a blatant attempt to abuse the law and harass conservatives. The emails of the head of the IRS don't disappear unless someone desperately wants them to disappear. And no-one has to be a rocket scientist to figure out who stands to benefit from this happening.

You can try all you want to blame the victims here, but it's obvious what's going on.

Even Bush and his neo-con cronies didn't tried to use the IRS to intimidate the other side. Liberals are simply corrupt to the core.

I honestly feel it's time about half of America came together and refused to pay or collect taxes that would normally go to the Federal government. Money talks and the absence of money talks even louder.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #43 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 


I'll tell you what I will mention about this abhorrent act from the IRS. The IRS for at least 30 years is famous for wrongly investigating people of all walks of life. Not just conservatives. This was just more of the same only it has political overtones. The response to this is just as bad if it carries those same overtones in an attempt to sling mud in a particular direction..  

 

What a crock. We hare talking about a LEADER of the IRS who has been proven to have met with the White House throughout the Obama mandate and whose emails to the White House have conveniently gone missing.

 

This isn't low-level employees working on their own, as the left wishes to spin it. And it doesn't just "have political overtones", it's a blatant attempt to abuse the law and harass conservatives. The emails of the head of the IRS don't disappear unless someone desperately wants them to disappear. And no-one has to be a rocket scientist to figure out who stands to benefit from this happening.

 

You can try all you want to blame the victims here, but it's obvious what's going on.

 

Even Bush and his neo-con cronies didn't tried to use the IRS to intimidate the other side. Liberals are simply corrupt to the core.


Like I've said a politically motivated statement having less to do with this situation than it does with the next presidential election. ;)

 

As transparent as glass as are most things conservatives say these days. I think it laughable that they think for even a moment that voters can't figure this out. It's not that the Democrats don't do this also it's just that the Republicans do it more. One of the things that's pulling them down.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #44 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

Selective memory loss?:lol:

 

How timely given recent events in the news ( you do watch the real news don't you? ). Almost 10 years ago one of the arguments I gave for us not invading Iraq was that what the hell will we accomplish? I stated that we'll be there for years and 10 years from now things will be just as bad with another bad guy in place.  We will have wasted time, lives,  and money. Well look what's happening. But of course we're " freeing the Iraqi people " ( the replacement argument when we didn't find any WMDs ). Just like we freed the Vietnamese people.

 ".

;) Uh huh.

 

 

 

Ah, the "I told ya so."  I was waiting for that.  Your broken-clock-is-right-twice-per-day approach is well known here.  No, jimmac.  I don't recall you basing any opposition on the question of what we would accomplish.  I also don't recall you claiming "10 years from now things will be just as bad."   Either way, that's pointless.  We would not be in this position with competent leadership.  Iraq was relatively stable after the Petraeus troop surge and subsequent U.S. diplomatic/intelligence actions relating to bringing various sects together.  

So, if it turns out that we really din't accomplish anything, it is one man's fault:  Barack Obama.  

 

Quote:
Apparently you don't as the GOP has historically ( or is it hysterically ? ) low numbers. Much lower than Obama.

 

Sigh.  As with everything, it depends on what numbers you use.  If you're talking general congressional numbers, that's true.  But if you're talking generic ballot or other numbers, Obama is much more unpopular.  It's really a meaningless pissing contest anyway, because the likelihood of a 2014 congressional shellacking for Democrats is extremely strong no matter whose analysis you read.  The GOP is expected by ALL pundits and analysts to retain the House, and according to most, stands a good chance of gaining the Senate.  

 

 

Quote:
Yup! Another Republican who shot himself in the foot. It may surprise you but I like Christie ( unlike the way many of his GOP brethren feel about him ). He's a Republican I might have voted for as he truly reached across party lines and it wasn't all about us vs. them but the voters. But alas he allowed his support people to follow in the foot steps of many a GOP member and ruined his chances. As they always seem to.

 

Christie didn't "allow" his support people to do anything.  As someone who lives right across the Delaware, I've heard a lot about this.  I've seen no evidence whatsoever that he was involved or allowed it even tacitly.  In fact, I was impressed with his response to it.  He held a 2 hour news conference and took full responsibility.  He explained in detail how it came to his attention.  He denied any and all knowledge of what happened prior to being informed.  He personally interviewed staff members.  He then fired someone, and essentially ended the political career of another.  Talk about a contrast in leadership when compared to Obama.  I think Christie has a real chance.  

 

By the way, Hillary's roll-out with the book has been a total disaster.  She even argued with an NPR reporter.  She's angry, evasive, shrill, and makes bizarre statements about being "dead broke."  

 

Quote:

Here's what I'm predicting. Continued bad times for the GOP as long as they let the Teapublicans run their party. Nobody wants their doctrine ( " No! " to any idea besides their own especially Democrats thus paralyzing government ) anymore and they just don't seem to get that. For nobody read the current voting majority demographic ( you know the ones that win an election ).

 

I'm predicting that barring illness or an unforeseen disaster Hillary will probably run and be our next commander and chief in 2016.

 

If that happens I'm all for that.;) 

 

Wait...I thought people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were running the party?  The Tea Party scored a victory in knowing off Cantor.  We'll see what happens from here.  As for "the party of no," that's just a Dem talking point.  They've passed dozens of bills on the budget, healthcare and everything else...just to see Harry Reid refuse to bring them up in Senate.  The notion that the GOP just says "no" to everything and presents no plans of its owns is nothing but a media creation.  

 

Hillary:  Again, you must not follow the news.  She may not even run.  Given her rollout this week, it's not looking good.  She might get the nomination, but the GOP will savage her for Benghazi and her actions as Secretary.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #45 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

It's not that the Democrats don't do this also it's just that the Republicans do it more.

 

All liberals have is lies. And your response is just a typical liberal lie.

 

How many times did this IRS honcho meet with the Obama White House?

 

How many times did IRS leadership meet with the Bush White House? It's all out there for everyone to see.

 

Compared to the corrupt Obama administration and their equally corrupt followers, Bush and his neo-cons actually come out looking like decent people here. That's how bad this is. And you won't call them on harassing and intimidating political opponents with the IRS, you won't call them on destroying computer data evidence.

 

But you'll get on a computer and defend them, by lying about the actions of the other side. Shameless.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #46 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

So, if it turns out that we really din't accomplish anything, it is one man's fault:  Barack Obama.  

How exactly has Barack Obama stirred up sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'a muslims?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #47 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

How exactly has Barack Obama stirred up sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'a muslims?

 

I never claimed he did.  What he did fail to do was get a Status of Forces Agreement in place to allow a U.S. presence and slower draw down.  By 2009, the Iraqis were getting ready to stand up.  The army was coming together, and the security situation was fairly stable.  The US was helping bring different sects together, including Shi'a leader Sistani.  Maliki promised to bring together a coalition government for the sake for a stable Iraq.  

 

As soon as Obama took office, it all started going off the rails.  His lone priority was "ending" the war (which was, of course, over by that point).  He wanted withdrawal as soon as possible, and did not aggressively push for a SoFA.  Just as predicted, our untimely, precipitous withdrawal for political purposes had disastrous effects.  We left before the Iraqi Army and security infrastructure was ready to fully assume control without assistance.  A small forc (10-20,000)  in Iraq would have been able to prevent this.   Obama's perceived weakness exacerbated the problem, because Maliki felt empowered to do whatever he wanted, including breaking every agreement he ever made.   

 

Now, Obama is dithering in typical fashion.  He needs a few days, he says.  It's now been a week, and he still hasn't made up his mind.  The cognitive dissonance must be really getting to him.  A week ago Tuesday, he was talking about how the world is more safe, free, tolerant and less violent than it had ever been.   I think he really believes his own press, and is paralyzed when confronted with indisputable evidence that he was spectacularly wrong (as he has been about almost everything, from Obamacare to the the Arab Spring, from the economy to Syria).

 

Support the original invasion or not, it doesn't matter.  If we let this happen, we will have lost 4,500 lives, thousands more wounded, and over $1 Trillion in vein.  Worse still, we will have allowed a terrorist state to form between portions of Iraq and Syria.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #48 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

 

All liberals have is lies. And your response is just a typical liberal lie.

 

How many times did this IRS honcho meet with the Obama White House?

 

How many times did IRS leadership meet with the Bush White House? It's all out there for everyone to see.

 

Compared to the corrupt Obama administration and their equally corrupt followers, Bush and his neo-cons actually come out looking like decent people here. That's how bad this is. And you won't call them on harassing and intimidating political opponents with the IRS, you won't call them on destroying computer data evidence.

 

But you'll get on a computer and defend them, by lying about the actions of the other side. Shameless.

 

There isn't any point in debating with him.  He's still claiming that the midterm elections are going to go well for Democrats, and that Hillary might as well be anointed Queen because no one can stop her.  He's also claiming he foresaw everything happening in Iraq all the way back in 2003.  Of course, he ignores that Iraq was actually stable when Barry Soetoro took over.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #49 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

Support the original invasion or not, it doesn't matter.  If we let this happen, we will have lost 4,500 lives, thousands more wounded, and over $1 Trillion in vein.  Worse still, we will have allowed a terrorist state to form between portions of Iraq and Syria.  

 

I don't support the original invasion (nor do most of the people in the world) so it DOES matter - the US does not have the right to unlawfully invade other countries just because it feels like the biggest bully in town. So yes, Reagan, Bush Senior (the Senile), Dubya and their successors are collectively responsible for what has happened in Iraq, from the original days of Rumsfeld's full support for Saddam's attack on Iran up to the point where we are now.

 

So yes, you acted stupidly, have a huge deficit to deal with and are respected by no one...now suck it. 

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply
post #50 of 93
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

...now suck it. 

 

This is your argument? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that both parties don’t share responsibility for their collective actions? Pathetic.

post #51 of 93

Good to hear from you again.

post #52 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

This is your argument? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that both parties don’t share responsibility for their collective actions? Pathetic.

 

Both parties.? No, some are willing to foist the whole responsibility on just one person:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

So, if it turns out that we really din't accomplish anything, it is one man's fault:  Barack Obama.  

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #53 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post
 

 

I don't support the original invasion (nor do most of the people in the world) so it DOES matter - the US does not have the right to unlawfully invade other countries just because it feels like the biggest bully in town. So yes, Reagan, Bush Senior (the Senile), Dubya and their successors are collectively responsible for what has happened in Iraq, from the original days of Rumsfeld's full support for Saddam's attack on Iran up to the point where we are now.

 

So yes, you acted stupidly, have a huge deficit to deal with and are respected by no one...now suck it. 

 

1.  No, it doesn't matter.  Your support or opposition has absolutely nothing to do with what should be done now.  

 

2.  Why don't you tell me what was "unlawful" about the invasion?  Bueller?  Bueller?  

 

3.  Right, because we invaded Iraq to be a "bully."  Please spare your 5th grade understanding of the world.

 

4.   Let me get this straight:  None of this sectarian violence and terrorism would have happened were it not for Reagan/Rumsfeld supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war?  Seems someone has their revisionist crystal ball out today.   We supported Iraq in the 1980s because we viewed Iran and Soviet Russia as much greater threats.  Saddam was brutal, but he was also secular.  It's no different than allying with Stalin in WWII.  

 

Since you seem to blame everyone except the current President (who has been in office for over a half a decade now), why do you skip from Reagan to GWB?  You mean you don't blame GHWB for launching the Gulf War?  I'm disappointed.  I'm sure you can come up with some adolescent "No War for Oil" argument on that one.  Oh, and what about Clinton, who bombed Iraq multiple times for violating the 1991 ceasefire provisions and suspicion of continuing to develop and house chemical weapons?  What about John Kerry, who as late as January 2003 was saying that Saddam clearly had WMD and must be taken out?  Nah, you don't care.  You opposed the war and want to run around screaming "I told ya so, idiots," all the while not caring or knowing what to do.  So keep sticking your fingers in your ears and babbling.  The adults in the room will try to actually deal with the world and the way forward.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

 

Both parties.? No, some are willing to foist the whole responsibility on just one person:

 

 

The current situation is absolutely the fault of one person.  Barack Obama had the power to prevent this situation.  His incompetence, inaction and idiotic policy choices directly led us from the relatively stable Iraq of 2008 and 2009 to the shitstorm we see today.  When it comes to responsibility, it's no different than an NFL quarterback...you get too much credit, and all the blame.  Obama couldn't deal with Maliki.  Obama wanted the precipitous withdrawal.  Obama has refused to intervene with air power to stop the march of a terrorist army.   Obama chose, for political reasons, to withdraw every last American before the Iraqis were really ready to fully manage their own security.  It's all him.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #54 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

What a crock. We hare talking about a LEADER of the IRS who has been proven to have met with the White House throughout the Obama mandate and whose emails to the White House have conveniently gone missing.

This isn't low-level employees working on their own, as the left wishes to spin it. And it doesn't just "have political overtones", it's a blatant attempt to abuse the law and harass conservatives. The emails of the head of the IRS don't disappear unless someone desperately wants them to disappear. And no-one has to be a rocket scientist to figure out who stands to benefit from this happening.

You can try all you want to blame the victims here, but it's obvious what's going on.

Even Bush and his neo-con cronies didn't tried to use the IRS to intimidate the other side. Liberals are simply corrupt to the core.

I honestly feel it's time about half of America came together and refused to pay or collect taxes that would normally go to the Federal government. Money talks and the absence of money talks even louder.

 

Considering the taxes are only paid by half, the absence would be rather large.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 
 

Like I've said a politically motivated statement having less to do with this situation than it does with the next presidential election. ;)

 

As transparent as glass as are most things conservatives say these days. I think it laughable that they think for even a moment that voters can't figure this out. It's not that the Democrats don't do this also it's just that the Republicans do it more. One of the things that's pulling them down.

 

Sorry but this poll shows it is a two way street. The real problem, those who think it is a one way street so count yourself among them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

Support the original invasion or not, it doesn't matter.  If we let this happen, we will have lost 4,500 lives, thousands more wounded, and over $1 Trillion in vein.  Worse still, we will have allowed a terrorist state to form between portions of Iraq and Syria.  

 

I don't support the original invasion (nor do most of the people in the world) so it DOES matter - the US does not have the right to unlawfully invade other countries just because it feels like the biggest bully in town. So yes, Reagan, Bush Senior (the Senile), Dubya and their successors are collectively responsible for what has happened in Iraq, from the original days of Rumsfeld's full support for Saddam's attack on Iran up to the point where we are now.

 

So yes, you acted stupidly, have a huge deficit to deal with and are respected by no one...now suck it. 

 

I know the damn British and their....wait which original war are you talking about again? I was talking about the British after WWI who imposed the present boundaries on Iraq that included large groups of minority and competing tribal sects within the same borders. Or were you talking about back when the Blacksheep Turkman took it over and divided it into three rival regional empires and tribal alliances to align with the three groups that had been living and fighting against each other there? Sure that was the late 14th century but maybe it could still be Bush's fault!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

This is your argument? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that both parties don’t share responsibility for their collective actions? Pathetic.

 

Both parties.? No, some are willing to foist the whole responsibility on just one person:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

So, if it turns out that we really din't accomplish anything, it is one man's fault:  Barack Obama.  

 

The actions of the U.S. to invade were not those of the U.S. alone. George Bush did not ignore the Congress. He did request the Congress to vote and those of us with memories can recall that both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for that action. Barack Obama famously did not and used that vote against Hillary Clinton in 2008 when winning the primary against her.

 

With regard to drawing troops out of Iraq though, no approval by Congress was asked and Obama undertook it as an executive action. If you want to find something like this. Then the blame can be spread.


Edited by trumptman - 6/17/14 at 9:51am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #55 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Considering the taxes are only paid by half, the absence would be rather large.

 

 

Sorry but this poll shows it is a two way street. The real problem, those who think it is a one way street so count yourself among them.

 

He won't listen, as usual.  When his broken clock approach to predicting results inevitably gives him the right time twice a day, he'll strut around and pronounce himself all-seeing.  Let the record show, however, that he has predicted good Democratic results in the midterms, and that Hillary will be elected easily.   Let's all remember that.  

 

Quote:
I know the damn British and their....wait which original war are you talking about again? I was talking about the British after WWI who imposed the present boundaries on Iraq that included large groups of minority and competing other tribal sects within the same borders. Or were you talking about back when the Blacksheep Turkman took it over and divided it into three rival regional empires and tribal alliances to align with the three groups that had been living and fighting against each other there? Sure that was the late 14th century but maybe it could still be Bush's fault!

 

:lol: Exactly!  I think we should go back to when we first created rudimentary weapons and mastered fire as well.  That would have about as much relevance to today's limited options.  

 

Quote:
The actions of the U.S. to invade were not those of the U.S. alone. George Bush did not ignore the Congress. He did request the Congress to vote and those of us with memories can recall that both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for that action.

 

But trump, they get a free pass.  See, one was only voting for the threat of force.  Clinton was duped by the Evil Mastermind, George W. Bush. She was also a life-long Yankees fan.  :) 


 

Quote:

Barack Obama famously did not and used that vote against Hillary Clinton in 2008 when winning the primary against her.

 

 

Well, he wasn't yet in the Senate.  But you're right...he did use it against her.  

 

Quote:
With regard to drawing troops out of Iraq though, no approval by Congress was asked and Obama undertook it as an executive action. If you want to find something like this. Then the blame can be spread.

 

Pretty thin, I think (I know, that was your point).  People like jimmac will still try that stuff, though.  They've never been able to objectively look at cause and effect.  They blamed Bush for "wrecking the economy" by cutting taxes and "starting wars," even though neither of those had anything to do with the economic meltdown of 2008.  They'll claim that had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, none of this would have happened (a highly suspect claim itself), and that as a result, it doesn't matter what we do now.  In fact, we can't really do anything...that damn George Bush really left Obama a mess to clean up, and he's doing the best he can.  For 5 1/2 years.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #56 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

He won't listen, as usual.  When his broken clock approach to predicting results inevitably gives him the right time twice a day, he'll strut around and pronounce himself all-seeing.  Let the record show, however, that he has predicted good Democratic results in the midterms, and that Hillary will be elected easily.   Let's all remember that.  

 

Pretty thin, I think (I know, that was your point).  People like jimmac will still try that stuff, though.  They've never been able to objectively look at cause and effect.  They blamed Bush for "wrecking the economy" by cutting taxes and "starting wars," even though neither of those had anything to do with the economic meltdown of 2008.  They'll claim that had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, none of this would have happened (a highly suspect claim itself), and that as a result, it doesn't matter what we do now.  In fact, we can't really do anything...that damn George Bush really left Obama a mess to clean up, and he's doing the best he can.  For 5 1/2 years.   

 

Well the main point out of all of this should be that such actions in the Middle East weren't supposed even be possible when Obama was elected. We were told the terrorists and fights among tribes were not from century old conflicts and disagreements. They were because the U.S. had a presence in the region and because Bush was a warmonger who was the cause of all aggression. If Bush were gone, and if the U.S. left then things would "return" to a peaceful state. Sure smart people noted the region was full of dictators and had never once been in a peaceful state in centuries but that mattered little as well. All would be solved not only there but in other places without the U.S. projecting power. The real problem was the U.S. projecting power at all. We had heard this as far back as Clinton with the first attack on the WTC and the U.S.S. Cole. (Since you know, they couldn't blame those on Bush.) President Obama was going to being about a more respectful and intelligent result on foreign policy simply because he was a more respectful and intelligent person and the world would honor that rather than the guns and bombs of a warmonger like Bush is what was explained to us.

 

Clearly that hasn't been the case nor will it be the case. Plus how does anyone explain Syria?

 

Me personally, I obviously prefer a more isolationist approach. Let them murder each other for another 1000 years and let someone besides Republicans fix it. Let the NEO-Cons go back to being what they were, old liberals who want to centrally control the world via the Federal government and the U.N. Let us not forget that all the prior "interventions" like Vietnam were Democratic affairs because central planning doesn't stop at a border.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 93
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Both parties.? No, some are willing to foist the whole responsibility on just one person:

 

You'll notice I said 'collective actions'.

post #58 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Well the main point out of all of this should be that such actions in the Middle East weren't supposed even be possible when Obama was elected. We were told the terrorists and fights among tribes were not from century old conflicts and disagreements. They were because the U.S. had a presence in the region and because Bush was a warmonger who was the cause of all aggression. If Bush were gone, and if the U.S. left then things would "return" to a peaceful state. Sure smart people noted the region was full of dictators and had never once been in a peaceful state in centuries but that mattered little as well. All would be solved not only there but in other places without the U.S. projecting power. The real problem was the U.S. projecting power at all. We had heard this as far back as Clinton with the first attack on the WTC and the U.S.S. Cole. (Since you know, they couldn't blame those on Bush.) President Obama was going to being about a more respectful and intelligent result on foreign policy simply because he was a more respectful and intelligent person and the world would honor that rather than the guns and bombs of a warmonger like Bush is what was explained to us.

 

Clearly that hasn't been the case nor will it be the case. Plus how does anyone explain Syria?

 

Me personally, I obviously prefer a more isolationist approach. Let them murder each other for another 1000 years and let someone besides Republicans fix it. Let the NEO-Cons go back to being what they were, old liberals who want to centrally control the world via the Federal government and the U.N. Let us not forget that all the prior "interventions" like Vietnam were Democratic affairs because central planning doesn't stop at a border.

 

Well said, trump.  Very well said.  I tend to be less of an isolationist, though I can certainly see the merit in letting them all kill each other "over there."  It feels good to say "screw it....have at it, boys."  I don't think it's realistic, especially after 9/11, but I like the idea.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #59 of 93

Ok trumpy let's take a look at some things.

 

From your last post addressing me :

Quote:

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 
 

Like I've said a politically motivated statement having less to do with this situation than it does with the next presidential election. ;)

 

As transparent as glass as are most things conservatives say these days. I think it laughable that they think for even a moment that voters can't figure this out. It's not that the Democrats don't do this also it's just that the Republicans do it more. One of the things that's pulling them down.

 

Sorry but this poll shows it is a two way street. The real problem, those who think it is a one way street so count yourself among them.

 

Well before you start here's another recent poll that I'm sure you guys would jump on.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/america-divided-over-hillary-clinton-presidency-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-n133406

 

However a telling passage from this article :

 

Quote:
 In contrast, only about one in 10 Republicans see her in a positive light, roughly comparable to their dislike of President Barack Obama.

On the other hand : http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-poll-delivers-avalanche-bad-news-gop.html

 

Quote:
 A New Hillary Clinton Poll Delivers an Avalanche of Bad News For The GOP

And  : http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

 

An slightly older poll but anyway still valid : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/gop-house-2014-polls_n_4050686.html

 

And : http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/politics/despite-rifts-gop-has-election-edge-poll-finds.html?_r=0

 

Quote:
 G.O.P., Though Deeply Split, Has Election Edge, Poll Shows

However from that same article :

 

Quote:

 

But while the 2014 outlook is challenging for the Democratic Party, whose voters traditionally turn out in lower numbers in years without presidential elections, the Republican Party is contending with more profound structural challenges. Forty-two percent of Republicans said they were “mostly discouraged” about the future of their party, and among Tea Party supporters, that number was 51 percent.

Further, Republican lawmakers appear out of step with the public on a range of issues, according to the survey. On immigration, same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization and gun control, Republican lawmakers hold to the minority position. Some of these policy matters illuminate the party’s internal divisions. Half of people under age 45 who lean Republican support legalizing marijuana, and a majority of the same cohort of Republicans also backs same-sex marriage.

It sounds like some Republicans are seeing things in a different light.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #60 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

It's not that the Democrats don't do this also it's just that the Republicans do it more.

 

All liberals have is lies. And your response is just a typical liberal lie.

 

How many times did this IRS honcho meet with the Obama White House?

 

How many times did IRS leadership meet with the Bush White House? It's all out there for everyone to see.

 

Compared to the corrupt Obama administration and their equally corrupt followers, Bush and his neo-cons actually come out looking like decent people here. That's how bad this is. And you won't call them on harassing and intimidating political opponents with the IRS, you won't call them on destroying computer data evidence.

 

But you'll get on a computer and defend them, by lying about the actions of the other side. Shameless.

:lol: Brother have things not changed with the times here!;) 

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

:lol: Brother have things not changed with the times here!;) 

 

You mean you still dodge the facts when they are presented to you?

 

Again, why was IRS leadership regularly visiting the White House under Obama, when they rarely ever had cause to do so under Bush?

 

What changed?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #62 of 93

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

Ok trumpy let's take a look at some things.

 

From your last post addressing me :

Quote:

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 
 

Like I've said a politically motivated statement having less to do with this situation than it does with the next presidential election. ;)

 

As transparent as glass as are most things conservatives say these days. I think it laughable that they think for even a moment that voters can't figure this out. It's not that the Democrats don't do this also it's just that the Republicans do it more. One of the things that's pulling them down.

 

Sorry but this poll shows it is a two way street. The real problem, those who think it is a one way street so count yourself among them.

 

Well before you start here's another recent poll that I'm sure you guys would jump on.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/america-divided-over-hillary-clinton-presidency-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-n133406

 

However a telling passage from this article :

 

Quote:
 In contrast, only about one in 10 Republicans see her in a positive light, roughly comparable to their dislike of President Barack Obama.

On the other hand : http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-poll-delivers-avalanche-bad-news-gop.html

 

Quote:
 A New Hillary Clinton Poll Delivers an Avalanche of Bad News For The GOP

And  : http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

 

An slightly older poll but anyway still valid : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/gop-house-2014-polls_n_4050686.html

 

And : http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/politics/despite-rifts-gop-has-election-edge-poll-finds.html?_r=0

 

Quote:
 G.O.P., Though Deeply Split, Has Election Edge, Poll Shows

However from that same article :

 

Quote:

 

But while the 2014 outlook is challenging for the Democratic Party, whose voters traditionally turn out in lower numbers in years without presidential elections, the Republican Party is contending with more profound structural challenges. Forty-two percent of Republicans said they were “mostly discouraged” about the future of their party, and among Tea Party supporters, that number was 51 percent.

Further, Republican lawmakers appear out of step with the public on a range of issues, according to the survey. On immigration, same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization and gun control, Republican lawmakers hold to the minority position. Some of these policy matters illuminate the party’s internal divisions. Half of people under age 45 who lean Republican support legalizing marijuana, and a majority of the same cohort of Republicans also backs same-sex marriage.

It sounds like some Republicans are seeing things in a different light.

 

You are completely missing the point. (Not surprising really.) Of course early polls, well before any election are going to show frontrunners as well, frontrunners. That has no real consideration in this discussion. The real issue is that Democrats believe that they are not partisan and that their demands, policies and viewpoints have not shifted at all.

 

They declare it is EVERYONE ELSE, no matter what party who has changed while they just stand still and remain in the center of the spectrum politically. The poll I posted to shows that to be completely untrue. Republicans understand that there are folks who are Libertarian, Tea Party groups and others that they need to work harder to keep inside their big tent. Democrats meanwhile do not acknowledge any need to address the needs of a broader constituency. Hence they have been losing ground and elections but blame it on external factors.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

Well before you start here's another recent poll that I'm sure you guys would jump on.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/america-divided-over-hillary-clinton-presidency-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-n133406

 

However a telling passage from this article :

 

On the other hand : http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-poll-delivers-avalanche-bad-news-gop.html

 

And  : http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

 

An slightly older poll but anyway still valid : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/gop-house-2014-polls_n_4050686.html

 

And : http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/politics/despite-rifts-gop-has-election-edge-poll-finds.html?_r=0

 

It sounds like some Republicans are seeing things in a different light.

 

For once, I commend you on looking at hard data and trying to take a balanced position.   I will mention that I think solely relying on Republican approval/disapproval numbers for the House is highly misleading.  It's not that it doesn't matter, but it ignores the broader political mood, overall Congressional unpopularity, and the unpopularity of the President.  As I said, if you use those numbers alone, then you're right...one could argue that the GOP is less popular than the President.  Again, I think that's misleading though.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #64 of 93

Quote from SDW:

 

For once, I commend you on looking at hard data and trying to take a balanced position.   I will mention that I think solely relying on Republican approval/disapproval numbers for the House is highly misleading.  It's not that it doesn't matter, but it ignores the broader political mood, overall Congressional unpopularity, and the unpopularity of the President.  As I said, if you use those numbers alone, then you're right...one could argue that the GOP is less popular than the President.  Again, I think that's misleading though.  

 

 

Here's some hard data for you :

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169022/americans-view-congressional-leaders-negatively.aspx

 

It doesn't really matter that much what the voters think about Obama as much as others who are not lame duck and not in the game any more.

Hillary if she runs will stand on her own and she's very popular.

 

Quote:
 

Many Americans View Congressional Leaders Negatively

Republican leaders net higher favorability among Tea Party supporters

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #65 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Here's some hard data for you :

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169022/americans-view-congressional-leaders-negatively.aspx

It doesn't really matter that much what the voters think about Obama as much as others who are not lame duck and not in the game any more.
Hillary if she runs will stand on her own and she's very popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Here's some hard data for you :

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169022/americans-view-congressional-leaders-negatively.aspx

It doesn't really matter that much what the voters think about Obama as much as others who are not lame duck and not in the game any more.
Hillary if she runs will stand on her own and she's very popular.

That's exactly what I'm been saying...that Congress has low overall approval, so it's misleading to just talk about GOP congressional approval.

As for your predictions: It absolutely matters what people think about Obama. You yourself believe that the outgoing President plays a major role in what happens in the election. You stated that real reason Bush beat Gore was the sins of Clinton. How is this different? Just as Bush's unpopularity in 2008 played a major role in the election, so too will Obama's. You can't get around that.

As for Hillary: I don't know what you mean by "very popular." I thin it's far more accurate to say she was very popular. Her favorability is marginal at best now: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #66 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

Quote from SDW:

 

For once, I commend you on looking at hard data and trying to take a balanced position.   I will mention that I think solely relying on Republican approval/disapproval numbers for the House is highly misleading.  It's not that it doesn't matter, but it ignores the broader political mood, overall Congressional unpopularity, and the unpopularity of the President.  As I said, if you use those numbers alone, then you're right...one could argue that the GOP is less popular than the President.  Again, I think that's misleading though.  

 

 

Here's some hard data for you :

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169022/americans-view-congressional-leaders-negatively.aspx

 

It doesn't really matter that much what the voters think about Obama as much as others who are not lame duck and not in the game any more.

Hillary if she runs will stand on her own and she's very popular.

 

Quote:
 

Many Americans View Congressional Leaders Negatively

Republican leaders net higher favorability among Tea Party supporters

 

Asking nationwide how someone feels about a Congressional leader is pointless because they aren't elected nationally. They are elected by their local constituency. Take Nancy Pelosi for example. She hasn't come close to losing in her district.

 

If someone suggested she was going to lose election in her district, even with her sky high national disapproval, they would be wrong. Hillary has a favorable/unfavorable that is around even. This is before anyone has run a single negative ad against her. Given her history, it will be easy to drive those numbers up.

 

Here's the reality. Not a single politician has managed to win off the Clinton coattails and I mean the Bill Clinton. Gore didn't win. Hillary didn't win either. To suggest that she can attempt to usurp his record and run on it again (with many voters not having even been eligible to vote back then because it was so long ago) and have a guaranteed result is laughable. I was in college when Bill Clinton was first elected. I'm 44 now. He was first elected 22 years ago. That is over a generation ago. In 2016, to suggest a 68 year old Clinton can appeal back to 24 years ago and hope everyone can recall and remember those times is ludicrous.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #67 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Asking nationwide how someone feels about a Congressional leader is pointless because they aren't elected nationally. They are elected by their local constituency. Take Nancy Pelosi for example. She hasn't come close to losing in her district.

 

If someone suggested she was going to lose election in her district, even with her sky high national disapproval, they would be wrong. Hillary has a favorable/unfavorable that is around even. This is before anyone has run a single negative ad against her. Given her history, it will be easy to drive those numbers up.

 

Here's the reality. Not a single politician has managed to win off the Clinton coattails and I mean the Bill Clinton. Gore didn't win. Hillary didn't win either. To suggest that she can attempt to usurp his record and run on it again (with many voters not having even been eligible to vote back then because it was so long ago) and have a guaranteed result is laughable. I was in college when Bill Clinton was first elected. I'm 44 now. He was first elected 22 years ago. That is over a generation ago. In 2016, to suggest a 68 year old Clinton can appeal back to 24 years ago and hope everyone can recall and remember those times is ludicrous.

 

Excellent points.  Hillary remains popular with the Democratic base.  But remember, this is the same base that tossed her aside in favor of Barack Obama.  The Clintons never got over that, and never will.  It has caused her to become even more defensive and combative in interviews, as has been demonstrated recently (speaking of which, her team clearly coached her big time for her recent Fox News interview, where she came off much better than she had the first few weeks of the book release).  

 

And really, Hillary is the real issue here.  As much as jimmac thinks she is the heir apparent and is inevitable, she may not even win the nomination.  The reason is that if one strips away the Clinton name, she's just not a very good candidate.  I don't mean she's not capable.  She's quite intelligent.  But she's not a good candidate.  She is stiff, rehearsed, and combative.  She is constantly managing who she is and what she says.  She's got a manufactured feel.  She is constantly shaping perceptions of who she is, even down to the most minute detail, and for no good reason.   I also happen to think she, for that reason, is the most dishonest person I know.  No one knows what she "really" thinks about an issue, because she is in a constant state of narrative and image crafting.   I think the "old" Hillary--the more radical left Hillary-- may have been washed out in favor of the new Hillary's raw pursuit of political power.  When did this start?  I think around the time she was sworn in as a Senator.  Ironically, she would probably not be a poor President.  At least she'd be competent.    

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #68 of 93
Thread Starter 

South Dakota legislators pass Obama impeachment resolution. 

 

Doesn't mean anything officially, of course, though I do think it shows the movement on this issue over the past month.  If anything does it, it will probably be the IRS scandal.  These missing e-mails are really bad news for Obama.  Republicans and Democrats alike are fuming.  

 

As impossible as I thought impeachment was a few months ago, I have to wonder what the Democrats might do given their panic over the midterms.  They are getting positively hammered on Iraq, the IRS, the VA and more.  Obama's favorability is now beneath Bush and Carter (currently).  This will be interesting....

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 93

Related to the topic only tangentially:
 

If a member of the federal government has committed crimes up to and including treason, do the rules of citizens’ arrest still apply to them? 

Meaning, if a citizen (up to and including any other member of the federal government) encountered the criminal in person, could they arrest them and hold them until police arrive?

post #70 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Related to the topic only tangentially:
 

If a member of the federal government has committed crimes up to and including treason, do the rules of citizens’ arrest still apply to them? 

Meaning, if a citizen (up to and including any other member of the federal government) encountered the criminal in person, could they arrest them and hold them until police arrive?

 

I don't think the concept of a citizen's arrest exist in reality, to be honest.  It might be nice to think about, but what are you going to do...detain the President until the police arrive?  And then what?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 93
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think the concept of a citizen's arrest exist in reality, to be honest.

 

It’s legally protected in the US.

 
It might be nice to think about, but what are you going to do...detain the President until the police arrive?  And then what?

 

I was thinking more about a story I read wherein a local sheriff was going to arrest his states’ representatives to Congress, but the president works, too.

 

And then criminal justice proceedings begin. In the case of the president, even if fully valid, they’ll also probably end just as quickly, but at least the statement will have been made that he is violating the law, known to be violating the law, and getting out of it. That’s pretty strong.

post #72 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

It’s legally protected in the US.

 

Sure it is.  But I said "exists in reality."   

 

Quote:

I was thinking more about a story I read wherein a local sheriff was going to arrest his states’ representatives to Congress, but the president works, too.

 

And then criminal justice proceedings begin. In the case of the president, even if fully valid, they’ll also probably end just as quickly, but at least the statement will have been made that he is violating the law, known to be violating the law, and getting out of it. That’s pretty strong.

 

Yeah, good luck with that.   What are you going to charge him with?  Who's going to charge him?  In what venue?  Criminal justice proceedings require the violation of a criminal statute.  As many times as Obama has broken "the law," I'm not aware of any criminal statutes he's broken. That doesn't mean he can't be impeached, but detained and charged with something?  Not going to happen.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #73 of 93
Thread Starter 

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/irs-chief-scorched-as-liar/

 

These videos are pretty amazing.  I don't think I've ever seen Congress go after someone this hard in public.   Ditto on never having seen such evasive and absurd answers.   If anything leads to impeachment, it's going to be this.  These e-mails are the new 18 minute gap in the Watergate tapes.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #74 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

These e-mails are the new 18 minute gap in the Watergate tapes.  

 

Watergate was about politicians stealing from other politicians.

 

The IRS scandal is far worse, since it's about criminals in government abusing power and going after regular citizens.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #75 of 93
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As many times as Obama has broken "the law," I'm not aware of any criminal statutes he's broken. That doesn't mean he can't be impeached, but detained and charged with something?  Not going to happen.  

 

Hmm. What about criminal negligence vis a vis his job description? And where does treason fall in the criminal system?

post #76 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

 

Watergate was about politicians stealing from other politicians.

 

The IRS scandal is far worse, since it's about criminals in government abusing power and going after regular citizens.

 

 

Good point.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Hmm. What about criminal negligence vis a vis his job description? And where does treason fall in the criminal system?

 

I don't know what the statutes would be on criminal negligence in this case.  There are state laws on criminal negligence leading to damages (bodily, financial, etc.), but as far as I can tell there aren't specific federal laws (or even others) relating to criminal negligence in general as it applies to performing one's overall duties as President.  

 

Criminal negligence is a legal term, usually applying to bodily harm (criminally negligent medical malpractice, for example).  It can also apply to financial harm ("malfeasance").  I suppose Congress could draw up whatever impeachment charges they wanted to.  However, unless you witnessed Obama dumping tar into a federal waterway, you're not going to have enough to charge him with any "criminal negligence" crime.   

All of the above is academic anyway.  The practical possibility of performing a citizens' arrest on the President of the United States is as close to "absolute zero" as anything I can imagine.  Various wack-a-doodle groups have tried that on retired officials (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger) and it's been nothing but a sideshow.  The Secret Service and/or private security would never allow it.  You're not just going to catch the POTUS in a McDonald's and throw handcuffs on him.  Even if you did somehow amazingly accomplish this (I suppose he could break out of the White House undetected to go get ice cream...like in the movie "Dave), who would detain him and charge him?  The Washington Metro Police Department?  

I'm just saying...think it through.  It's a ridiculous notion.  The only way a sitting President is going to be charged with a  crime is through the Impeachment process.  Period.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #78 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

 The Secret Service and/or private security would never allow it.  You're not just going to catch the POTUS in a McDonald's and throw handcuffs on him.

I meant to come back and respond to the previous posts, but those would mean having to dig up references from my cluttered bookmarked pages. If you're trying to do that with anyone without just having witnessed a crime, you're likely to run afoul of kidnapping charges or something similar. The whole thread is amusing in that this is the least likely thing possible. The only reason members of Congress made any threats was a means of posturing. You don't need to make threats on future behavior if you intend to resort to action. Aside from that I find it slightly odd what seems to anger you guys most. The IRS issue and immigration angers some of you, yet US actions in Yemen (which aren't anything new) go unmentioned.

post #79 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

The IRS issue and immigration angers some of you, yet US actions in Yemen (which aren't anything new) go unmentioned.

 

If the Government can't be held in check locally by those to whom it's supposed to be accountable, how would you ever expect to fix its international policies?

 

Domestic lawlessness breeds cronyism and corruption, which is then manifested outside the country.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #80 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

Domestic lawlessness breeds cronyism and corruption, which is then manifested outside the country.

I'm not sure if the two are that directly connected. As of right now I'm still not sure why the US is involved there in that way. My comment related more to what bothers you guys. The hierarchy struck me as odd. It's clear that I don't understand most of the people who post in this section, which is why I have the tendency to go back to just reading it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Obama Going to be Impeached?