Can Obama be impeached for sheer incompetence?

reply to post by nicholaswa


you didnt even read that article did you? First you insult AGAIN which shows your intellect, and then go on to say that it doesnt prove my point? READ my friend, dont INTERPRET what you THINK it says. I knew you were going to call it propaganda, because you dont like THAT source. Once again, avoiding facts because you dont like what they say......you my friend are a lost cause/

It took Bush 8 years to rack up a deficit of approx $500 billion. By the end of 2009, it is estimated that Obama's deficit will be 1.75 trillion...over three times as much as Bush - but in one year. You do the math!

Heres something interesting
www.cincinnatusblog.com...

Heres another

www.dcexaminer.com...

Now READ ALL OF THEM and DENY IGNORANCE! I rest my case

Originally posted by Seasick
You can call it what you want to, but I think that many people are generally upset that a man of color (yes, I know he's mixed race) is our nation's leader. I think this sole issue alone is the basis of 90% (barracks calculations) of the Obama bashing we see.

Okay .. since you gave me the go-ahead ... I'll call that what it is.
It is your opinion and it's conclusion is wrong.

Originally posted by Seasick
I do not feel that Obama has even served in office long enough to be judged competent or incompetent.

He spent two years campaigning and he's been in office for almost two months. It is obvious that his severe lack of experience is hurting him. It's obvious that he's already tired (he has said so himself) and he isn't up to the job. He's been in public office long enough to form an educated opinion of the man.

He's a tool of the Bildebergers. I'm sure they are thrilled to have a puppet who is so incompetent in office. It makes their job easier.

Bottom line though - being an incompetent nitwit isn't an impeachable offense. Too bad for us.

Originally posted by nicholaswa
I haven't seen you bring up a single "fact." are we supposed to think??

Obama is set to outspend Bush .... easily.
Read and learn, young grasshopper ...

Bloomberg

March 2 (Bloomberg) -- The gap between rhetoric and hype in President Barack Obama’s budget is as wide as the Pacific Ocean. Obama has not offered change; he has offered a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies.

Obama is not the anti-Bush. He is Bush on steroids.

Bush’s policies could be summarized in one sentence: Spend like a drunken sailor and don’t pay for it. Obama’s policies can be summarized by the same sentence, except that Obama goes beyond drunk to alcohol poisoning. If Bush policies were disastrous, as Obama claims, then why is he continuing them?

reply to post by FlyersFan



Exactly, there are a few posting on here, such as the guy I keep replying to, that wont accept the links they asked so vehemently for earlier as proof. Altho i stated early on that they would just dismiss them as propaganda or from a bad source.....which they have, oh how predictable those liberals!

Why do you think they wont accept the facts presented to them?

The partisanship in this thread is getting to be tedious and bitter. I am trying to look at the pros and cons as objectively as possible and I have my problems with obama but I'm starting to come to terms with some, even the assault weapons ban I can see that it's not completely unreasonable. You shouldn't need more than 10 rounds semi-auto to defend yourself or hunt. The only concern is who I'll be defending against, ordinary criminals or gov't scumbags and powerful gangs that turn on the people after a collapse. I can't help but wonder if some in the government are concerned about citizens having the option of revolt on the table. That's our best bargaining chip (though it is ostensibly "our" government which would imply that we control it and don't need chips).

I'm starting to understand why the money needs to be spent. We have such incredible deflationary pressure because of falling housing prices that it's killing everything else, which is why we need some inflation, which is what the stimulus will slowly do, but a very smart economist I know said there needs to be mandatory 10 percent wage hikes or the vicious cycle is going to get worse for a good while.

The main reason the british are upset is because murdoch controls their entire media and is telling them to. It is a minor incident. I had to laugh a little at the irony though.

We created the taliban so we should do something about it. All options on the table. You do realize the strategy in Iraq that has been working so wonderfully is simply paying the terrorist and insurgents not to attack? Either bush didn't know or didn't have a problem with it, and neither would surprise me. I do have a problem with O going back on his promise to remove troops from Iraq (50,000 to stay) and raising the defense budget 4 percent. I guess the mil-industrial complex is more powerful than a slogan.

In response to the Man Behind the Sheet....er...mask...

Man, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. You clearly don't know the difference between a budget deficit and a national debt.

FACT: Bush inherited a national debt of about 6 trillion.
FACT: That number has swelled to over 10 trillion, the largest increase under any single presidency.
FACT: 4 trillion is more than 1.5 trillion.
FACT: The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act is an attempt to get America out of the recession caused by Bush's policies. If we weren't in a recession, there wouldn't be such a bill, nor would there be talk of government spending to revitalize the economy.
FACT: There is a difference of opinion about whether government spending can do more to stimulate the economy than private spending. It is nothing more than that, a difference of opinion.
FACT: A basic difference between the two parties is their opinion on the above issue. Democrats traditionally believe in increasing government (size and spending) while Republicans traditionally argue against "bigger government" - EXCEPT when it comes to womens' rights, which they believe should be regulated by more government.

Now, back to the economic situation:

Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:

1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).
2. He invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan (another $600 B).
3. He deregulated Wall Street speculators. That bailout (Bush's bailout)has now "invested" $1T

(Perhaps you could explain these actions jive with the virtuous conservative principals you espouse).

Quote:
The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8]. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has typically been around $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.

In your last post you claimed that Bush spent only $500 billion. You are clearly mistaken, since even the most CONSERVATIVE estimates put the cost of the war in Iraq at around $600 billion.

Now, YOU go read some more, learn how to add and subtract, and come back when you're ready to have a mature discussion involving FACTS.
Until then, I'm content to believe your unwarranted, vitriolic criticisms of my President are borne from something other than your concern for the country...I don't HAVE to call you a retard...you're doing a pretty good job of proving that you are...



[edit on 11-3-2009 by nicholaswa]

President = front man. Difference between politicians = exterior looks. Few are really different, see Ron Paul.







[edit on 11-3-2009 by pai mei]

reply to post by pai mei


In the end this is what it comes down to really. The differences are minor. I think we are still on the road to a fascist police state.

reply to post by nicholaswa


so my number was a little off in the scheme of things.........but there you go again name calling, like you and your liberal buddies like to do.....very very immature and really shows your debating prowess............read the websites man.......its pretty blatant.......im done going back and forth with you since you refuse to acknowledge facts...call someone else names........facts are facts......you lose


p.s. whats this you wrote

"Now, YOU go read some more, learn how to add and subtract, and come back when you're ready to have a mature discussion involving FACTS.
Until then, I'm content to believe your unwarranted, vitriolic criticisms of my President are borne from something other than your concern for the country...I don't HAVE to call you a retard...you're doing a pretty good job of proving that you are..."

You dare to say that im not being mature after youve been doing this? YOu my friend are delusional! Anyone else seeing this besides me?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]

No, we can't impeach a U.S. President for "incompetence."

We do however have the responsibility to overthrow and take back a tyrannical government, according to our Founding Fathers.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


so my number was a little off in the scheme of things........
Yeah, 500 billion as opposed to 5 trillion...I'd say you were more than a little off...I just proved your contention wrong, and that's your answer?

.but there you go again name calling, like you and your liberal buddies like to do.....very very immature and really shows your debating prowess............
More accurately it shows my thinning tolerance for Neo-cons like you who IGNORE the facts.

read the websites man.......
The Right-wing propaganda sites?
its pretty blatant.......
It is...you're right. Those sites all have a conservative agenda.


im done going back and forth with you since you refuse to acknowledge facts...
What? Again, I just corrected your claim that Obama has outspent Bush...a point which YOU are ignoring...

call someone else names........facts are facts......you lose
I lose? You're funny!


The FACTS are on my side....and you probably STILL don't know the difference between a budget deficit and a national debt. For someone so passionate, you'd think you'd learn a little bit about the subject you're discussing...you're up on here purporting lies, and you don't expect anyone to call you out on it? Typical conservative...enjoy your life inside the bubble.

reply to post by nicholaswa


lol no they arent you ignore all the websites, even the ones that arent right wing. Ive also read your posts on other areas of the website.

It seems that being ugly to people, calling them names, and trying to use 5 dollar words to insult them is kind of your MO, so im not surprised your doing it here.

You refuse to believe the facts, thats fine.......come talk to me in 6 months when this thing gets worse ok? Now run along and stir trouble some where else

reply to post by jsobecky


Well, what about the last 8 yrs. of Bush? I think it's his incompetence that put us into this mess for quite some time now. Yet he was never impeached.

Obama is making some ambitious attempts to restore our way of living. Yeah I don't believe in socialism, but we were living in the opposite end of the spectrum, that I consider corporate socialism. Think about it. We want to be in the middle of the spectrum, not at either extreme. I also don't think Obama is incompetent by a stretch of the imagination. Granted, he may of made ideal proposals before his presidency, before he knew what he was getting himself into.

So everyone's in a bit of a bind recently with this whole recession thing going on. Mostly the middle man is getting screwed over this while the poor as well as the money giants (corporations) get public assistance.

Having universal health care will save hospitals and individuals lots of money since they'll be cared for and have preventative care available to everyone. I'd say ---- the automotive and banking industries at this point, they should be replaced with better, and fresher companies with better innovative ideas. Money should have been invested in newer car companies and not wasted on the fat/greedy/lazy cats.

Lobbyists? There will always be lobbyists in DC. However, all lobbyist proposals should be available to the public viewing, since most Americans do not know how their tax dollars are being spent. Some investments to some lobbyits are a good thing, some not so much.

Well hope I didn't sound too abstract, but, if I did, oh well. Tried to get my two cents while I had the chance. I hope that the stimulus package does some good.

FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DRANK THE( KOOL AID)THE LOVE AFFAIR=CNN MSNBC ABC CBS PBS....... what a bunch of extreme so far left..it makes me sick..............GOD BLESS AMERICA....AND THE MASSES THAT DON'T WANT THIS CHANGE...............and yes i am a proud conservative

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


LOL! Only a NeoCon would continue to purport his lies as facts in the face of contrary proof!

Let's make a deal: You live in your world, and I'll live in the real world, where numbers don't lie.

Again....BUSH spent more than any other President, ever. More than Reagan, more than FDR, and more than Obama. The idea that Obama COULD spend more than Bush did in 8 years, in 7 short weeks, is more than ridiculous, and the perpetuation of such an idea is pure maliciousness on your part.

Dude, it's not my fault, or anyone else's, that you're angry. You have a right to be...but using lies to argue your point is childish, period.

My original point is that this thread has no place on ATS. It's an ignorant question - can a President be impeached for incompetence....no more than neo-cons can be jailed for their stupidity!!

reply to post by nicholaswa


Im not angry at all, you are the one calling names here.......not to mention your repetitive use of the word neo con lol.

"Neo conservatives" are mostly former leftists/liberals who converted to conservatism during the '70's and when Ronald Reagan became President.

I never have been a liberal, learn what a Neo Con is before you start throwing the word around...get a clue man, and have a fantastic day!

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


If you'd been a conservative since before the Reagan administration you probably wouldn't say things as stupid as "Obama has outspent Bush."

Most conservatives I know regard Bush's presidency as an economic failure, and tend to agree only with his socially-conservative approach to matters.

It's only angry, intellectually-lazy people like yourself who like their info spoonfed from NewsCorps, who continue to argue after they've been proven wrong, and who consider ignorance a source of pride.

You have a good day too...don't let the sky fall on you now...

reply to post by nicholaswa


"If you'd been a conservative since before the Reagan administration you probably wouldn't say things as stupid as "Obama has outspent Bush."

Most conservatives I know regard Bush's presidency as an economic failure, and tend to agree only with his socially-conservative approach to matters.

It's only angry, intellectually-lazy people like yourself who like their info spoonfed from NewsCorps, who continue to argue after they've been proven wrong, and who consider ignorance a source of pride.

You have a good day too...don't let the sky fall on you now..."

There you go insulting people again

2. What does me be a conservative my whole life have to do with thinking bush's presidency wasnt an economic failure? Of course i dont think hes presidency was good for the economy. Again you make an assumption.

3. lol im not a neocon and that has nothing to do with my statements seeing as how ive always been a conservative and therefore cannot be a neocon.

4. Ive given plenty of websites stating facts and figures, just because you dont like them doesnt make them untrue .

5. Its typical that lib such as yourself will use insults and anger to try and make a point.

You are floundering my friend and failing.....enough with the name calling, and unfounded accusations, youre making yourself and your party look bad.

P.S You are off topic, please stay with the OP original post

[edit on 11-3-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]

Originally posted by nicholaswa
.I don't HAVE to call you a retard...you're doing a pretty good job of proving that you are...

Guys .. ya'll are off topic and with stuff like this the hammer is going to come down. Just FYI.

TOPIC - Can Obama be Impeached for Incompetence?

Answer - No. (unfortunately) No POTUS can be.



[edit on 3/11/2009 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


God I hate to get into this garbage, but neo-cons were never anything resembling liberal. They morphed disgruntled conservatives in the 70's into far-right fascist imperialists.

Click here for more information.