Obama Impeachment Charges

I bet Obama goes the way of Johnson, and chooses to not run for another term. I cannot believe that even someone as narcissistic as he is wouldn't see that it would be an unwinnable race, especially once the party leaders weigh in.

I don't think any such process will work since the whole apple is corrupt.

So if the whole government is corrupt, why would they go against one of their own when they are all getting a free ride.

Just stands to reason.. People seldom turn out one of their own if they are all scratching each others backs.

just my $0.002 (adjusted for inflation)

Originally posted by Cygnis
Just stands to reason.. People seldom turn out one of their own if they are all scratching each others backs.

in doing so
sooner or later
ur gonna scratch somebody
the wrong way.

And they will turn out their own
if they stand to gain from it.

Example: Sestak and Romanoff

so yes an impeachment can be
accomplished if the right cards
are played.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Sounds like you agree that on top of all of obama's other failings, that he's also very weak.

If he couldn't take the heat he should have never applied for or taken the job.

Analogy: What do good companies do with failing employees, keep them on because they feel sorry for them? I don't think so ...

Sure we can look at Obama as weak, he is pretty skinny you know.

And actually they created this thing called a Union specifically to represent and protect the lazy failing employee's the best part about a union is the lazy failing employee's get promoted due to seniority.

and Obama seems to be taking the heat quite well and seems he keeps his composure with grace.

and what failings are you talking about.

the failings that have been brought on for the past 100 years, I guess it is fair to blame USA's problem on Obama

That is fair right?

He is President and shouldn't Presidents have magic powers so that when they snap their fingers their country's perfect. so that when it's not perfect you know it's the Presidents fault for he did not snap his fingers fast enough or hard enough?

and an add for the thread

please can someone give me the definition of the Truth and a definition of a Lie. and please explain to me how you can prove someone is Lying. or prove they are telling the truth.

the only way to prove someone is lying is by having the lie caught on tape or camera. so all you pro-impeachers get your tape recorders out and catch Mr. Obama in his lies. so hurry now get your shoes on get down to Washington and start your reporting.

oh and remember everyone against Obama MUST be telling the truth for they would never tell a lie.

Here's a saying I created with the help of a friend named Merlin

for a man's word is the only truth he will ever know.

for you have a better chance stealing candy from a baby then proving someone else's truths to be a lie. Or someone's Lies to be a truth.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I found this interesting video
worth a look

Alan Keyes says we have to stop Obama
or the US will cease to exist.

Obviously Mr. Keyes hates black people...


Great video btw!

Originally posted by badfish86
for a man's word is the only truth he will ever know.

speaking of a man's word !!!!
Obama is not quite trustworthy
in that dept. either

politifact.com...

that is not even counting the promises
he's broken after he became president.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


No...you don't use an impeachment trial to attempt to dig for information that is unknown...and that is what you are suggesting.

Wrong. An Impeachment hearing is like a grand jury indictment hearing. The house hears the evidence, and if it finds that there is a case, it is sent to the senate for "trial."

Learn how your government works, please.

You use an impeachment trial when there is already known criminal activity.

Which there is . . .

You can't use impeachment as a witch hunt and start one for ever stupid rumor that is floating out there.

Witch hunt? These are serious charges!

Tell me you don't honestly believe that this is how impeachment should be used.

Umm . . . yeah, because that is how it is.

Congress approves their funding...get it straight.

Who signs off on it?

They Acorn thing died a long time ago...you need to get off that boat...and stay up with the current false anti-Obama rhetoric. You are making your group look bad by grasping to old debunked rhetoric.

Wrong!

Proof

So you suggest we wait for an attack to happen...and then take action???

Yes, because if they did not, they would be prosecuting a thought crime.

Oh yeah...I bet you wouldn't be on Obama for not acting sooner...right???
You guys are so predictable...nothing he does is right...he either does too much or not enough.

That is a fallacy . . . nice generalization, though.

Please debate the points she gives, not the source. Thanks

Well I tried..and you ignored every single point I made...and you have a second time. All that says to me is that you have nothing to say to the points I made.

And yes...I will attack a "source" when it is a blog and you are trying to pass it off as undeniable proof. If you don't want me to attack your sources of "Maggie"...then get some credible sources.

Can you refute her points or not? Quit beating around the bush.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Can we see a report of every US president that is pretty biased to just put Obama's broken promises.

Then again these promises are only goals, these goals are only hopes, and hopes are only dreams. for your a dreamer as well to believe Obama would do everything he said, knowing that to pass a bill he has to go threw congress and numerous different parties be for it can become legal or be for change can take place. you do know their's a way for Obama to be fully in charge to do as he please. That is called Marshal Law, and if that were to be put into effect Obama could then full fill all his promises as well as your worst nightmares. as you have to remember 1 man even a president can't take on Congress, the FBI and the CIA. That's what Kennedy did and well I forgot what happend to Kennedy?

Let's actually be a little more in depth instead of one sided information

what do i have here, the promises Obama kept.

politifact.com...

is that 6 pages of 20 promises kept per page

Promises broken

politifact.com...

1 page of promises broken

a graph of his promises and how he's working towards them

politifact.com...

top 25 promises he's made

politifact.com...

and finally the ones he compromised on

politifact.com...

hmmm

does that mean your information is even more biased for you did not show both sides to the story.


can I ask... Are you a journalist?

And Thank you for this site for it is a true gem
everyone should check it out.

politifact.com...

[edit on 3-6-2010 by badfish86]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by badfish86]

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry


If Bush wasn't impeached fore wiretapping, invading two countries, advocating torture, firing federal prosecutors, letting 9/11 take place, bringing in the Patriot Act, and totally f'n up Katrina...I'd say you have a pretty bad shot at getting Obama (who's a saint compared to W) thrown out of office just because he does things a politician does.

Wouldn't you say that it would be better if we (as a country) learned from our mistakes?

. . .

you're just so very upset at the fact you have a black Democrat running your country.

. . .

And there is the race card . . . how very predictable.

Originally posted by nivekronnoco
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

I realise that you think you're debating...you're not.

I realize that this is not a formal debate. The point you and the others seem to be missing is that this is about facts. If you have facts to present, right on. We will discuss those facts and argue them. Fallacies are opposite of fact, and are only posted to deter the topic at hand. It is a form of trolling. Part of the reason that ATS has gone downhill in the last few years is because of the amount of fallacies that are thrown around. It derails topics, and then nothing gets discussed.

All of your opponents points are valid...You seem for the most part to be saying 'nuh uh'

I have not seen many valid points, and the ones that I have seen, I have disagreed with, and generally given evidence to support my argument . . . which is much more than my opponents have, I might add.

As far as your original points...none of them have any real basis in fact...it's all just right wing pufferey..

Wrong. Please go back and re-read the thread again.

It's the OP's responsibility to do reasearch,first...not just throw what ever you can find at the wall and see what sticks.

What points are you refuting, and what evidence do you have to support your argument?

The real problem with your premise is exposed in your first statement...I don't know why any acts of impeachment have been filed...

That was not me . . . it was the OP

Because President Obama has'nt done anything worth being impeached for

Wrong again . . . please go back and re-read the thread. At the very least, he has broken his oath to the Constitution. At the worst, he has committed treason.

...So far the only thing anyone has Proven him guilty of is being half black...just my 2 cents..

*sigh* Fallacy.

and there is the race card . . . YET AGAIN

reply to post by OldDragger


And I love people who do not add anything to the debate . . . .

Try just a bit harder next time, okay?

Assuming that the OP's first nine points are valid, should have been enough. But then he goes on about the birth certificate in reason no. ten and alarms went off on my head and I purged everything I just read and chalked it up to BS.

Note to birthers; the only people you are convincing are yourselves. The vast majority of people--myself included--think that you guys are barking up the wrong tree--to put it kindly. You're shooting yourselves in the foot because even if you're making cogent criticisms of Obama and then you mention the infamous birth certificate, well then most people's BS meters go to 11 and they just kind of phase out whatever else you may have said.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by OldDragger

 

And I love people who do not add anything to the debate . . . .

Try just a bit harder next time, okay?

Read it and weep Part 2

Obama now at 46% a huge drop of 1 % WOW

www.gallup.com...

Obama Weekly Approval Average Dips to New Low of 46%Obama's average has been in 46% to 50% range since mid-February
June 2, 2010At 46%, President Obama's job approval average for the week ending May 30 is the lowest weekly average of his administration, one point below the previous low of 47% measured in April.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Paradigm2012]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Paradigm2012]

Originally posted by Speedtek
Wow...

This has to be the most ignorant and grating thread I've seen on ATS.

Indeed. Ignorant . . . I mean, it seems that most people can't argue in facts, and must continually push fallacies as valid logical reasoning.

The OP's method of posting links and then lashing out at everyone to refute them is NOT the way to prove a point.

The OP never lashed out. You must be talking about me.

You are right. I did lash out because I am tired of seeing the same old rhetoric. No one bothers to discuss facts. All anyone does anymore is hurl rhetoric, fallacies, and insults around. I get enough of that off of 4chan. It has been like this since about 2004, a few years after I started lurking.

It is NOT up to everyone else to disprove your hypothesis (though, I'm not sure about the "educated" part of the guess to begin with), but it is soley up to YOU to prove your point with facts and logic.

They have been proven using facts and logic. The problem is the people who oppose it are not using fact (except one or two. They keep me on my toes! )

Posting links without backing them up and and firing back spasms of "fallacy" does nothing to your credibility as a voice of reason or source of information, it makes you look small and appear to lack basic critical thinking skills.

I beg to differ. I am posting facts, and all I get back is illogical reasoning . . . aka fallacies. I call them as I see them. If it makes me look small and lose credibility in your eyes, to DENY IGNORANCE, well tough. I prefer my arguments to be thoughtful and logical. Not mudslinging and mindless rhetoric.

I highly suggest you do some research into the logical debate process and save us from your inane babble.

I suggest you do the same. Have a good day!

Originally posted by badfish86
Sure we can look at Obama as weak, he is pretty skinny you know.

Are our Presidents supposed to be ready for physical combat?
None of them looked especially buff.

Although it might be cooler to let the leaders of rival nations slug it out in the ring over disagreements rather than send us to die over their nonsense.

Obama won't be impeached.

- Lee

reply to post by lee anoma


Only if there is pie involved!

lol

I was going to say jello . . . but that seemed to be a bit to homo-erotic for my tatses

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Does TREASON work?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." --US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4."


I see bribery, abuse of power, official misconduct, and breaking his oath to the Constitution . . . just to name a few impeachable offenses.

[edit on 6/2/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]

Your definition would effectively require the impeachment of any congressman or representative that has ever accepted campaign donations from people who want the elected official to institute policies or laws friendly to that donor.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I found this interesting video
worth a look

Alan Keyes says we have to stop Obama
or the US will cease to exist.

Obviously Mr. Keyes hates black people...


Great video btw!

Obviously you're making a strawman argument in that you label all those supporting Obama as people who go around accusing everyone of racism. Then, after presenting your imaginary opponent, you seek to disprove your nonexistent declarant's beliefs. Have fun arguing with yourself.

Originally posted by badfish86
And actually they created this thing called a Union specifically to represent and protect the lazy failing employee's the best part about a union is the lazy failing employee's get promoted due to seniority.

Actually, the National Labor Relation Act established the right to collective bargaining. They passed that act in order to improve working conditions and move towards providing a living wage to all Americans.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by andrewh7]