If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   Obama would be impeached by now if he was George Bush. (Video)   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 220
    More: Obvious, George W. Bush, Tina Brown, President George W. Bush  
•       •       •

2269 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Feb 2013 at 5:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-10 11:40:53 AM
Yeah; I doubt that. The left would make even more noise about than they already do, but that's about it.
 
2013-02-10 11:46:30 AM
So, you're saying Dubya was impeached? Because I don't remember that.
 
2013-02-10 12:00:26 PM
Impeachment proceedings begin in the (Republican-controlled) House of Representatives.
 
2013-02-10 12:01:19 PM
Yes, because recent history has surely taught us that the Dems are so much more impeachment happy than the GOP.
 
2013-02-10 12:04:25 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, because recent history has surely taught us that the Dems are so much more impeachment happy than the GOP.


Example: Nancy Pelosi killing impeachment charges filed against Bush by Dennis Kuninich. He filed 60 charges I think.
 
2013-02-10 12:19:00 PM
Nope, he still would have had a horde of conservative fools to demand that we show him complete and utter respect and deference, lest we out ourselves as "un-American."

And G.W. belongs in prison.
 
2013-02-10 12:46:46 PM
Why has the GOP evolved into such an nihilist, apocalyptic operation that must treat every opponent as the unrepentant traitor who will end the Republic and every controversy as the great battle of the End Times?

The combo pack of Fox News and rant radio needing to terrorize their followers and the End Times Christian movement capturing a large portion of those same people are so toxic you'd think someone might realize they're going to either destroy their party or create the apocalypse they keep warning about.  Ratings will be fantastic and gold will treble in price, so I suppose it all works out in the end.
 
2013-02-10 12:54:56 PM
Well I suppose if he was George W. Bush, he would deserve to be impeached for violation of the 22nd Amendment.

Other than that, no.  Presidenting While Black is not an impeachable offense.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-02-10 01:14:33 PM

wejash: Why has the GOP evolved into such an nihilist, apocalyptic operation that must treat every opponent as the unrepentant traitor who will end the Republic and every controversy as the great battle of the End Times?


Because what you described is the real GOP without the window dressing.  They haven't evolved, they just dropped the facade.
 
2013-02-10 01:21:37 PM
Bullshiat.

/more Republican whining.
 
2013-02-10 01:22:23 PM

Krieghund: Impeachment proceedings begin in the (Republican-controlled) House of Representatives.


Clearly, the House Republicans are in the tank for Obama.
 
2013-02-10 01:34:17 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, because recent history has surely taught us that the Dems are so much more impeachment happy than the GOP.


Winnar.
 
2013-02-10 01:34:53 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Nope, he still would have had a horde of conservative fools to demand that we show him complete and utter respect and deference, lest we out ourselves as "un-American."

And G.W. belongs in prison.


Why do you hate George Washington?
 
2013-02-10 02:57:33 PM
I'm pretty sure only Republicans have ever resorted to impeachment.  if anything, the GOP slap fight with Clinton scared Democrats away from going after Bush.  Imagine that, Democrats believing that the Constitutional Nuclear Option shouldn't be used casually to eliminate your political enemies.
 
2013-02-10 03:26:04 PM
If anything, Obama should have been impeached already. It's not like the GOP's not begging to do it.
 
2013-02-10 03:33:13 PM

themindiswatching: If anything, Obama should have been impeached already.


On what grounds?
 
2013-02-10 03:36:12 PM

FloydA: themindiswatching: If anything, Obama should have been impeached already.

On what grounds?


Because Benghazi isn't a scandal yet.
 
2013-02-10 03:37:03 PM

FloydA: themindiswatching: If anything, Obama should have been impeached already.

On what grounds?


PWB: Presedentin' While Black. It's an open and shut case.
 
2013-02-10 03:48:47 PM
That's a pretty stupid assumption. The complaints would be shriller but that's about it.
 
2013-02-10 04:03:42 PM

themindiswatching: FloydA: themindiswatching: If anything, Obama should have been impeached already.

On what grounds?

Because Benghazi isn't a scandal yet.


High crimes and misdemeanors ain't what they used to be.
 
2013-02-10 04:10:04 PM
Which of the two Presidents started a war with Iraq to make money for his Vice President? Which President signed the Patriot Act? Which President opened up Gitmo? True, Obama only fixed one of those three things but impeached because of drones? WTF is that?
 
2013-02-10 04:16:11 PM

Mugato: Which of the two Presidents started a war with Iraq to make money for his Vice President? Which President signed the Patriot Act? Which President opened up Gitmo? True, Obama only fixed one of those three things but impeached because of drones? WTF is that?


In all fairness, Obama did not end the patriot act, consolidated more power for the executive office, and goes around killing people with drones.

But then, that's what presidents do.
 
2013-02-10 04:16:51 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Bullshiat.

/more Republican whining.


Yeah that Tina Bown is such a republican partisan person.  Yeah. That's the ticket.
 
2013-02-10 04:20:26 PM
As I understand it, the power to use the drones stems from the AUMF. If the right actually gave a shiat (I know they don't but I'll continue anyway) about the use of the drones, then change the AUMF or introduce a new one

/i probably have that wrong
//too lazy to google
///slashies
 
2013-02-10 04:28:06 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Mugato: Which of the two Presidents started a war with Iraq to make money for his Vice President? Which President signed the Patriot Act? Which President opened up Gitmo? True, Obama only fixed one of those three things but impeached because of drones? WTF is that?

In all fairness, Obama did not end the patriot act, consolidated more power for the executive office, and goes around killing people with drones.

But then, that's what presidents do.


Governments don't give up power once they got it, why would they? And I still don't see what is so terrible about drones. If we're going to bomb people anyway, why not do it in a way that doesn't put American pilots in danger? I don't see why everyone is all of a sudden so incensed about drones. "It takes away the weight and importance of war"....oh, fark off.
 
2013-02-10 04:31:59 PM

Mentat: themindiswatching: FloydA: themindiswatching: If anything, Obama should have been impeached already.

On what grounds?

Because Benghazi isn't a scandal yet.

High crimes and misdemeanors ain't what they used to be.


and with hummers not being sex and Pluto not a planet... I just don't know what to believe any more!
 
2013-02-10 04:37:41 PM
Is he getting BJs on the side now?
 
2013-02-10 04:55:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: Bullshiat.

/more Republican whining.

Yeah that Tina Bown is such a republican partisan person.  Yeah. That's the ticket.


Not republican?  Just stupid?

to-may-to, to-mah-to
 
2013-02-10 05:29:16 PM
But why isn't George Bush impeached by now?

Why?

Whywhywhywhywhy?

Not to mention the people behind the butterfly ballot, the suppression of thousands of votes of people (mostly black Democrats) because they happened to have the same name as a Texas felon that Bush's home state sent to Bubba's home state well before the Election, the mob of Republican operatives that stormed Tallahasee pretending to be "the people", the Supreme Court Justices who halted the vote counts, thus electing Bush by 5 to 4, and so forth.

Practically everything the GOP does to get and to hold on to power is an impeachable offence and they're still at it, tryiing to rig the Swing States, gerrymander the whole country and legislate from the Supreme Court--something they howl about when the claim Democrats are doing it but are totally OK with when it's them--because it is them.

To paraphrase Richard M. Nixon, "it's not illegal when the PresidentGOP does it".

Such are this lot of seditious Southern crypto-fascists. That's what's wrong with Amerikakaka and always has been, from the early pre-planning days of fomenting the Revolution.

A bunch of tax rebels only too happy to let the British taxpayer carry the massive cost of protecting the colonies without paying one farthing towards it themselves;
slave owners who yapped about their (Britiish) and then American freedoms and the unalienable rights of man (minus those who were property, indentured, poor, female, not rich landowners or professionals, of course);
and those who objected to the treaties which the Crown so foolishly signed to leave the Indian lands to the west of the Appalachians in the hands of their ab-orginal owners when everybody (with a survyeror's level and plumb-line) knew that God intended them to shove off and leave these valuable properties in the hands of his racial and religious Elect, the same patriotic tax-dodgers and slave-owning freedom lovers aforementioned.

Let the damned King of England have 'em. There's plenty more like them where they came from.

How do you like them American exceptions?

They're not so interested in exceptonalism as in exemption from the law and the burdens they so rigourously apply to everybody else. Pharisees. Sadducees. Hypocrites. White-washed tombs.

The Law, Religion and Constitution are guard dogs to sic on poor people and raggamuffins so as to protect the property of the rich upper criminal classes.

My Evil Twin Theory of American History in a nutshell. A liberal democracy struggling with anti-liberal Christofascism forever like those pied dudes on the original Star Trek. Only without the Gnostic elements supplied by Harvard Neo-Platonism and Judeo-Christianism.
 
2013-02-10 05:35:26 PM

Mugato: Governments don't give up power once they got it, why would they? And I still don't see what is so terrible about drones. If we're going to bomb people anyway, why not do it in a way that doesn't put American pilots in danger? I don't see why everyone is all of a sudden so incensed about drones. "It takes away the weight and importance of war"....oh, fark off.


Using drones to kill American citizens without due process is a pretty significant consolidation of power. I'm pretty liberal, voted for Obama twice, and it makes me uncomfortable, to say the least.
 
2013-02-10 05:42:37 PM

SurfaceTension: Using drones to kill American citizens without due process is a pretty significant consolidation of power. I'm pretty liberal, voted for Obama twice, and it makes me uncomfortable, to say the least.


I think the real issue is that it should make EVERYONE uncomfortable.
 
2013-02-10 05:47:31 PM

slayer199: SurfaceTension: Using drones to kill American citizens without due process is a pretty significant consolidation of power. I'm pretty liberal, voted for Obama twice, and it makes me uncomfortable, to say the least.

I think the real issue is that it should make EVERYONE uncomfortable.


More than a few are simply concerned.  If you vote for Bush in 2004, as far as I'm convinced, you have no right to say a damn thing.
 
2013-02-10 05:50:44 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: Bullshiat.

/more Republican whining.

Yeah that Tina Bown is such a republican partisan person.  Yeah. That's the ticket.

Not republican?  Just stupid?


Yeah, "just stupid" like people who attribute comments made by Tina Brown to "more Republican whining".

what a moran.
 
2013-02-10 05:50:56 PM

Mugato: Darth_Lukecash: Mugato: Which of the two Presidents started a war with Iraq to make money for his Vice President? Which President signed the Patriot Act? Which President opened up Gitmo? True, Obama only fixed one of those three things but impeached because of drones? WTF is that?

In all fairness, Obama did not end the patriot act, consolidated more power for the executive office, and goes around killing people with drones.

But then, that's what presidents do.

Governments don't give up power once they got it, why would they? And I still don't see what is so terrible about drones. If we're going to bomb people anyway, why not do it in a way that doesn't put American pilots in danger? I don't see why everyone is all of a sudden so incensed about drones. "It takes away the weight and importance of war"....oh, fark off.


I don't have a problem in using drones. I'm sure there were cavemen biatching about the guys who invented the spear.

"Don't kill with bare hands? Unethical!"

But there has been a serious shift in power in the USA-a consolidation for certain types of people.
 
2013-02-10 05:58:54 PM

slayer199: SurfaceTension: Using drones to kill American citizens without due process is a pretty significant consolidation of power. I'm pretty liberal, voted for Obama twice, and it makes me uncomfortable, to say the least.

I think the real issue is that it should make EVERYONE uncomfortable.


Why? Joining the other side during wartime is not a good move: especially outside of the country.

Historically speaking- traitors are not treated well. Exception being after the civil war. We should have razed the south completely.

See what happens when you are nice?
 
2013-02-10 05:58:59 PM
The Derp is strong in this thread.
 
2013-02-10 06:01:07 PM
The only impeachment was based on misuse of a wiener. Wiping your ass with the constitution is a right of passage for a two termed. Obama just happens to wipe more often and he is more full of shiat. That's all. But the past two presidents have been a freekin embarrassment to anyone with a brain and a slight understanding if the constitution.
 
2013-02-10 06:01:14 PM
No.
 
2013-02-10 06:03:48 PM
Dude tried and succeeded for a time in turning torture into an instrument of statecraft and he's still running around free.

So no.

/Tina Brown looks tired.
//Don't ya think?
 
2013-02-10 06:04:02 PM

GAT_00: slayer199: SurfaceTension: Using drones to kill American citizens without due process is a pretty significant consolidation of power. I'm pretty liberal, voted for Obama twice, and it makes me uncomfortable, to say the least.

I think the real issue is that it should make EVERYONE uncomfortable.

More than a few are simply concerned.  If you vote for Bush in 2004, as far as I'm convinced, you have no right to say a damn thing.


blah blah blah
if you voted for Bush you somehow forfeited the right to say anything?   blah blah blah.
okay, then if you voted for 0bama, you have no right to say anything either since he is killing off American citizens with drone strikes, blah, blah, blah.
 
2013-02-10 06:04:11 PM
No.

Nancy Pelosi had absolutely no desire to impeach him.
 
2013-02-10 06:06:22 PM

GAT_00: More than a few are simply concerned. If you vote for Bush in 2004, as far as I'm convinced, you have no right to say a damn thing.


You know I'm not a Republican...and I haven't voted GOP for President since '88 and I've disagreed with them frequently on these very forums (or do I need to list out every post I've made bashing the GOP again).

Darth_Lukecash: Why? Joining the other side during wartime is not a good move: especially outside of the country.

Historically speaking- traitors are not treated well. Exception being after the civil war. We should have razed the south completely.


There's this little thing called due process that American Citizens are entitled to...or did you forget about that?  If you read the memo justifying drone strikes on American citizens, you'd know there's no evidence that needs to be presented.

If they're traitors, fine...then they should be captured, tried, convicted and treated as a traitor.
 
2013-02-10 06:07:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: killing off American citizens with drone strikes,


First US citizen killed by drone strike was under Bush.
 
2013-02-10 06:07:49 PM

Mugato: Darth_Lukecash: Mugato: Which of the two Presidents started a war with Iraq to make money for his Vice President? Which President signed the Patriot Act? Which President opened up Gitmo? True, Obama only fixed one of those three things but impeached because of drones? WTF is that?

In all fairness, Obama did not end the patriot act, consolidated more power for the executive office, and goes around killing people with drones.

But then, that's what presidents do.

Governments don't give up power once they got it, why would they? And I still don't see what is so terrible about drones. If we're going to bomb people anyway, why not do it in a way that doesn't put American pilots in danger? I don't see why everyone is all of a sudden so incensed about drones. "It takes away the weight and importance of war"....oh, fark off.


Obma claimed the right to kill an American citizen without judicial review.  Even Bush didn't claim that.

Face it, tards, your hero is just extending the policies of the man you hate.
 
2013-02-10 06:09:17 PM

quatchi: tenpoundsofcheese: killing off American citizens with drone strikes,

First US citizen killed by drone strike was under Bush.


IOKIYAR
 
2013-02-10 06:09:53 PM
Yeah, staying in office for a third term would have really been pushing it, but then starting a 4th term in office? Clearly grounds for impeachment.
 
2013-02-10 06:10:30 PM

GAT_00: Example: Nancy Pelosi killing impeachment charges filed against Bush by Dennis Kuninich. He filed 60 charges I think.


IE: "Stop that! We all know we're just running our damn mouth and if we actually tried to PROVE something we'd lose and not be able to run our damn mouth anymore!"
 
2013-02-10 06:11:00 PM
Nancy Pelosi can't be reached for comment.
Off the table stupid biatch.
 
2013-02-10 06:12:21 PM

SurfaceTension: Using drones to kill American citizens without due process is a pretty significant consolidation of power. I'm pretty liberal, voted for Obama twice, and it makes me uncomfortable, to say the least.


Whether someone is a citizen or not plays no bearing on whether they are or aren't a valid target for a drone attack, or a missile attack, or any other form of military strike.  The Fifth Amendment is not a grant of rights to citizens, but a restriction on the actions of the US government against any person or people.

In this case (as in the case of any military action), the due process involved is Congressional approval (i.e. the AUMF).  Congress could stop drone strikes at any time by rescinding or modifying that authorization.
 
2013-02-10 06:12:30 PM
Back in the day the Johnson impeachment was taught with a view toward great statesmanship and loyalty to the Republic, wonder if they even cover that one now.
 
Displayed 50 of 220 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report