Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 18, 2017, 07:25:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Impeachment  (Read 22899 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51824

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« on: May 13, 2013, 12:10:19 PM »

As I've indicated in other threads, I think the impeachment talk is premature.  I think if Obama either gave or had knowledge of the stand down order in Benghazi, or the IRS abuse, then the talk carries much more weight. 

But keep in mind that if Obama is impeached, we get President Biden.  Be careful what you wish for.   

Here is a summary of the process:

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Unlike the British system, impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed. Impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment.

[edit] Impeachable offensesIn the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[4] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[citation needed] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[5] Four years later, Gerald Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment.

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment and conviction. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.[citation needed]

[edit] Officials subject to impeachmentThe central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the impeachment of members of the legislature is whether members of Congress are officers of the United States. The Constitution grants the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." [4] It has been suggested that members of Congress are not officers of the United States.[6] Others, however, believe that members are civil officers and are subject to impeachment.[citation needed]

The House of Representatives did impeach a senator once:[7] Senator William Blount, in 1798. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction.[8] Left unsettled was the question whether members of Congress were civil officers of the United States. The House has not impeached a Member of Congress since Blount. As each House has the authority to expel its own members without involving the other chamber, expulsion has been the method used for removing Members of Congress.

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives,[9] states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

[edit] ProcessThe impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17283


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2013, 12:24:37 PM »

has there been any testimony that suggested that if any suggested action would have netted a different outcome in Bengazi. Or is the narrative "there was a cover up on the source of the raid"...
Report to moderator   Logged
The Enigma
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1486

Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.


« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2013, 12:26:09 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk</a>


Impeachment?

Try treason.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51824

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2013, 12:28:45 PM »

has there been any testimony that suggested that if any suggested action would have netted a different outcome in Bengazi. Or is the narrative "there was a cover up on the source of the raid"...

You should watch the testimony. 

We don't know what the outcome would have been.  The facts are those people were defenseless, they were under attack for hours, a stand down order was given, we didnt' even try to help them, and then our government repeatedly lied about it. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9703


« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2013, 12:42:52 PM »

You should watch the testimony. 

We don't know what the outcome would have been.  The facts are those people were defenseless, they were under attack for hours, a stand down order was given, we didnt' even try to help them, and then our government repeatedly lied about it. 

what Lies? what world do you live in?

nevermind you think evolution is false, that the world is 6000 years old and that ben stein made a documentary not a fantasy film.

I perceive you as being delusional as you hold many beliefs that cannot be verified. Not little beliefs like wearing yellow socks makes you feel better but on topics of life and death importance.

Fucking amazing how stupid America is, it's like a sitcom.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51824

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2013, 12:48:31 PM »

what Lies? what world do you live in?

nevermind you think evolution is false, that the world is 6000 years old and that ben stein made a documentary not a fantasy film.

I perceive you as being delusional as you hold many beliefs that cannot be verified. Not little beliefs like wearing yellow socks makes you feel better but on topics of life and death importance.

Fucking amazing how stupid America is, it's like a sitcom.

Yawn.  Roll Eyes   If you want to have a dialogue about this, you let me know.  In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31526


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2013, 01:18:15 PM »

As I've indicated in other threads, I think the impeachment talk is premature.  I think if Obama either gave or had knowledge of the stand down order in Benghazi, or the IRS abuse, then the talk carries much more weight. 

But keep in mind that if Obama is impeached, we get President Biden.  Be careful what you wish for.   


Can someone explain to me why the Bush Appointed head of the IRS would cover for Obama
The guy first said in March that this wasn't happening and then said it was a decision at a field office which is probably easily verifiable or not.  


Regarding the so called "stand down order" I posted this last week but I guess I'll keep posting it as long as people choose to keep bringing it

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/
The Claim - A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down
Quote
One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.
During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

Maddow did a montage last week showing how many times the Repubs have been talking about impeaching Obama starting within about 3 months after the took office.  The Repubs are a complete joke at this point
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17003


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2013, 03:27:35 PM »

DOJ Secretly Obtains Months Of AP Phone Records; AP Condemns 'Unprecedented Intrusion'


AP  |  By By MARK SHERMAN Posted: 05/13/2013 4:20 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/13/2013 6:00 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations" but he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51824

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2013, 03:32:41 PM »

DOJ Secretly Obtains Months Of AP Phone Records; AP Condemns 'Unprecedented Intrusion'


AP  |  By By MARK SHERMAN Posted: 05/13/2013 4:20 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/13/2013 6:00 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations" but he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html



Good grief.   Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17003


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2013, 03:40:34 PM »

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/13/its-time-to-appoint-special-counsel-explore-impeachment-of-president-obama


Nice - its coming.


F obama - he is a communist piece of shit
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17283


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2013, 03:43:21 PM »


whats coming....a LANDSLIDE...

you walked right into that one
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17003


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2013, 03:45:48 PM »

whats coming....a LANDSLIDE...

you walked right into that one


Keep spinning for obama just cause he is black - makes you look even worse as the days go on. 

Obama is a disgrace to all black people EVERYWHERE
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17283


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2013, 03:46:34 PM »


Keep spinning for obama just cause he is black - makes you look even worse as the days go on. 

Obama is a disgrace to all black people EVERYWHERE

i just asked what was coming.. how did my blackness get into this.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17003


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2013, 03:47:38 PM »

i just asked what was coming.. how did my blackness get into this.

Very simple - its very obvious you have only one reason to support this criminal in office at this point. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17283


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2013, 03:56:45 PM »

Very simple - its very obvious you have only one reason to support this criminal in office at this point. 

landslide coming?
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2013, 04:47:45 PM »

33,

how long will the weak liberals refuse to impeach obama?   What fuels their lack of honesty about his criminal cabal? 

Why do they want to keep obama in office?
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17003


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2013, 04:49:42 PM »

33,

how long will the weak liberals refuse to impeach obama?   What fuels their lack of honesty about his criminal cabal? 

Why do they want to keep obama in office?

They are going to turn on obama eventually as they see he has failed them and is leading them to ruin. 

These last two weeks and the next two are going to be a disaster for obama as now he turned on his best ally - the media. 

Pissing off AP and the ACLU will be his worst mistake ever. 
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16191

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2013, 04:51:45 PM »

landslide coming?

"Tsunami".   Never mind the fact the Redumblicans already said that impeachment was not an option.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7004



« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2013, 05:01:32 PM »

Impeachment is going nowhere.  But Obama should man the fuck up and start firing some of these fuck ups in his admin.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2013, 05:02:31 PM »

They are going to turn on obama eventually as they see he has failed them and is leading them to ruin. 

These last two weeks and the next two are going to be a disaster for obama as now he turned on his best ally - the media. 

Pissing off AP and the ACLU will be his worst mistake ever. 

What about the REPUBS who voted Romney, but dont have the balls to say he needs to be impeached?

Are they the same ones without the balls to question the birth cert?
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17003


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2013, 05:03:45 PM »

What about the REPUBS who voted Romney, but dont have the balls to say he needs to be impeached?

Are they the same ones without the balls to question the birth cert?

Yes!  They are a disgrace too
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16191

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2013, 05:06:11 PM »

So not buying into your delusions = disgrace?
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9703


« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2013, 07:01:03 PM »

Yes!  They are a disgrace too

You are absolutely delusional, I assume most people here have normal lives but different views. Are you mentally challenged. Just read 240 trolling you and you just amping up the crazy.

Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20986


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2013, 07:08:18 PM »

In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 

 Grin

lol
Report to moderator   Logged

Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2013, 07:10:02 PM »

In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 

LOL!
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!