Impeachment - Why Clinton but not Obama ?

Jump to Last Post 1-30 of 30 discussions (144 posts)

61
Army Infantry Momposted 13 years ago
Why did Clinton get impeached for getting a BJ (That didn't hurt America) However Obama seems to be untouchable when it comes to impeachment? I just don't get it !!!
reply report
1. 0
  woolman60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  why do you want him impeached, and I don't think anyone really cared about Clinton
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He's untouchable because he has used the color of his face to put a guilt trip on anyone who opposes his policies.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You gotta stop believe everything Glenn Beck says...
  reply report
  85
  rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  how can anyone even listen to glen beck, let alone believe him?
  reply report
  85
  rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  that's just a rude statement Brenda. we know you don't like him, but that's rude.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's a true statement, one I have the right to make as an American citizen who's watched the Administration play.
  And it's not nearly as rude as your statement. LOL
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some people show alot of hostility towards people they dont want to be attracted to. Obviously, A big ole handsome black man with big ole hands and big ole feet and ... whatever... Makes some people hot, and sweaty, and bothered and then Angry. I'm sure, most of these people dont even understand where their rage is coming from. Hopefully, someday they can realize and face their true feelings and stop hating someone they're attracted to and just hate themselves, or move on.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was against Clinton's lies and lack of good leadership just like I'm against Obama's. And I'm against Al Gore's hypocrisy and silliness, and if you'd notice, both their faces are white.
  I wasn't quite as much against Clinton's hogwash because he refrained from doing as much blatant political hogwash!
  So maybe someday you'll face your true bigotry toward people. Sounds to me like you hate hearing the truth and especially seeing Americans stand up against bigotry such as you're showing.
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Clinton and Gore did'nt manage to drive people to the point of insane rage! So insane in fact, they block out, or black out, and dont remember their racist statements or that they bought up the color of the mans skin.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda's not racist...only people who call other people racist are racist don't you know. And most of them are black people.
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You might be right that blacks can be racist now. They have the power and influence in some companies and government agencies to actually have the power to affect someones life of a different color. Was Bigot the word I was looking for...But, I don't remember saying Brenda was a Racist, or hot and Bothered by a Black Man or anything else directly to or about Brenda. And if she had some affect on my life, I would be bothered by what she called me. But I understand the unbearable stress some people have to face considering the new leader they have to look at everyday.
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, the issue is not the "look". If they have unbearable stress, it's not because they have to "look at" Obama, but because of the things that he does and believe in.
  
  A socialist who just stop at nothing to achieve a socialist utopia and obvious he has no problem telling lies in every other sentence.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Arguing with you would be like arguing with an unlearned, unaware child who only mimics what he's heard from liberal parents.
  So I refrain.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And where do you hear your news?
  
  Do you know Friendlyword's parents?
  
  My parents weren't liberal yet I developed liberal sensibilities because I am able to think for myself.
  reply report
  53
  0123456789posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  hey u aint makin no sense u canadian prick. mind ur own business
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You will refrain? Sorry people, I need a minute here. BRENDA:I dont know you to BE arguing with you. We're two strangers having a POLITICAL DEBATE. I may be a little too far to the left than most people, but you have to admit you a way over there on the right. By the way this is the only forum topic you ever started that I participated in. You are all up in my forums all the time. You love me, admit it! It was that body shot of me I put up a few months ago!
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Stop flirting and imposing on a girl that she like you or whatever.
  
  I smell some sexual harassments at a distant so please just stop Friendlyword and go back to the topic.
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  WHO ARE YOU? DONT KNOW YOU, NOT TALKING TO YOU. MY COMMENTS WERE DIRECTED AT THE GROWN WOMEN NAMED BRENDA! SHE IS A LADY THAT IS VERY CAPABLE OF SPEAKING FOR HERSELF. ARE YOU HERE FOR FUN? I LOVE PROVACATION. BOY! I'M NOT HARRASSING THE LADY. SHE KNOWS I'M A GAY MAN THAT DOES NOT WANT HER NO WAY NO HOW. I LIKE MEN, SO THAT MAKES YOU SAFE TOO.
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just because you are a gay man doesn't make what you said to the lady appropriate man.
  
  So you think you are gay so you can say something to a lady that 's inappropriate for a straight man to say!?
  
  Sounds like sexual discrimination!
  
  P.S. Again, the quote:
  "You are all up in my forums all the time. You love me, admit it! It was that body shot of me I put up a few months ago!" (Friendlyword to Brenda Durham)
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  SaiKit,
  I just now saw this and your previous posts.
  Thank you! It's nice to see a chivalrous person who's unafraid to speak out for what's right.
  
  I did see what Friendly Word said to me, and thought of calling him on it at the time, but really took it more as a joke. However, you're right; it was inappropriate and I appreciate you sayin' something about it!
  
  And you're right that it could be taken as harrassment! If a liberal whiner had been subjected to those comments, they'd have accusations flying everywhere and probably a lawsuit or reporting to the powers-that-be. But that's not my way of handling things, at least that's not my intent at the moment. Just a clear illustration of the current social climate.
  
  It reminds me of someone's personal story a couple years ago...she said a gay co-worker of hers had a habit of playfully but vulgarly hunching her backside when she was turned away from him. She said it really upset her and the person knew she didn't like it, but she was too timid and too "tolerant" to make him stop doing it. I told her she should've made it clear to him that she didn't like it and if he did it again she should slap the crap outta him. I dunno if she ever stood up for herself or not. I do believe that if I was in that situation physically, I'd have warned him and then slapped him silly or demanded he be fired.
  
  ...To Friendly Word, are you aware that comments like the ones you made to me are quite often excused by the homosexual agenda, when in fact they could be construed as mockery of heterosexuality and therefore "hate speech" as well as harrassment? Do you think because you're gay that you can get by with more than heterosexuals do?
  
  SaiKit, I'm gonna have to check out your work now. You sound like a person with some good common sense and good social and moral sense.
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am very glad that you were able to speak you mind here. Otherwise Friendlyword and I might continue to exchange remarks all day long.
  
  Yes, it really takes courage to speak for yourself. Other people may help somewhat, but ultimately you need to stand up first, so other people will follow suit.
  
  Look like we can exchange a lot of good values and supports on hubpages here.
  
  Will talk more.
  report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "So insane in fact, they block out, or black out, and dont remember their racist statements or that they bought up the color of the mans skin."
  
  You mean like you did?
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Some people show alot of hostility towards people they dont want to be attracted to. Obviously, A big ole handsome black man with big ole hands and big ole feet and ... whatever... Makes some people hot, and sweaty, and bothered and then Angry. I'm sure, most of these people dont even understand where their rage is coming from. Hopefully, someday they can realize and face their true feelings and stop hating someone they're attracted to and just hate themselves, or move on."
  
  Well, that is one of the more ridiculous statements made in apology for obama that I"ve ever seen. Wow.
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  how is that rude?
  
  And Africans, of all people, should be the ones who get angry at people who tried to use the race card like Obama does. It's an insult to respectable Africans who just want to move on and who don't want someone like Obama to represent their beliefs and values.
  reply report
  70
  CaribeMposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please name instances (with direct quotes) in which Obama have used the race card. I'll be patiently waiting...
  
  .... and waiting...
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your reply wasn't to me; I'm not SaiKit, but I can easily name a few just off the top of my head.
  The Professor Gates fiasco where Obama tried to turn his own race-baiting (and Professor Gates') into a "teachable moment" via the White House "beer summit", when in fact someone should've taught him a lesson.
  
  His constant equating of his Campaign to the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King Junior.
  
  There are others, but I'm sleepy right now.
  
  P.S. I doubt you need "direct quotes" since all these things have played-out right in front of America via television and newspaper and internet for all to see and hear.
  reply report
  61
  outdoorsguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  “So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,’’ Mr. Obama said Wednesday in Springfield, Mo., in remarks that he echoed throughout the day. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.’’
  
  “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’’
  reply report
  70
  CaribeMposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nice try… But I need to apologize, I should have stated: I want instances (with CONTEXTUALIZED quotes). So, please indulge me since this rebuttal will take a while...
  
  The quotes that you mentioned, where indeed depicted by John McCain (and all Republican and conservative media outlets and commentators), as if Obama was playing the “race card” during the presidential campaign. BUT, a very important piece of information lacks here… that is the CONTEXT of the quote. So Mea culpa… I should have been more precise in my request, a quote doesn’t mean much without its context.
  
  By July 30, 2008, when those words were spoken by Obama, the “race card” was already played on him endlessly, even when he had never made references or took political stances as an African-American , like Jackson or Sharpton did in their campaigns. Remember that many said he was not black enough? And that, since he first appeared in the national political arena, he was even labeled as a “post-racial” “post-ethnic” candidate (because of his ancestry and his rhetoric that moved away from the traditional afro-centric discourse)?
  
  The “race card” (which BTW is a very questionably notion) was played on Obama first, within the Democratic primary, particularly from the Clinton camp and from the Republicans. And after he won the nomination in June, the GOP played it like a hit record. Just a FEW examples of that (all before July 30, 2008):
  *Ann Coulter’s MANY racial slurs against Obama and Michelle (since February, 2008)
  *On May, a South Dakota TV station briefly aired an ad THAT WAS EDITED to show Obama saying, 'we are no longer a Christian nation, we are also a Muslim nation.' The ad, which included a photo of Obama wearing a turban as part of a traditional outfit given to him in Africa, concluded with a man saying: 'It's time for people of faith to stand against Barack Hussein Obama.'
  -This was fueled by the “Madrassa story”
  *Pin at the GOP state convention in Texas: "If Obama is President... will we still call it the White House?" (early June 2008)
  *In Idaho (early June 2008) KBAR-AM’s host Zeb Bell referred to Obama as the “black Negroid Barack Hussein Obama.”
  *The emergence of the “Birthers Movement” just after Obama’s sealed his nomination in the primaries.
  *And of course, the infinite examples broadcasted on the Fox spin (until you loose your mind) machine, in which Obama’s patriotism and lack of touch with “American values”.
  
  Mix it all, and voilá … at that point, Obama was just stating the obvious, the sad thing… it became even worst and it haven’t stoped.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing like a few facts! Thanks!
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Valid analysis.
  reply report
  70
  CaribeMposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks my friend.
  
  Yet I'm still waiting for those contextualized quotes.
  reply report
  61
  jqmurf2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I could quote all of his books, but I don't have enough space. He is clearly motivated by (one half of) his race. Look up black liberation theology if you don't believe me.
  
  Look, in every day life in 2010, the entire race issue is stupid. No one but angry black people and ignorant white people even care about race. What the other 70% of us do care about is this president's lack of leadership and inability to understand the hard-working average American who doesn't want to have their entire lives directed by Washington. Should he be impeached...no. Should he be voted out...absolutely.
  
  The problem with his political philosophy is that government programs create dependancy. They cater to the lowest common denominator (be they black, white, blue or green) and then bring everyone down to that level so the bureaucrats can claim "equality."
  
  If you really want true equality among the races, we need to stop worrying about it, stop talking about it and stop self-segregating and separating ourselves by race. It is superficial and stupid. We should do away with outdated things like (historically) black colleges and the Ms. Black USA pageant. (If there were any comparable white only institutions, I would include them here..) If you think you are a victim, then you make yourself into a victim.
  
  The truth of the matter is, if you any take 10 people and give them the same education, opportunity and nurturing, 1 or 2 of them will be highly successful, 7 or 8 will be average and 1 or 2 will fail. That is just human nature.
  
  If you take the same 10 people and put them all on the dole...guess how many will be on the dole in 20 years... at least 9. And guess who they will vote for when the time comes...the peolpe who put them on the dole in the first place.
  
  That is the great disgusting lie that has been perpetrated by the so-called compassionate Democratic Party for over 40 years. The worst thing you can do to a person (or a group of people) is to take away their self-sufficiency.
  reply report
3. 61
  Valerie Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Clinton was not impeached for his extramarital shenanigans, but because he committed perjury while under investigation for sexual harassment.
  reply report
4. 84
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Um, what do you want him impeached for?
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's a good question. The topic is a dumb question.
  reply report
5. 83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What exactly do you want Obama impeached for?
  
  I mean, it's certainly possible to make a case for it, but it's possible to make a case for almost any president you could name, including several who were bona fide Founding Fathers. More recently, people devoted thousands upon thousands of words to trying to get Bush impeached for illegal wiretapping, torture, perjury, and high treason, among other offenses.
  
  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ge_W._Bush
  
  Come back with a list like that and maybe we can talk!
  reply report
  67
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes where are these people and why aren't they impeaching Obama for doing the exact same thing as Bush and even more!!!
  reply report
6. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  didn't obama tell us he'd be out of iraq by now? ... yeah, I'd impeach him
  reply report
7. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Why did Clinton get impeached for getting a BJ (That didn't hurt America) However Obama seems to be untouchable when it comes to impeachment? I just don't get it !!!"
  
  Clinton was NOT impeached for getting a BJ from a fat ugly woman, he was impeached for perjury. obama has not yet committed an impeachable offense. Being an inexperienced, incompetent, arrogant failure of a president is not an impeachable offense.
  reply report
8. 58
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because Obama has not done anything that is an impeachable offense. Now lately there is the question of offering a potential candidate a job to remove him from the race. However that has yet to be investigated. This issue might be center stage if it weren't for the oil spill and the border issues.
  
  Clinton drew way to much attention to his personal life. There were lawsuits being filed, he was questioned and lied about it. At that point he was impeached. He lied under oath.
  reply report
9. 48
  Sam Groverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because the spiteful Republican party, still reeling from the results of the 1996 election, tried to subvert the democratic process by having impeachment hearings to accomplish what they couldn't accomplish in elections. Classy people.
  reply report
10. 61
  thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But what has he done to deserve as drastic a measure as impeachment to be considered?
  reply report
11. 61
  John Muliporposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Impeach Obama? Considering that he has yet to commit a crime in office there are no grounds by which that could be done. Obama is untouchable, in the sense that in order to be "touched" Barack Obama would have to commit a criminal offense (break a law) while in office; since he has yet to commit a crime, he cannot be impeached.
  reply report
12. 68
  AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Clinton was impeached for lying.
  
  On June 30, 2003…
  
  Obama gets $5000 after Ali Ata was appointed as Director at IFA
  
  Obama gets $6000 after Alison Davis gets appointment on Investment Board
  
  Obama gets $15,000 after Dr. Michael Malek gets appointment on Hospital Facility Board
  
  Obama gets $5000 after Abdelhamid Chaib’s wife gets appointment on Employee Security Board
  
  Obama gets $10,000 from Elie Maloof – Rezko used him as one of several strawmen to donate funds to certain politicians.
  
  Obama gets $1000 after Phil Cacciatore (one of Auchi’s Riverside Park Investors) gets seat on Board
  
  Obama gets $1000 after Velma Butler (one of Auchi’s Riverside Park Investors) was recommended for Board
  
  Obama gets $1000 after Martello Pollack (Vegas Crystal Comm) received Iraqi Construction contracts
  
  Obama gets $1000 after Jack Carriglio gets appointed to Board
  
  Obama gets $500 (with an additional $1250 the following year) after Anthony Abboud gets appointed to Board
  
  Obama gets $3000 from Michael Winter, who helped Rezko in funneling kickbacks through investment firm
  
  Obama gets $1000 after Talat Othman gets appointed to Board
  
  Obama gets $1000 from both David Gustman and another $1000 from Gustman’s wife after he is appointed Board Chairman
  
  But no….I’m sure it’s ALL JUST A COINCIDENCE, right??
  
  http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/
  reply report
  61
  Jane@CMposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Its nice to quote someones wordpress site, but I'd rather see these facts outlined by actual administration.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is such a crock.
  
  What does 'gets' mean? A contrigution to the DNC? Or a deposit to Obama's personal checking acount? The impression created is the latter, but with not one shread of proof to substantiate the claim - if there is ANYTHING to the claim at all, the contribution is probably to the former. But what's significant is that the claim is totally without backing - no source for the information in the site Ann Cee links to.
  
  And with a little consideration, it's pretty ridiculous. The Obamas made, with book sales and all, 5 million last year - they paid 1.8 mil in taxes. And you think the POTUS is shaking down people for $500 contributions????? Get real!
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not an objective source of information about much of anything.
  reply report
13. 55
  soheilrposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is no real reason to impeach Obama yet. He actually needs to do somthing unlawful or unethical with large public backlash.
  reply report
14. 0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe it is because you do not understand what impeachment is and what it requires. You can't impeach people because you don't like them. Grow up. Read a book for once.
  reply report
15. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Neither did anything that warranted impeachment. There are absolutely no grounds for impeaching President Obama and Clinton's impeachment was a waste of time.
  reply report
16. 77
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Obama hasn't broken any laws to be impeached, of course the Republicans and the Tea Party "forget" that there are laws that we have to follow in this such civilized society of ours.
  
  Heck even when they are broken, they don't impeach, remember Bush sent over 4,000 of our troops to die in Iraq to make money for his friends, with made up intel. He should have been tried for treason, but all he got was a slap on the wrist.
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 13 years ago
Ask American people. They (en mass) seem to be more obsessed with sexual purity than with anything else.
reply report
1. 0
  woolman60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  63
  Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What made you thinking I hate your president?
  reply report
  0
  woolman60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply was not ment towards you, was a general comment. Sorry if you felt I was attacking you!
  
  My concern is I see so many people who have nothing but negative remarks about our President.
  
  I have removed , I did not mean to hit reply under your name. thanks.
  
  Again it was not ment towards you.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, you quoted me, that means the reply was to what I wrote. You better follow the customary rules if you don't want to be misinterpreted. And I did not take it as a personal attack, I was genuinely puzzled why do you think I hate your president when i don't
  reply report
2. 61
  logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yep Misha, I'm obsessed with pure sex!
  reply report
3. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Many are obsessed with sexual purity. Others are Lady Ga Ga fans.
  reply report
69
Megavitaminposted 13 years ago
I'm also curious about your reasons why Obama should be impeached. Has he broken a law? Clinton was in trouble not only for inappropriate conduct, but also perjury.
reply report
1. 70
  CaribeMposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder the same... On the other hand I wonder: Why Bush and Chaney were not impeached? Sure there was a long list of reasons to impeach and judge them for treason. (Maybe Bush was untouchable because he used the Forest Gump look of his face to put a guilt trip on anyone who opposed his policies.
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wasn't Eric Holder working on an investigation and was gently persuaded to drop it?
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I wonder the same... On the other hand I wonder: Why Bush and Chaney were not impeached?"
  
  Same reason
  reply report
2. 61
  JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Megavitamin
  
  OBAMA HAS BROKEN THE LAW. WILL HE BE IMPEACHED, DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE THE DEMS WON'T LET IT HAPPEN ( THE PARTY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PEOPLE ).the president takes an oath to defend the constitution and the laws of the united states.
  Obama is the top administrator of the government.
  
  SEC. 115. ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
  It is the sense of the Congress that --
  (1) the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly, and
  (2) in the enforcement of such laws, the Attorney General shall take due and deliberate actions necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights, personal safety, and human dignity of United States citizens and aliens.
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He's sooooo guilty of that failure of government. But every President elected since Washington is guilty of that failure to protect our borders.
  reply report
76
Shadesbreathposted 13 years ago
The other side tries to impeach the sitting president, every time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Don't worry though, there's still lots of time to build up some partisan crap to take Obama down. Keep fighting. Don't spend any time trying to make it work, or build bridges or have a unified people... just spend the entire four years, every time your guy loses, writhing in agony and working non-stop to keep anything from getting accomplished. BOth parties do it, and both parties are nearly traitorous anymore.

America is going to wilt away and die because the two parties are so consumed by their respective arrogance to even begin to recall what the point of democracy is.

I hope you like Chinese food.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The point of democracy is that it can lead to tyranny when the majority are blind or radical or blinded BY a radical.
  American is a Republic. I don't suppose you'd even understand what the basis of that is, nor what the difference is.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, please tell me. Please hit your Bible and explain to me what the pre-Christian democracies that I have read so much about missed, and the principles that Madison and Hamilton missed in the Federalist Papers, and what the European philosophers missed during the entire Renaissance process. I am a moron and need you to enlighten me.
  reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago
Double talk is rampant on HubPages tonight.
reply report
1. 83
  Jewelsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bipolar perhaps?
  reply report
59
Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago
Wow! And I thought this would be such a friendly discussion.
reply report
1. 61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am Friendly, Ron! Ha!
  reply report
61
Dink96posted 13 years ago
Okay, let's stop and look at the the topic at hand: someone wonders why Clinton got impeached over a BJ and yet Obama has not yet been impeached.

For what? On what grounds? Clinton was impeached on the grounds that he perjured himself to a special prosecutor (Ken Starr). To my knowledge, Obama isn't under investigation for any wrongdoing (yet).

Why Clinton but not Bush?
reply report
1. 61
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can somebody name a possible crime the President committed that would warrant impeachment?
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He wears sandals and has a great smile....that's enought for them.
  
  Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Bush and Cheney have both admitted to approving torture...which is against the law.
  A judge has said they broke the FISA law.
  We all know they lied to blow up Iraq.
  AND, I know Chinless was involved in 9/11.
  
  So--are you all under some kind of spell or something??
  Why Clinton and not Obama????
  And yet you skip over Bush......
  fascinating.
  reply report
58
foreignpressposted 13 years ago
Obama is not even halfway through his first term. Bad decisionmaking doesn't call for impeachment. Broken campaign promises aren't impeachable. It just means the majority of the American people let emotion dictate their vote.
Now this Sestak business could be a problem. It has now filtered down to Romanoff (Colorado), and possibly to Gov. Bill Ritter. There may be others. Offering federal jobs to candidates to influence an election is not only troublesome -- it's against the law. But lately all kinds of laws are being broken to accommodate special interests.
reply report
61
outdoorsguyposted 13 years ago
so far the white house is claiming Obama wasnt involved. which is what I predicted would happen. and it might even be the truth. doubtful but you never know. they are also claiming that its SOP with in the Party to do such thing.

now I dont know about all that.. but its troubling to find out that the Democrats and Id bet the Republicans too arrainge things to get who they want on a Ballot. to my mind thats circumventing the Election process, taking the choice away from the people on who they want to run for an office. its about par for the course for modern Politicians.

it also goes a long way to explaining how we keep ending up with such losers in office in the first place.

But if Obama does know and did break the law. I say Impeach him.

Love my chris again you say things that arent true. Bush and Cheny called for and got a ruling from the Justice department on whether what they wanted to do was legal. and the reply was it was legal. That might not mean morally right but it was legal.

and I notice that Obama has kept the EO that allowed such measures. if you dont like it. get your congressman to put forth a bill adding all the enhanced techniques as Torture and that will be that.

now back to our regularly scheduled Topic. Impeachment. brought to you by the letter J.
reply report
1. 75
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is what I said outdoorsguy:
  
  "A judge has said they broke the FISA law."
  
  "August 17, 2006
  A federal judge in Detroit says the Bush administration's domestic wiretap program violates both federal law and the Constitution and orders the warrantless suveillance program shut down. The ruling is the first definitive response to a barrage of legal suits. The Justice Department will appeal. In the meantime, both sides in the suit agree to a hold on the order to shut down the program.
  
  A federal judge in Detroit has handed the Bush administration its first legal defeat in the controversy over warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency. Today, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program violates both federal law and the constitution. She ordered the program shut down. The ruling is the first definitive response to a barrage of legal suits against the surveillance effort, which was revealed in press accounts last December."
  
  It's true. And there have been more judges to say this too.
  
  We know torture is illegal...was illegal when they were doing it. Was illegal when Bush stood up there and said "WE do not torture." ...Is it ok to lie to the American people, but not Kenneth Starr?
  
  There were no WMD's and they knew it...read some books from people who were there...Bush wanted Saddam, and they made up a way to get him.
  
  Dennis Kucinich drew up 35 articles of impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.
  
  So, my question is, you all dismiss this as nothing but go after Clinton and Obama for far less. Why?
  
  It's all partisan isn't it?
  You care nothing for the rule of law...only that you have your people in charge?
  reply report
  61
  outdoorsguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you know.. the wire tap issues are still being fought out.
  
  and no by definition the enhanced Techniques arent torture.
  
  as far as WMDs.. im sure the 150 thousand kurds Saddam Gassed would disagree. I know the chemical weapons alerts I went thru back then werent made up, and the chemical weapons warheads that were found in Iraq say they were there. it is a fact that WMDs had been in Iraq. it is a Fact that Saddam killed with them, and it is a Fact he kept inspectors out of sites in violation of the Cease Fire, and UN resolutions. and it was those violations that gave us the legal authority to resume hostilities. and congress voted to do so.
  
  Dennis Kuciinich outside of being a tool, had no leg to stand on in a democratic congress no less. which is why no impeachment proceedings were implemented.
  
  no its not all partisan except for people like you. Personaly after what I saw over in that hell hole. I beleived we had a duty to do the job. or are LIberal whinings about fairness and human rights just so much BS when it comes to putting your butt on the line. OOOOO go ahead and kill and torture Children becuase I dont want to get hurt or killed to stop you.
  
  as for the rule of law. Laws are fine til they evince an ongoing effort to stri you of your rights and freedoms as defined in the constitution. blind ahernce to laws are just another slaves collar.
  
  You mean the laws that strip away your property rights, laws that strip you of your right to privacy. Laws that strip away your right of self determination. Laws that tell you what you can read, listen to, eat or buy.
  
  Laws that take your hard earned money for Companys too big to fail while leaving little business's and individuals to fall into closure and living on the street.
  
  No I really dont care about the Rule of law when it destroys the fabric of the nation. Laws can be the Tool of Tyrants to take away your rights.
  
  and My people.. You need to go back to the Betty Ford psychic center.. Im not a republican or Democrat..
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The US sold Saddam the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds.
  
  Some of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques may be questionable, but waterboarding is definitely torture and the US has prosecuted it as such in the past, most notably against the Japanese who used it on US POWs during WW2.
  
  The thing I find more infuriating than anything else about the torture issue is that both Bush and Cheney can laugh and joke about approving the use of torture like it's some hilarious thing, when in fact they broke US and international law, dragged the US's reputation as a supporter of human rights and justice through the mud, and endangered our troops (and civilian prisoners, for that matter), all for a bunch of techniques that DON'T EVEN WORK!
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02242.html
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Jan11.html
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/2 … 90129.html
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-bega … 03013.html
  reply report
  61
  jqmurf2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I like how you used both sides in your references...the far left (Post) and the way wacky far left (Huffington).
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Right. Bush is the one who should have been impeached.
  reply report
67
awareposted 13 years ago
Clinton wasn't impeached.
reply report
1. 75
  Arthur Fontesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He was impeached by the House. Aquitted by the Senate.
  reply report
2. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Clinton wasn't impeached."
  
  Yes he was. A lot of people don't know what the word means.
  reply report
67
awareposted 13 years ago
he served his 8 years
reply report
1. 75
  Arthur Fontesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Impeachment could lead to removal of office but it is not guaranteed. Even if the Senate impeached him it would not mean he would have been removed from office.
  
  Impeach
  
  a. To make an accusation against.
  b. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
  reply report
  67
  awareposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  cool info art . i didnt know that . ty good job bro
  reply report
61
outdoorsguyposted 13 years ago
Im pretty sure most of you are aware Im a so called conservative LOL. and the following is only my opinion. I didnt like slick willy. but I didnt really dislike him all that much either.

I personally thought that the whole impeachment think with Clinton was a Farce. they got him on a technicality becuase they couldnt find anything else to go after. Im not saying the man was a saint, or can walk on water. he wasnt a good pres. but he wasnt a real bad on either. about the same as many of them really.

I thought then and now that it was wrong to drag out the whole lewinsky thing. it Cast a bad light on the office of President, was distasteful and just flat out wrong from a group that claimed to support family values and the moral high ground. and when Kenneth star posted what amounted to 400 pages of White house Porn transcripts was wrong as well.

okay thats all.. my opinion has been aired. LOL have a good one folks
reply report
1. 75
  Arthur Fontesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  I agree on Bill and I even agree on the whole impeachment itself.
  
  Now Janet (the mass murderer) Reno and Clinton both walked on what could have been very serious criminal charges.
  
  After watching many documentaries on Waco I think there is enough evidence for a conviction.
  reply report
  61
  outdoorsguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Arthur as bad as waco and Ruby ridge were, remember he was impeached for lying about having sex with monica Lewinski. No party today can claim the moral high ground about using force. in our past the National Guard and the police have been used against all kinds of groups and people sent both both partys.
  
  Macauther sent in to force out Vets protesting several were killed. national guard during segregation. The Gonzales kid, and a host of other times I cant even recall beyond a blur.
  
  but Impeaching a President for " I did not have sex with that woman" was idiotic. id have been all for Ruby ridge which was unbelievable or Waco. but using the definition of the Word sex as a pretext... come on.
  
  first I defend G bush... now Bill clinton. LOL Hell is freezing over and my ex mother in law most have turned attractive.
  reply report
67
awareposted 13 years ago
if any thing he didn't inhale . and only got oral. he clearly couldn't follow thru on anything . lol
reply report
73
N. Ramiusposted 13 years ago
Did Clinton lie under oath?
reply report
1. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Clinton only did what any honorable southern gentleman is supposed to do, i.e., protect the reputation of his lady friend not to mention his own. And he was led into a perjury trap by Ken Starr who was the mastermind behind an investigation that never should have seen the light of day.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Clinton only did what any honorable southern gentleman is supposed to do, "
  
  Oh? An "honorable southern gentleman" is supposed to violate his marriage vows repeatedly? An honorable southern gentleman is supposed to be an immoral, unrestrained rutting pig salivating over unattractive women? A southern gentleman breaks his promises to his spouse, his community, and his deity?
  
  I'm pretty sure the word "gentleman" refers to something quite different.
  reply report
  58
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph,
  
  I would agree to some degree that the investigation should have never taken place. The problem was that law suites and accusations were flying left and right. The guy simply allowed his personal life to overshadow his office. At that point he was questioned and lied. As you know purjury is an impeachable offense.
  reply report
2. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Did Clinton lie under oath?"
  
  YES, he did.
  reply report
75
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
Yes he did, which is why I believe George Bush and Richard Cheney refused to go under oath when they had to appear before Congress to talk about 9/11.
reply report
76
raisingmeposted 13 years ago
Whoa, I look at these posts and the accusations flying about and I have to ask myself, "Have I ever lied?" "Have I ever broken a promised?" "Have I ever been dishonest?" "Have I ever harmed another?" My answer to each of these questions came back a "Yes!" Until we get our own ethics in on ourselves, until we act with integrity, until we exercise tolerance with ourselves and each other we are not going to see a different reflection in our politicans regardless of what country we live in. To try and change are political climates on this planet without making those changes within ourselves we are simply combing the mirror rather than the hair atop our own heads. The reflection will not change until we do, it cannot!
reply report
75
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
I've never knowingly broken the law. And I'm sure if I did, and got caught...my ass would be in jail.
It's a complete double standard...as is the cry to impeach Obama when they sat silent on GW Bush.

Most people do not torture, or spy, or make some story up to massacre people.

We aren't the problem....they are.
reply report
1. 67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Silent on GW Bush? I think they were loud and clear...
  
  Who has the double standard here...? *eye rolling at the balant hypocracy of those who accuse that people said nothing to Bush but so mean to Obama *
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, they were loud and clear of their support for him....until it was blatantly obvious the horrible destruction he had wrought, and then suddenly, you couldn't find anybody who voted for him!!
  
  But boy oh boy---they came out after Clinton didn't they? From the start! Just like they do with Obama.
  
  They have 0 respect for the rule of law, 0 repsect for the office of president, and 0 respect for the people of this country who voted for Obama.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The point is...is it the same people who attacked Bush who are attacking Obama?...I think not.
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You think not?
  
  There were plenty of people attacking Bush and plenty of people attacking Obama, how do you know they are not overlapped?
  
  Even if the two group are mutually exclusive. How do you know those who attack Bush were not silent to Obama?
  
  Aren't both side the same? Silent with one and attack the other even though both do the same thing?
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because those who protested the Bush administration were called anti-American traitors.
  Obama protesters are called patriotic heros.
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I thought they also call the TEA party terroists or something
  
  Those who protested the Bush also included the "patriotic heros" that you mentioned.
  
  They simply oppose any big government, big spending legislation and programs. Their main issue isn't about race.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The current critics of Obama were staunch supporters of Bush.
  reply report
  67
  SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  because you said so?
  
  How credible.
  reply report
  61
  outdoorsguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  sorry Ralph I wasnt a staunch supporter of Bush.
  reply report
76
raisingmeposted 13 years ago
Who gives them the power to act? Who do we give our power to?
reply report
1. 61
  outdoorsguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  maybe we should stop electing peope on the basis of how well they talk. or their looks. maybe we should... dare I say it.. judge them by the content of their character... by their record by the people they choose to spend time with and are friends with.
  
  we do that in our private lives, but for some reason ignore it when it comes to politicians. Face it if I were your nieghbor and always had con artists, pedophiles, and drug dealers and rapists visitng my house. none of you would have a thing to do with me. but If I were a politician and talked smooth you would keep re electing me.
  
  I mean look at how many of the folks on the hill have been know to associate with Hookers, Con men, bigots, out right racists, thieves, suspected murders. and they still get elected and people still act shocked that they are always doing something wrong or possibly illegal.
  
  maybe we should stop screaming about abortion, Gays and a host of other things and band together long enough to remove each of them thru a recall the moment they break a promise. lie to the people or jump in bed with special interests. sooner or later they would ge the message but I dont see any one willing to meet in the middle in any more. now its all my way and screw the rest of you mentality.
  reply report
  76
  raisingmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, chose them on the basis of how you would chose anyone with whom you wish to associate. We would not ask a lying, whoring, thieving individuals to sit down with our children at our dinner tables but we are content to let them run things. Insanity! We have to clean up our acts individually and collectively because it is the base that holds up the top! The more truth we operate with in our daily lives the wobblier that top is going to get and then one day, like Humpty Dumpty, it will tumble and fall. I like Lee Iaccoca's Book "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?"
  reply report
66
TinaMarieTadposted 13 years ago
Impeachment will not happen with President Obama.
He is however not upholding his sworn in promise to
uphold the laws of our Constitution.In my opinion he is
ignoring our Governing Laws of the Constitution and is blatantly pushing forward with his agenda regardless.
reply report
64
TheSituationposted 13 years ago
Ok, I am pretty darn conservative, but just because you do not like someones politics does not mean that they are illegal. You do not impeach people you vote them out of office if you can, and that goes for both sides.

Maybe if there were actual violations with this stuff about offering people jobs to influence them regarding running for election, but I doubt he was dumb enough to be involved directly even if it is true.
reply report
61
Dink96posted 13 years ago
Fascinating discourse here. I wonder if we could put all this to better use and start dragging BP over the coals! LOL!!! I heard Lewis Black say on Joy Behar's show tonight that we should treat BP like a terrorist faction that has just attacked our country: go in, take over their company, seize all their assets and throw all the executives in Guantanamo!
reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago
I've said it before...I love Lewis Black
reply report
1. 59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Amen sister!
  reply report
59
Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago
Pissing off wingnuts is not an impeachable offense, in fact it is one of the reasons he will be reelected by a substantial majority.
reply report
1. 64
  TheSituationposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lets make sure you remember you said this when the tables have turned...
  reply report
61
vrajavalaposted 13 years ago
Impeachment is not the best approach for Obama, because it assumes he had a right to be POTUSA. He doesn't, having been born a "British subject.." Obviously, anyone with a shred of intelligence can figure out that he is not eligible to hold the office of POTUSA.
So, the best approach is "quo warranto", which means "by whose authority do you sit there?"
It has been used twice in Am history. If used his name would be scrubbed from entire American History, every pit of legislation with his name on it would be declared null and void.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama … tates.html
reply report
1. 67
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Until you have proof that he is not an American citizen, it would be meaningless to bring him up for whatever it is you said.
  reply report
2. 80
  Wayne Brownposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with vrajavala...next time someone signs up to run for President or any other elected office for that matter, I, as an American citizen, want to know who is checking their qualifications and what documents have been presented. As a nation, we look rather stupid to have let a man come here and get elected to the Office of The President and no one checked! That is an outrage! WB
  reply report
58
Michael Morrowposted 13 years ago
Review each one of these comments and what you will see is this: a nation that has had it's collective head up it's collective butt for decades and only now as we near the end does anyone give a damn about anything. Half of you should have been far more outraged and active in your local and federal (I say federal because "national" is a mis-nomer) politics during the entire Bush/Cheney debacle, and the other half should just never leave their holes long enough to do anything more than buy some Bud Light, birth out more Army fodder, and go home and spend their life watching split screen NASCAR and FOX chain smoking Newports and thinking farts count as legitimate political rhetoric.

America is the land of the hypocrite. There about a thousand other issues out there that needs our attention and the crux of the biscuit you people are chewing on is not only irrelevant (because the President is nothing more than a fulcrum of power) but a complete and total reflection of your overall narcissism and ignorant of civil service policy.

You are far too worried about which moron wins the Idol contest (which does nothing more than continue to homogenize American culture into one big corporate product) or gets voted off what scripted reality show, or what flavor of the day either screwed around on his wife or took a naked picture.

As for those of you who see this President playing the race card, I challenge you to use your HUB power to present an argument using facts (which can be referenced, checked and cross checked) that confirm said argument. The truth of the matter is this, when it comes down to reality ( No! Not the crap you call reality. You know, reality, the stuff that is true whether you agree with it or not) Obama is the most scandal free President since Carter.

Now, before you freak, remember, I am talking about REALITY, not what YOU PERCEIVE AS REALITY BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ARMED WITH ADEQUATE INFORMATION.

When I point to the Teabaggers and birthers and other such nonsensical fools, I am pointing at an example of where America's money was not spent. EDUCATION.
Then again, most of these same people think Sarah Palin is smart enough to be president. After the standards W set, they may be right. But think about what it says about you.

Any America you cling to was destroyed by the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris in 2000. That is a mother effin' FACT! But I didn't hear any of you pinheads asking for a "quo warranto" on him.

You need to wake up to the fact that your indoctrined views of politics and those you support are actually the same that allow things like the Gulf oil spill to happen. The John Boehners of the world are not on your side. They represent the money and money only.

LEFTIES WAKE THE LIVING HECK UP AND EITHER EDUCATE THESE PEOPLE OR UNAPOLOGETICALLY KEEP THEM IN THE 50'S WHERE THEY BELONG! (Eisenhower and Obama's policies and ideologies are very similar)
reply report
1. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "only now as we near the end does anyone give a damn about anything."
  
  Near the end of what?
  reply report
2. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Any America you cling to was destroyed by the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris in 2000. That is a mother effin' FACT! "
  
  NO, that is your rather extreme opinion, and it's kind of hard to take it seriously given the way it was expressed.
  reply report
3. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "As for those of you who see this President playing the race card, I challenge you to use your HUB power to present an argument using facts (which can be referenced, checked and cross checked) that confirm said argument. "
  
  Are you looking for video of him calling his grandmother "a typical white person," saying the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when he admittedly did not have enough information about the case to make a reasonable assessment, or the thousands of examples right here on HP of his supporters accusing anyone who opposes his policies and approaches to politics of being a racist?
  reply report
4. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "America is the land of the hypocrite."
  
  Where are you from?
  reply report
5. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  All very true. Eloquent and elegant comment. Pearls before the swine.
  reply report
58
Michael Morrowposted 13 years ago
@ Sab Oh.

I live in America. I work in Washington Dc on K street as a consultant. I am in the beltway Sab, it is how I make my living. I rub elbows with the sad truth everyday. As I said earlier, it is not your perception of the truth, it is the truth.

Both Harris and the Supreme Court ignored the popular vote, the process, and the constitution. Never before in American history has the highest court in the nation closed a case so firmly that precedent from the rulng may not be used in future cases.

This is to say, Sab Oh, that never in the future may the actions of the 2001 verdict be called into question and legitimately sighted as precedent in election law, either local, state or federal. If you do not find this unconstitutional then I must ask you, Sab Oh, WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

It is your responsibility to look into these facts yourself, not volley back with what is yet another unvalidated opinion.

What I stated is Fact. I challenged you to disprove me, not deny me.

Ladies and gentlemen, is this not the very example of the mentality I made example.

I will leave you with this: If the race of a president shouldn't come into play, then why the hell is it the only thing on the minds of these so-called patriots who are so shocked that after 3 centuries of blatant racist policy towards both free and enslaved blacks might actually slingshot back at you.

Grow up.
reply report
1. 59
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The reason they ignored the popular vote is because it is not how we elect our President, if we did use the popular vote the East and West Coast would determine who our president is every time.
  
  The Supreme court ruled in favor of the law which the Florida supreme Court ignored.
  
  In every count Bush won the State of Florida and the fiasco should have never occurred.
  reply report
  60
  Sylvie Strongposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Stop looking at the legal system like voting, or making facile assumptions that a legal opinion is correct just because you agree with it. I've seen you do this on many threads. It may explain why you pointedly fail to do any meaningful analysis on opinions but rather make blanket statements about what the law or constitution dictates. The Florida Supreme Court did not "ignore the law." Its reasoning was sound but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with it. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter. This is our system working as it should. Legal scholars disagree on issues sometimes and so do judges. That does not mean anyone ignored the law.
  reply report
2. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I live in America"
  
  So, are you a hypocrite then? You know, since you claim America is "the land of the hypocrite," and all.
  
  And before you became a (gosh!) consultant working on (gasp!) K Street did you receive some special training that makes you a greater legal expert than a Supreme Court Justice, or were you just hoping to give that impression and expecting it to be accepted because of where you work? You disagree with the court's ruling? Noted. That makes you about the same as any other frustrated partisan, which is fine. When your guy loses it can be frustrating, but that's how it goes. That particularl loss for your side was a while ago now and it might be high time to let it go, but that's up to you.
  reply report
3. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "What I stated is Fact. I challenged you to disprove me, not deny me. "
  
  Actually, what you did was to declare your over-excited emotional exclamations as "a mother effin' FACT!"
  
  I posted a few questions to clarify what you were really looking for, but it seems you have not answered them. I suppose you don't really want a response, because people who say things like "Grow up" are really just demanding that everyone agree with them. This usually leads only to more frustration.
  reply report
4. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "after 3 centuries of blatant racist policy towards both free and enslaved blacks might actually slingshot back at you"
  
  What exactly do you mean by that? Please be specific.
  reply report
81
mdscogginsposted 13 years ago
Hi Michael,
Great posting which is so true that every detail of his existence is under the microscope all the way down to the way he speaks and the shoes he wears. Can anyone focus on giving the man a chance to get us in a better situation. Of course all those that are against him are still saying he hasn't done anything yet but our country didn't break over night either. I agree with you all day and the racists do not like reverse racism..
reply report
1. 57
  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "our country didn't break over night"
  
  Our country isn't broken.
  
  " racists do not like reverse racism"
  
  Does anyone?
  reply report
59
Jim Hunterposted 13 years ago
"Impeachment - Why Clinton but not Obama ?"

Clinton committed perjury which is a crime.

Obama is just incompetent.
reply report
1. 59
  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Incompetent to commit a crime...? Very good. Let him proceed.
  reply report
2. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Incompetent? Hardly. He signed historic health care and banking reform bills, revived the nuclear disarmament negotiations and Israel-Palestine peace talks, began winding down our involvement in Iraq, and took steps to avoid a second depression, all over the opposition from the Party of NO. He is one of the most competent individuals ever elected president.
  reply report
3. 77
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You still look so stressed out and continue to spout ignorant diatribe. Have you ever posted anything that isn't a one-liner from the Tea Party Express or Fox News?
  reply report
78
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Not to OP and interested parties, here is a thorough and impartial overview of the grounds for and process of impeachment, as outlined by the American Bar Association. No crooked lawyer jokes, please !!!

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  thanks for the information, MM!
  reply report
2. 61
  Dink96posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I could not agree more with Mighty Mom. One cannot impeach a sitting President without sufficient grounds. Clinton lied, he was impeached. Now Richard Nixon lied, covered up, conducted secret raids on his opposition, disrupted the electoral process and he FINALLY resigned because he was on the VERGE of being impeached for high crimes against the republic. So much more than Bill's sexual peccadillos in the Oval Office.
  So what high crimes has our current president committed against the republic? Engaged in stealing an election? Might I remind you that Karl Rove was schooled in Nixon's roving band of dirty tricksters.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Also note that "Impeached" doesn't mean "removed from office."
  
  "Impeached" means that Congrefs decided it was worth officially deciding whether the President ought to be removed from office or not. It's more or less synonymous with a regular person being "tried" for a crime. "Tried" does not mean "convicted."
  
  Note that Andrew Johnson was impeached, but not convicted.
  reply report
78
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
If Obama manages to get another term in office in 2012 (hard to say at this point, but if the economy improves and the tea partiers crash and burn into obvlivionn it could happen), you can bet your boots there will be a constant, relentless, underhanded offensive waged to find reasons to impeach him. Think Whitewater.
Although I guess in Obama's case it would either be Blackwater or maybe Graywater, since he's only 1/2 black.
*Ducking from the racist epithets being hurled*
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Impeachment - Why Clinton but not Obama ?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Impeachment - Why Clinton but not Obama ?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies