Commander Riker Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I like how people think that impeachment is even a possibility of presidents. You forget, they are completely in control and even when your opposing political party is mad and says they oppose whatever administration is in the office, they silently agree. At the end of the day, there is little any of us can do to remove these fucksticks from their ivory towers, regardless of which "side" you think I'm referring to. They are one and the same, sheeple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I like how people think that impeachment is even a possibility of presidents. You forget, they are completely in control and even when your opposing political party is mad and says they oppose whatever administration is in the office, they silently agree. At the end of the day, there is little any of us can do to remove these fucksticks from their ivory towers, regardless of which "side" you think I'm referring to. They are one and the same, sheeple.It's not something I'm well read on but ... they got pretty close with Clinton right? House voted yes, and the numbers for the senate weren't too far from him being evicted. If the opposing political party occupies an overwhelming majority of the seats, it seems very possible.At the end of the day, what we can do to remove them, is vote in proper senators and congressional people. Though that does not improve the immediate situation. Your rhetoric is not insightful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Clinton was impeached. He wasn't convicted however. By definition it means a political official being formally accused of malfeasance. The House of Representatives passed their Articles of Impeachment stating he had perjured himself and had obstructed justice with two simple majority votes. This is the equivalent of a criminal indictment by a grand jury. However the Senate, where the case was then tried, failed to convict him which would have resulted in expelling him from office. They needed 66 votes and got 45 on the first count and 50 on the second count. None of what Obama has done here is impeachable. I'm not convinced that he had a direct hand in any of it, but I am convinced that members of his administration and campaign did in order to protect their candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 At the end of the day, what we can do to remove them, is vote in proper senators and congressional people. Though that does not improve the immediate situation. Your rhetoric is not insightful. I suppose that's the difference between you and I. One of us believes everything is just A-OK with the system and that it works. One of us, does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I suppose that's the difference between you and I. One of us believes everything is just A-OK with the system and that it works. One of us, does not.Must be you who believes everything is perfect... because it sure as hell isn't me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Interesting address today. In a nutshell I got out of it - the administration is selectively apologetic, yet indifferent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 i wonder if the lady who was flapping her gums is going to get a drone on her house tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 You lost me, are you referring to the President's address on drones at the National Defense University today? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html It's funny how suddenly everything changed with 9/11 - according to his speech - when we've been dealing with blow back from our middle east policies since the mid 80s (think Lebanon in 1983) and on US soil since the early 90s (remember the first attempt to attack the World Trade Center in 1993). Though if we want to be honest it stretches back to 1979 with attacks on the US embassies in Iran, Libya and Pakistan. They're all interconnected. And I don't think this is an Obama issue, it's one that W and before him Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter refused to recognize. We continue to pay the price for our interference in the Middle East. Our actions since the 1940s have contributed to the threat that we continue to encounter today. So we spend billions on Homeland Security and trillions on overseas wars and persist in discussing a war on terror and in doing so likely perpetuate the problem. Someone needs to step up and explain that because we want to protect our access to the oil reserves in the Middle East we will continue to pay a higher price at the pump than most Americans realize. Somewhat comprehensive list of "terrorist activities" on US soil since 1865 (terrorism is a subjective definition here apparently): http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html Attacks on diplomatic missions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions Attacks on US military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2000.E2.80.932009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 yeah A, he had a heckler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishey Posted May 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) i've been heavily traveling and haven't been able to dive as deep as i usually like to.(actually traveling now) the IRS. not a big deal to me. BIg picture- i pay what i'm supposed to. small picture. you had a couple rogue people. BO not involved. Benghazi=CIA spy house. not an embassy. the REP cut the budget for protection and the blood is on their hands. Bo not involved and Clinton fairly clean in all of that. AP deal. there is a constant abuse of our rights with cell phone taping, internet monitoring, camera's everywhere. If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear. BUT, i do agree this is the most egregious. Damn, you are a ball washer. First, the IRS is a big deal but I guess even if your explanation stands of just a few people went rogue and I doubt that but lets just say that's how it happened. How is it possibly a good thing that the IRS can have a few people go rogue and do so without any recognition from their supervisors/directors. Then they don't even get noticed by anyone in the IRS but instead its the inspector general that figures this shit is going on. Second, are you seriously saying that the republican budget cuts effected security? Since we know that they didn't and further more we know that multiple security forces were told to stand down not to mention warnings of the situation in Libya getting worse going ignored. Also, we know without a doubt that within 24 hours the knew without question it was a terrorist attack. However, misleading and lying to the American people is A-OK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LRKGOrRkT4 Third, I will agree the AP deal is of course business as usual but I though the patriot act was shit and this is just a further grab of power. However, I find it interesting that BO knows nothing about anything. He simply plays golf and passes bills that have not been read as far as I can tell. Edited May 23, 2013 by Fishey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 However, I find it interesting that BO knows nothing about anything. It's endemic to the administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts