New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Liberals becoming desperate now

J

Jen

Senator
Democrats are coming to the point of desperation on the unraveling of the Obama Presidency.

When a question like this (below) is asked, it deserves no response but just the sad acknowledgment that Liberals are beginning to understand that their Messiah has clay feet.

One more "game", Jen...

Imagine if I said in 2005..."I am firmly convinced there is enough evidence to show that George W. Bush raped a baby......but I don't want him impeached, becuase it just cost too much money and takes up too much time. Let's just wait for 2008."
Click to expand...

Now that's just sick. But that's what it's coming to. Desperation brings this sort of thing to a head.

The IRS issue is real. It may very well rise to the point of impeachment. Mike Kelly has just said to Steven Miller that if a person is on the other side of the fence when the IRS comes calling, they will not be able to to claim "bad management" of their money. And that is what Martin is trying to pull now by claiming that the IRS made mistakes. Kelly really handed it to Miller.

But that doesn't prove anything on Obama. Without proof, there should be no impeachment. And I hope it doesn't come to that.

Liberal desperation is obvious.
 
Given your vast experience with the IRS and the law....at what point would this rise to the level of impeachment? Since you agree that there is no proof, why would anyone on the left be getting desperate? Not only is there no proof....there is absolutely no evidence of criminal activity...so where do you get that Obama has "feet of clay"?
 
No...it points out YOUR "logic".

You declare the President absolutely positively guilty of a crime....but don't want him impeached because you say "he'll find some way to fool people into thinking he's not guilty" plus it will "cost too much money".

And that analogy above holds. Or are there "levels of crimes" you'd allow a President to commit Jen....before you decided to impeach??? and what are they?
 
middleview said:
Given your vast experience with the IRS and the law....at what point would this rise to the level of impeachment? Since you agree that there is no proof, why would anyone on the left be getting desperate? Not only is there no proof....there is absolutely no evidence of criminal activity...so where do you get that Obama has "feet of clay"?
Click to expand...

Another Jen contradiction...."There's no proof...but I KNOW he's guilty!"

Somebody call Atticus Finch ...the President may need him.
 
I am desperate, my party has the Presidency for the next 4 years, and a Candidate waiting in the wings that can win for the next 8, Republicans have nothing but fake outrage.
 
Go tell Pat Robertson, if he isn't busy committing adultery he might listen to you and care what you say.

How many communications have you had with your members of Congress urging them to impeach President Obama? One, two, a hundred, or none. Is it you just like to biatch about things and take no action to correct them?
 
OldGaffer said:
I am desperate, my party has the Presidency for the next 4 years, and a Candidate waiting in the wings that can win for the next 8, Republicans have nothing but fake outrage.
Click to expand...

The ideology is bankrupt. Proof? (a popular word on this thread)....what will the GOP run on in the 2014 midterms?

Their accomplishments?

Their policy plans?

or "Benghazi", "AP", and "IRS" and Yet Another Promise of Repealing Obamacare?

Guess which one?
 
jammer said:
Is it you just like to biatch about things and take no action to correct them?
Click to expand...

She wants the President declared guilty of major crimes by "even the most stupid American"....but doesn't want him impeached because it would "cost too much money".

Outside of ..."Impeachment would hurt the Republican Party in 2014, 2016"....see if you can come up with ANY explanation for that kind of thinking????
 
Yeah, this "unraveling" is starting to remind me of the unraveling of Clinton's presidency! Shoot....were it not for the heroic efforts of the GOP, he might've left office with 85% approvals!
 
fairsheet said:
Yeah, this "unraveling" is starting to remind me of the unraveling of Clinton's presidency! Shoot....were it not for the heroic efforts of the GOP, he might've left office with 85% approvals!
Click to expand...

That's why impeachment scares them....but contradicts their claim that President Obama is 'clearly guilty' of a crime.

On the one hand, they want him viewed as guilty....but on the other they are not as confident in their declaration of the "obviousness" of that guilt as they claim...and figure they would LOSE on an impeachment and thus re-play 1999 all over again.

Their politics trumps their principles or even stated beliefs. If they REALLY thought he was guilty...and REALLY were people who loved the Constitution....they'd call for impeachment, damn the end-game or how it played out for the Republicans or President Obama.

Obviously they don't do one of those things.
 
Yes but....guilty of WHAT? They can't even tell us what he'd be guilty of, IF he was guilty of something.

At least in the Clinton case they had "lying under oath".
 
fairsheet said:
Yes but....guilty of WHAT? They can't even tell us what he'd be guilty of, IF he was guilty of something.

At least in the Clinton case they had "lying under oath".
Click to expand...

Uhhh....well one is..."He's guilty of not providing extra security for Benghazi, despite Ambassador Stevens saying he didn't want extra security for Benghazi.".......so he's both guilty of wanting to kill Stevens AND listening to Stevens.

See....you can go from there. :smile:
 
Try to understand, Geck.
I DO NOT WANT him impeached for the many reasons I listed.

I am not in charge, as Nina so profoundly noticed and pointed out.

If he is ultimately impeached because evidence was found that he broke the law sufficient for impeachment to begin, it will not be because I wanted it or that I will want it then.

I hope he isn't THAT guilty. I hope he's just a clueless idiot. Ya can't impeach someone for being a clueless idiot. But again...........I am not in charge. I am just giving my opinion.

GordonGecko said:
No...it points out YOUR "logic".

You declare the President absolutely positively guilty of a crime....but don't want him impeached because you say "he'll find some way to fool people into thinking he's not guilty" plus it will "cost too much money".

And that analogy above holds. Or are there "levels of crimes" you'd allow a President to commit Jen....before you decided to impeach??? and what are they?
Click to expand...
 
GordonGecko said:
Uhhh....well one is..."He's guilty of not providing extra security for Benghazi, despite Ambassador Stevens saying he didn't want extra security for Benghazi.".......so he's both guilty of wanting to kill Stevens AND listening to Stevens.

See....you can go from there. :smile:
Click to expand...

Of course, "not providing sufficient security", isn't an impeachable offense. But as I suggest elsewhere, the Fox/GOP is already trying to slither its way out from under this one, as the focus turns to what THEY recommend in terms of security and by extension, how much THEY are willing to appropriate for it.
 
I think you repubs are as stupid today as you were back in 1998, sooooo I'm banking on Louie Gohmert and Steve King and Michelle Bachmann and Darrell Issa et al to ride the impreachment train again.

remember, impeachment is a political action, no actual "crime" is needed. the repub House can do it if they want. they won't stop to think that they'd be screwing the GOP for years to come. THAT'S how stupid they are.
 
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Click to expand...
http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top