Obama's impeachable Offenses(link)
 

I have list many of these to my pinko-commie professors, nice to see someone gets them published.


http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/3821

You must be very popular at school.

Not to mention respectful, modest, and no doubt highly successful.

Other than that, the list is half and half. Meaning half of it is basically opinion and holds no constitutional credence (e.g. fighting "dependence on foreign oil" could be turned around as fighting private interests of American-owned business, no doubt an infringement on those Americans' constitutional rights), and half of it is things that other presidents have done and will always continue doing. Which brings me to my main point about that: Obama proves again and again that rather than either a radical socialist or a liberty-preserving messiah, he's something far worse than what his friends and opponents alike paint him: a crafty, calculating, interested politician out to please a whole range of competing interests, most of them far from strictly democratic. And he's not the only one, sadly.

No doubt. When I hear a student throw an epithet in my direction, I think that this must be a student that is coming to class with an open mind and hearing what I have to say; a student that is seeking to better himself by considering all points of view before formulating an opinion.

:hmmm: Been a while since we've had a ZOMGOBAMA thread...almost forgotten what they looked like. :yep:

http://web.me.com/kaaina/www.web.mac...cture%2020.jpg


Not sure...but this picture seem to have some enlightening aura about it.:D

I've long since given up waiting for Bubblehead (a good name that) to post anything reasonable. It's just never going to happen.

Love him or hate him, Tribesman did bring up a good point when he pointed out that Bubs like to throw around the "I'm in law school" line like it gives his statements more weight, but then he turns around and talks about how the professors are pinko commies who run leftist socialist indoctrination courses. You can't have it both ways.

That's it, this is so going to appear in some AAR, and I don't care if it makes sense in the context or not :har:

How did you even graduate high school?

Alright guys, let's not attack the messenger, but check the message. That's the real problem here.

In all seriousness, here's also one reason that Obama is not going to get impeached for these reasons: because that would set a precedent that neither party can afford to risk. It would be very short-sighted of them to kick out a president for, at best, bending constitutional interpretations to his agenda - because as soon as they do, then good luck avoiding the same for future presidents. Yes, it might be smart to slap the executive on the wrist for throwing around its authority (as Obama did on several occasions), but what makes you think that having a legislative branch than can throw out a prez at whim is in any way better? More importantly, what makes you (as the law student around here) think that this won't give a dangerous legal precedent to the supreme court?

The fact is that the election cycle does a much better job of this without upsetting the balance, and it has already given Obama plenty of kicks. But if you want to get rid of a president altogether, you're gonna have to come up with much better and more popularly-supported competition, and do so in the election cycle - something that the GOP is failing miserably at as we speak. But wait, of course - the Right is right and, unlike that darn scheming socialist agenda, the Tea Party knows exactly what America needs, regardless of how the electorate actually votes. Cause the electorate is after all dumb and gullible and doesn't know what it really needs, right?

Some democratic logic there!

Even the title looks like it was written by a 5th grader. We are supposed to believe this person is going to be a lawyer?

Anyway, I myself have committed many impeachable offenses. In fact I'm about to go commit one right now. I wonder if it'll make the headlines?

Your teachers must indeed be rubbish, after all they are producing a law expert who doesn't even know what allegation means:rotfl2:

In this case the so-called messenger deserves what he gets. He is limited to repeating the same tired message over and over and over, without fail, without thought and without sense.

You attempt to use "logic" on someone who doesn't begin to understand the meaning of the term.

Ignore button. Use it.

I'm set to ignore for many members. Seems to be working out for them. In fact, I have been ignored since 2005.

Just like with Bush, If this person has evidence of an impeachable offense against the President, then they need to contact their representative in the House of Representatives. That's the process.

Not writing media articles.

If they are not willing to go through the official process, why would I think their article has any credibility?

So, where does it say he ****** the intern?

He can't possibly be any more hopeless than I am.

OR, or maybe, in addition to.... just don't stop in General Topics for awhile. It's been a few days for me, and i find this thread great for an afternoon chuckle.

First, i would just like to say, there is no way Obama is going to be impeached based on the babblings of some Limbaugh/Hannity/FoxNews spouting loon, be he a member of Congress or some questionable law professor...

However, this deserves a second look:

Anyone else remember the sight of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, strutting about pompously in a robe he said was copied from a design in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, through the halls of the House and presiding over a farce engineered by NeoCon GOP members in an attempt to impeach and remove a sitting President over charges not even an -Nth of a degree as "serious" as those given by the law professor? Because of that little fiasco, the question of legal precedence is a ship that has already sailed...

Sadly, for the GOP, the axiom of "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" has not taken hold. The little sideshows, such as the "Birthers", among others, is seriously obscuring any meaningful impact the GOP could have with the voting public...