Obama's impeachable Offenses(link)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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

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.

Some democratic logic there!

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

[AVGWarhawk]

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.

[Platapus]

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?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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.

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.

[vienna]

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:

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?

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...

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by bubblehead

Obama's impeachable Offenses(link)

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?

my pinko-commie professors

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

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

How did you even graduate high school?

Typos happen

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Typos happen

But unless you're lazy they usually get corrected.