Why should we impeach Obama?

[Abrupt]

If Americans could not find or refused to find enough reasons to impeach Bush, how could there possibly be any supportive reasons to impeach Obama.  I don't think there were substantial reasons to impeach Clinton either (cheating on his wife!!!!! what a dumb reason...impeachment should never have happened) I don't care what anyone says, giving the country back to the same people, with the same policies and ideology who ran everything into the ground for the middle class in the first place, is just plain stupid. 

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, and not for 'cheating on his wife'.  Since he did perjure and obstruct justice, these were appropriate charges.  What crime did Bush commit that you would impeach him for?  The people that ran everything into the ground are in control of the office of the Presidency and the Senate now -- or do you so soon forget the source of our troubles? 

Clinton lied to a grand jury about cheating on his wife which was a subject he should never have been questioned about by a Governmental grand jury. As for Bush, he lied to the american people to pull the US into a war that has claimed the lives of thousands.

Clinton was questioned about it and he did lie and attempt to obstruct the investigation.  Perhaps this was a witch hunt, but even if it were so he should not have broken the law under testimony.  Bush did not lie, he was given the same evidence that everyone else had and evidence that was considered reliable around the world and with both political parties within the US.  He requested authorization from congress to declare war and they did (unlike Obama who did not ask for US permission but instead sought authority from the UN).  We knew that there were WMD's in Iraq and the only evidence to indicate that they were not there was from Hussein declaring they were already destoryed but unable to provide evidence of their destruction (No military ever destroys weaponry without documentation and a trail of paperwork authorizing such details).

If Bush lied, then so did Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Jacques Chirac, Wesley Clark, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright,  Bob Graham, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, etc.  In fact, you have absolutely no proof that Bush lied about the WMD's and if you or any of the other "blame Bush" crybabies had, you would have presented it.  Since none of you have ever presented any such evidence it can only be concluded that it is you that is lying about it.

[pjlicari17]

Oh I tire of this conversation.  I ask once again, WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE PRESIDENT?  They can and will not do ANYTHMIG right for EVERYONE.  They will never make everyone happy.  It is a hard job and BASICALLY you have to be almost perfect!

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT THIS?

[Abrupt]

Oh I tire of this conversation.  I ask once again, WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE PRESIDENT?  They can and will not do ANYTHMIG right for EVERYONE.  They will never make everyone happy.  It is a hard job and BASICALLY you have to be almost perfect!

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT THIS?

Will Rogers may have said it best with "We should never elect anybody President that wants the job".

[anthonym1000]

because he is not a american?

[falcon9]

because he is not a american?

You have evidence to support your accusation or, just being a parroting republican bobble-head?

[hudsonmike09]

because he has done nothing for our country but run us into debt

Unless I am mistaken, it was something that HAD to be done so as not to foreclose our entire nation at the time.  Am I better off today then I was 4 years ago?  Judging from what he was given, I think it is going OK.  Fact is, nobody will EVER be happy.  If the Republicans had gotten in, we as a nation would have been in the same predicament.  I think he has done the best that he can under the circumstances.

 

I have to agree with you. He has done the best he could with what he's had to work with. Most of the economic problems in this country we can all thank George W. for. I really hate to think what will happen if Mitt Romney gets elected.

[Abrupt]

because he has done nothing for our country but run us into debt

Unless I am mistaken, it was something that HAD to be done so as not to foreclose our entire nation at the time.  Am I better off today then I was 4 years ago?  Judging from what he was given, I think it is going OK.  Fact is, nobody will EVER be happy.  If the Republicans had gotten in, we as a nation would have been in the same predicament.  I think he has done the best that he can under the circumstances.

 

I have to agree with you. He has done the best he could with what he's had to work with. Most of the economic problems in this country we can all thank George W. for. I really hate to think what will happen if Mitt Romney gets elected.

Perhaps you don't hold your employees to the same standards as me.  If I hire someone for a job and they not only make it worse but consistently blame anyone else for their own failures and ineptitude I would never declare "he has done the best he could".  It is simple, he is unfit for the task at hand and should be replaced.  That he was ever hired without being vetted all the while displaying a complete lack of any qualifications is on us.

[falcon9]

Perhaps you don't hold your employees to the same standards as me.  If I hire someone for a job and they not only make it worse but consistently blame anyone else for their own failures and ineptitude I would never declare "he has done the best he could". 

 

Perhaps you regularly support the omission of facts in revisionist attempts to dodge responsibility however, the eight previous years of republican ineptitude are a valid basis of responsibility for it.  Conversely, blaming the next guy for being unable to 'fix' what the previous unqualified nit botched up is disingenuously shifting the blame, (not strictly a republican practice but, a common political one).

That he was ever hired without being vetted all the while displaying a complete lack of any qualifications is on us.

Just as Bush Jr. was "elected", though "without being vetted all the while displaying a complete lack of any qualifications" for the job.  Did he do the best he could or, the worst he could mismanage to do?

[Abrupt]

Perhaps you don't hold your employees to the same standards as me.  If I hire someone for a job and they not only make it worse but consistently blame anyone else for their own failures and ineptitude I would never declare "he has done the best he could".

 

Perhaps you regularly support the omission of facts in revisionist attempts to dodge responsibility however, the eight previous years of republican ineptitude are a valid basis of responsibility for it.  Conversely, blaming the next guy for being unable to 'fix' what the previous unqualified nit botched up is disingenuously shifting the blame, (not strictly a republican practice but, a common political one).

And what did Bush botch up exactly.  I hear this claim often but nobody ever seems to put any facts to the claim.  The war, while costly, was declared by Congress and there would have always been troops costs even if not engaged in combat (albeit not as much).  Republicans repeatedly tried to bring attention to the troubles with the housing bubble and the problems with Freddie and Fannie but they were repeatedly reassured by the Democrats controlling those entities that "all was fine".  I can provide ample video of Democrats claiming and even encouraging more of such recklessness if required.  What can you provide?

Even if there was blame to the previous administration, Obama was hired to fix the problems.  He has only exacerbated an already bad situation and created even more uncertainty, more obligations, more debt, and failed to ever address any of the problems at the core.  If you hire a plumber and all he does is break light bulbs and run electrical wiring would you keep him on and declare that he couldn't fix the previous plumbers mistakes?  Well, you probably would as you don't seem to have the capability to focus in on what the problems actually are.  I would fire him as quickly as I could and obtain someone qualified to do the repairs.  I would certainly not make excuses for anyone that consistently fails me and I would never get on my knees and blow as you seem to be prone to.

That he was ever hired without being vetted all the while displaying a complete lack of any qualifications is on us.

Just as Bush Jr. was "elected", though "without being vetted all the while displaying a complete lack of any qualifications" for the job.  Did he do the best he could or, the worst he could mismanage to do?

Bush was vetted fairly thoroughly.  He possessed experience governing and this was the core of the requirements for the job.  Where you were then or what revisionist history you are reading I cannot imagine.  I found Bush did very well to my liking until about the last 6 months were he did the initial Tarp funding.  He should have let those failing entities follow their own descents into the pits they dug.  In fact most Americans felt this way about bush as consistent polling data is still available to show when his approval ratings dropped.  As typical of you it seems you see things with a very skewed and dishonest view of what history tells us.

[falcon9]

And what did Bush botch up exactly.

His presidential responsibilities did not include helping his wealthy oil campaign contributors which helped make a shakey economy worse and botching any specious attempts to 'improve' everyone else's economic conditions.

I found Bush did very well to my liking until about the last 6 months were he did the initial Tarp funding.  He should have let those failing entities follow their own descents into the pits they dug.

Tarp?  What about the bank bailouts of 2008?  Was that shafting of the U.S. economy overseen by the Bush adminstration or, the banks themselves on cahoots with republicans?
 

As typical of you it seems you see things with a very skewed and dishonest view of what history tells us.

Back at ya, fascist republican hypocrit.

[plennis]

  I have been out of full time work for 4 years now,  Mr. Romney fixed  our company and now we are all out of work.  Because most people had been there for a long time, and are a little older  (50's) we are told we earn to much they can hire 2 people for what we want.   So almost all that I keep in touch with are still underemployed if they were lucky enough to find a job.  But that company made a lot of money for a few stock holders until it was ran it into the ground.   It was outsourced to Canada.                     

[Abrupt]

And what did Bush botch up exactly.

His presidential responsibilities did not include helping his wealthy oil campaign contributors which helped make a shakey economy worse and botching any specious attempts to 'improve' everyone else's economic conditions.

I found Bush did very well to my liking until about the last 6 months were he did the initial Tarp funding.  He should have let those failing entities follow their own descents into the pits they dug.

Tarp?  What about the bank bailouts of 2008?  Was that shafting of the U.S. economy overseen by the Bush adminstration or, the banks themselves on cahoots with republicans?
 

As typical of you it seems you see things with a very skewed and dishonest view of what history tells us.

Back at ya, fascist republican hypocrit.

Just as I knew, you had no proof for your claims.  In fact you have never proven any of your claims and always failed to meet my challenge.  You have become way too easy to deal with as I now correctly assume that any claims you make are unsupported and simply fabrications of your fanatical ideology.  You scarcely warrant any consideration at all anymore and hopefully others will notice my example of just how easy it is to put in check your pathetic attempts to buffalo.  I had hopes that you would be worthy of debate originally, but sadly you are most insufficient for the task and lack any depth or reasoning.

The bank bailouts were Tarp, and you would know this if you knew what you were talking about.  Don't forget that the bill was initiated in the Senate (yes the Senate) by a Democratic controlled congress (funny how liberals and crazies forget that).  I don't forgive Bush for signing the bill into law and I think he should have vetoed it but he went along and compromised with the Democrats.

Fascist?  I am no liberal so that certainly isn't me but I would have expected more derogatory statements from you.

Republican?  I am not registered as a Republican and I consider myself to be more of a libertarian.  

Hypocrit?  I am not sure what that is, is it yet another thing you have made up or did you mean Hypocrite?  Surely I don't have to interpret your spelling along with your idiotic and prejudicial and hate filled ramblings as well?  If you did mean hypocrite, I challenge you to show one iota of evidence supporting your claim.  I am not even bothered enough to look and see if there is anything that could be construed as this simply because I know you only made the claim without supporting evidence, and even with me providing this resolute statement I would be that you can provide nothing at all.

[falcon9]

Just as I knew, you had no proof for your claims.  

What, specific claim was that?  No, not your fabricated crap which you so often try to falsely attribute to me - quote something in context for once. Yes, I'd made a general assertion because listing the evidence as individual cites would be more time-consuming than refuting your speciously-illogical rationalizations has taken.  You're so used to attributing your revisionist fabrications to others that it can be speculated that your religious delusions are extending beyond that paradigm of blind faith into blind "libertarian-republicanism".

[Abrupt]

Just as I knew, you had no proof for your claims.  

What, specific claim was that?  No, not your fabricated crap which you so often try to falsely attribute to me - quote something in context for once. Yes, I'd made a general assertion because listing the evidence as individual cites would be more time-consuming than refuting your speciously-illogical rationalizations has taken.  You're so used to attributing your revisionist fabrications to others that it can be speculated that your religious delusions are extending beyond that paradigm of blind faith into blind "libertarian-republicanism".

It was the claim you made, and if you cannot recall such a recent event or perform the mandatory effort of revisiting your own statements then you surely cannot expect me to perform the task for you.  I suspect that you don't want to do this because you know I am waiting for you to do it, and you are very familiar with just how efficiently I can dismantle your trifling and poorly thought out claims.  You have never refuted anything I have said, you have only ever claimed to have refuted my words and any that have followed would immediately realize any evidence of you actually performing the task of refutation was obviously missing.  I don't know if you are as lazy to debate as you appear, or if you are simply used to people falling for such a gambit -- but it doesn't work on me as I actually expect supporting statements to be made and not simply claims of them existing to be made.  That you end your post with an ad hominem fallacy does not surprise me as you never could withstand the force of my logic against your desperate and prejudicial rhetoric.  What does surprise me is that you continue your poor efforts against me and that you have never realized just how irrationally and fallaciously you argue and that such is why I so easily dismiss your weak words.

[falcon9]

You have never refuted anything I have said, you have only ever claimed to have refuted my words ...

What a non-coincidence; this is precisely your invalid claim, (which has been refuted).  This means that you've lied and been shown to have lied.

I actually expect supporting statements to be made and not simply claims of them existing to be made.  

So do I, not the fabricated lies you produce in lieu of supporting evidence/lines of reasoning.  Your unreasoned, unsupported claims are not evidence circularly supporting your claims, they are evidence that you haven't done so, (since your circular arguments are self-invalidating).
Given your lies, fabrications falsely attributed to me and general inability to reason logically, I suggest you employ the ignore function.  If this option is not appealing to you, expect derision under the "golden rule".