"The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304, enacted 2008-07-10) is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act....

"Section 702 authorizes foreign surveillance programs by the National Security Agency (NSA), like PRISM and some earlier data collection activities which were previously authorized under the President's Surveillance Program from 2001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008

Bush's illegal surveillance was authorized by Congress in July, 2008. Four months before Bush's successor was to be elected, and with over 45 lawsuits having been filed.

The cover-up in no way alters the fact that Bush was in fact illegally spying and that all the opposition to it during all those years was amply justified.--
Your "new rule" that Congress has the authority to alter reality and revise history is yet another of your mindless partisan delusions.

Congress "authorized" the program after seven and a half years of Bush illegally surveiling.

If Congress authorizes it, then it's not against the law...

Duuhhhh..... :D

Michale

It may be A due process, but it is not THE Due Process..

Regardless, you are preaching to the choir here..

*I* agree with Obama...

*I* agree with you....

But no one else here agrees with us...

THAT is my point...

There was no Patriot Act for Bush to misinterpret. The Patriot Act came into existence because of Bush's illegal surveillance.

Uh no...

All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al-Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001%E2%80%9307)

Get yer facts straight, Sonny Jim... :D

Michale

There was no Patriot Act for Bush to misinterpret. The Patriot Act came into existence because of Bush's illegal surveillance.

Your revisionist history attempting to absolve Bush of crimes is so out of touch with reality you can't even get it to match the proper timeline.--And nothing about any Authorization to Use Military Force absolves the President of the necessity to obey United States law.--Your lies just keep on coming

Every other group was processed the same as conservatives. The IRS Inspector General's was a witness. His additional testimony is evidence. He's the same Obama flunkie who claimed only conservatives were targeted to begin with.

Yes the IRS apologized. Yes they conceded the review process was inappropriate.--For everyone. Not just conservatives. Yes, conservatives were targeted, along with everyone else. If a progressive group had "tea party" in its name, it would've been flagged too. Not because "tea party" means "conservative," but because it means "political."

Its your claim that conservatives were particularly targeted that's false. Your claim that Obama was behind it that's another lie as well.

The purpose of the military is to assassinate America's enemies. The Commander in Chief issuing the order is due process. Its the process established by the constitution.

If the President wants to arrest, imprison, and try people then there's a different process required by the constitution. One Bush refused to follow.

The constitution makes no distinction between citizens and noncitizens. The law is the same for all acts by federal agents. The President, and military, have the same constitutional authority to assassinate citizens as noncitizens.

Should the President do so inappropriately or indiscriminately--that's what impeachment is for.

There's no hypocrisy. Unlike you, I've simply read and understand the constitution.

The facts are clear.. The IRS targeted conservatives...

The fact that I even have to ARGUE this is proof positive of how far off the reservation you have gone...

Michale

No other groups were processed the same way as conservatives..

That's just something an Obama flunkie put out. No evidence was ever provided, no witnesses ever came forward..

It simply didn't happen..

These are the facts...

Michale

Once again, you are totally and completely mis-reading my comments.

I whole-heartedly and completely support the surveillance programs..

I just am shocked that you and I are completely and unequivocally in agreement.. :D

It's like my "issues" with Obama assassinating American citizens w/o Due Process..

I don't have a problem with Obama doing that. I APPLAUD Obama when he does that...

My beef is the hypocrisy from the Left who howled and whined because some scumbags got hazed in an Iraq prison, yet their guy assassinates American citizens and the Left doesn't say dick...

That's hypocrisy in it's purest form..

Michale

The IRS Inspector General corrected his Congressional testimony that conservative groups had been targeted, stating that at the time he was unaware that other groups were processed the same way. The testimony that you rely on as "proof" that conservative groups were targeted was later repudiated as inaccurate.

There's nothing outrageous about my stating facts. What's outrageous is your deliberate, and constant, lying.

If you can point to ANYONE here who has slammed the Democrat Party and Democrats in general as much as I have slammed the Republican Party and Republicans in general, you MIGHT have a case to make..

But you can't, so you don't...

With me, it's country first and foremost... Well, actually, it's FAMILY first and foremost, THEN country..

With ya'all it's Party way WAY before country...

Michale

I was four years old when CoinTelPro began! I didn't have a position on its constitutionality. I didn't know what the constitution was at the time!

And the mission of the NSA, the reason it was brought into existence, is to protect the secrets of the United States and to steal the secrets of everyone else. It, like the CIA, evolved from the obvious necessity to steal secrets from Germany, in the interest of national security, during WWII.

So, yes, NSA spying on Germany is definitely legal. The term "allies" refers to those with whom we have temporary alliances. We agree not to engage in acts that compromise their security, we do not agree to compromise own. Alliances are not permanent.

Your ex-MI and an Israel supporter and you feign shock at the concept of allies spying on each other? Israel has been our allie, and spying on us, since the day it was born! There isn't a country on the planet stupid enough not to spy on allies and enemies alike, if they can!--Including Germany!

If you weren't such a partisan fanatic determined to validate every stupid argument Republicans use to excite their idiot base you might be able to lie better.

Not entirely accurate.. It was simply a misreading of the Patriot Act and the AUMFs issued by Congress..

If there WAS any law violation, it was done it good faith. And, since Congress specifically authorized the actions AFTER the fact, then the point is moot..

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Commander Spock

Republican cover-ups and get-out-of-jail-free cards are not proof of innocence. They are proof of guilt.

The same can be said for Democrat cover-ups and get-out-of-jail-free cards...

And as the facts prove no groups were targeted by the IRS,

Other than reality, the facts and the Obama Administration's own admissions..

This is exactly my point.

YOU get away with totally and outrageously bogus statements like this and no one here says "BOO"...

Yet, I get a decimal point out of place or make a typo and all of Wegantia goes hysterically ballistic...

If you were a "political agnostic", instead of a partisan fanatic, you'd have no trouble recognizing that simple reality.

That's your reality..

But, as been adequately proven, YOUR reality has very little to do with THIS reality..

Those are the facts. The only parallels with Nixon and Watergate are in your dreams.

Of course you would say that.. Your blind enslaved devotion to your messiah allows you to say nothing else...

Michale

Bush's actions were not authorized by Congress before Bush acted. That's a fact.

Republican cover-ups and get-out-of-jail-free cards are not proof of innocence. They are proof of guilt.

If you were a "political agnostic", instead of a partisan fanatic, you'd have no trouble recognizing that simple reality.

And as the facts prove no groups were targeted by the IRS, and that Obama had nothing to do with the IRS review policy, there is absolutely no rational reason to believe the lost emails are evidence of anything.--But I know you won't admit that, being the blindly partisan fanatic that you are.

Those are the facts. The only parallels with Nixon and Watergate are in your dreams.

"If you dumb this down any more, yer gonna get punched!"
-Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE ATLANTIS

:D

You state unequivocally that you understand the logic and the necessity of pre-emptive surveillance...

Something that *I* have been saying since chrisweigant.com has been in existence... A position that *I* have had to defend time and time again..

Something that, apparently no one wants to argue with you about. Because it's coming from a fellow Left Winger, I spose..

You further argue that, at the time, these domestic surveillance programs were legal, despite the revelations of CoinTelPro amongst others..

In the post-9/11 world, such pre-emptive domestic surveillance programs are even MORE of a necessity than they were under Nixon..

Do you see the logic??

If Obama starts violating the law I'll condemn his policies too.

Really??

So tapping the phones of allied leaders is legal??

Each and every revelation made by Snowden is completely and unequivocally legal???

Don't get me wrong.. We completely agree on this and many other points having to do with National Security..

They ARE necessary. They DO save American lives..

I just can't help but wonder why it is that you get away with such statements and I get argued with on the exact same statements..

Ahhh yes...

The power of the almighty '-x'

Of course.. Silly me.. :D

Michale

Obama used the IRS to persecute political opponents, just as Nixon did..

Two years of missing emails that would PROVE that is no different than the 18 mins of missing audio that would have proved Nixon a crook..

The parallels between Nixon and Obama are staggering..

I know you can't admit that. No fanatic wants to go against their god..

But it is a fact, nonetheless...

Michale

Congress authorized EVERY action that Bush took..

These are the facts...

I am also constrained to point out that Bush did what he did for the safety and security of this country..

Obama does what he does for the agenda of the Democrat Party.

That's the difference that makes ALL the difference..

If Obama starts violating the law I'll condemn his policies too.

Bullshit... You have never condemned Obama for ANYTHING...

Why would you start now??

Nixon was a crook.

And Obama is Nixon's wet dream...

Michale

The law Bush broke? That would be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by authorizing warrantless surveillance without authorization of the FISA court. That was why Congress had to grant retroactive immunity; and why Congress had to enact legislation, The Patriot Act, legalizing warrantless surveillance. You don't pass authorizing legislation after the fact if Presidential actions are already legally authorized.

And I said that the forth amendment is to protect people from government abusing its power to harass and intimidate. Trials using secret evidence gained illegally are definitely intimidation and harassment through government abuse of power, and a violation of the forth amendment. I told you at the time that your, and Bush's, "the ends justify the means" attitude was unacceptable to me.

If Obama starts violating the law I'll condemn his policies too. I said I support spying until its used to illegally harass and intimidate. Just because I refuse to baselessly assume spying is harassment and intimidation doesn't mean I'll accept spying to harass and intimidate. The constitution must be respected. Oversight must be instituted. The law must be obeyed. Bush didn't.

Nixon was a crook. But he never committed those particular crimes. Unlike Bush.

So, you support such domestic surveillance under Nixon, but you don't support it under Bush...

Hmmmmmmm.....

I am cornfused... :D

Michale

Which law did Bush break??

Because you are blindly partisan and determine to defend Bush in spite of his being demonstrably in the wrong.

But you just said that, with regards to domestic surveillance, that such surveillance is necessary..

You are contradicting yourself..

Michale

The basis for determining Florida cities more dangerous than Chicago are federal crime statistics. Which is clearly stated on the page I cited, which also makes the underlying data supporting its rankings available.

I know you're a big fan of citing supposed crime statistics, as long as they're from wingers validating your prejudices. But the facts don't lie.--You do.

My beliefs were no different under Bush. I believe in the law. Breaking the law is unacceptable. Retroactive immunity and retroactive authorization by Congress, and blanket immunity from prosecution by succeeding Presidents, don't alter the fact that the Bush undeniably broke the law, abused his authority, and betrayed his oath of office and the trust of the American people. They prove it instead.

As always, you're the one that's blindly partisan, not I. You're the one that has to hypocritically alter your positions depending on whether your talking about Democrats or Republicans, not I. You keep trumpeting you baseless false equivalency and supposed purely partisan Bush opposition in attempts to deflect and discredit legitimate complaints about Bush that you cannot refute factually.--Because you are blindly partisan and determine to defend Bush in spite of his being demonstrably in the wrong.

Not knowing what they're doing is one good reason not to be too concerned about it. The forth amendment was intended to inhibit government abusing its authority to harass citizens. People can hardly pretend to being harassed by things they've no knowledge of! Which is why secret spying is no violation of the forth amendment.

We're a republic. Our representatives have a right to know what government is doing, not us as individuals. And they do have access to, and knowledge of, what's being done.

If you don't trust your representatives I can't much fault you. But the appropriate response is to elect representatives that you can trust, not live in vague fear, or try to dismantle the government so you can see how it works for yourself.

Apparently, you have never served in a military or LEO position...

Things are in a 'need-to-know' basis and you simply don't need to know...

Just sit their nursing yer bong and counting your food-stamps...

Let the adults handled the important stuff like keeping your ass free and alive...

Michale

And why weren't those beliefs held under Bush??

Chicago doesn't even make the cut. And while there are three Illinois locations, the eleven percent in Florida is truly impressive!

I would like to know what criteria was used to determine that ANY Florida city is more dangerous than Chicago???

It surely wasn't number of violent deaths...

You have to be the most obviously blindly prejudicial person that I've run across in fifty years! Do you really think that the crap you write makes any sense at all?

To politically agnostics such as myself?? It makes perfect sense..

To hysterical partisan bigots??

Not so much....

Michale

LewDan, you may want to consider my chatbot conspiracy theory.

Quantum be upon you.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to conclude that the spying is "perfectly legal and appropriate" because we don't even know what they're doing and they lie about it.

Wake up! It's 1984.

I describe holding my beliefs under Nixon! And you, still, mindlessly, try to pretend that its only because its Obama, and a Democrat President, that I believe?

You have to be the most obviously blindly prejudicial person that I've run across in fifty years! Do you really think that the crap you write makes any sense at all?

The top 100 most dangerous places to live in America?
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/

Homestead, FL (#18)
Rivera Beach, FL (#37)
Lake Worth, FL (#42)
Fort Meyers, FL (#57)
Miami, FL (#58)
Datona Beach, FL (#62)
Fort Pierce, FL (#64)
Orlando, FL (#81)
Miami Beach, FL (#82)
Pompano Beach, FL (#84)
Lauderdale Lakes, FL (#96)

Chicago doesn't even make the cut. And while there are three Illinois locations, the eleven percent in Florida is truly impressive!

...Let's see--where to begin?! So many cliches to choose from! "Glass houses." "Divorced from reality." "Out of touch with the real world." "Bigoted..."

You might consider discovering this new thing called "Google." But then, if any of your rantings were actually factual I'd miss all the fun of publicly exposing your right-wing racist prejudices. (You just had to know that that one was coming!)

Holy testicle Tuesday, I couldn't have said that better myself!!! :D

The problem is, you only apply that mentality when the POTUS has a '-D' after his name..

When the POTUS has a '-R' after his name, you are as hysterically paranoid as any other Left Winger...

Michale

At least, under Obama...

Under Bush??

Not so much... :D

It all depends on that oh so mighty powerful '-x' that is after the person's name..

:D

Michale

True. I was being a bit facetious. I don't really have a problem with the idea of Big Brother, so I don't consider spying an issue. I'm an NSA, and NSA spying, supporter.

The idea of people being outraged by perfectly legal and appropriate spying because of the potential for abuse completely underwhelms me. As the same people are, and always have been, completely indifferent to actual abuses as long as they don't feel personally threatened. Their alarm, now that they irrationally do feel personally threatened, I consider poetic justice, not a wake-up call.

I'm interested in addressing actual conspiracies, not unfounded conspiracy theories and hypothetical conspiracy enablers.

For example, right out of high school in the late 60's I happened to be in the local military intelligence headquarters. On the wall was a map of the city, with colored push pins in what I recognized as the locations of high schools and colleges about town.

At first I was a little outraged. But then I realized that schools were the logical targets for surveillance and contingency planning. Anti-war and anti-draft protests were a major, and growing, issue. Students were among the most affected and fervent protesters. And the riots of earlier years were fresh in everyone's mind. So I accepted that military intelligence targeting schools was appropriate, even though disturbing.

And no military coup occurred. No mass incarcerations, no wholesale persecutions. No martial law. No curfews, no crack-downs.

The protests continued and intensified. The draft was ended. The war was ended. The Commander In Chief of resigned in disgrace.--The system worked.--In spite of all the spying.

Equating the potential for abuse that intelligence gathering presents as being tantamount to actual abuse of power itself, isn't prudence, its paranoia. The Founding Fathers were fully aware of the potential for abuse of power that centralized government represents. They decided to deal with it, not hide from it. They felt that the benefits justify the risks. We are expected to recognize those self-evident facts as well. And to contain and control abuses of power, not try to prevent the exercise of necessary power out of mindless fear.

Oops!--Sorry. I'll get off my soapbox.

You'll find there are areas where my beliefs contradict the conventional wisdom--of nearly everyone! Perversely, rather than being intimidated, it tends to make me belligerent.

I get that.. I get the concept..

"I KNOW!!! I KNOW YOU KNOW!! I KNOW... I GET IT!! I GET THE CONCEPT!!"
-Hades, HERCULES

:D

But in all the attacks, did it ever occur to any of ya'all that Republicans are simply doing what their constituents WANT them to do??

I bet 10K quatloos that it did not... :D

Michale

The definition of irony...

A thousand children cross the southern border into the United States, allegedly to escape violence in their home country..

Their destination in the USA?? Chicago....

:^/

Michale

Yea.. They are ALMOST as good as Democrats..

Look at it..

5+ Years out and Democrats are STILL blaming Bush... :D

I mean, if you want to hand out awards for dodging responsibility and not "man'ing up", then Obama and the Democrats win that award hands down...

Michale

Guess I wasn't clear. We're only "immune" from random shootings involving Big Brother. For them to be random they'd have to be aiming at somebody else.

Yea.. They are ALMOST as good as Democrats..

Not quite as good.. But almost... :D

Michale

They almost never use the words "I did ..." Everything is always someone else made them do it. That way they can never be responsible.

An even better example is sleazebag Bob McDonnell blaming his wife in his recent corruption trial.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/30/virginia_s_former_governor_has_the_saddest_legal_defense.html

Despite receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from a wealthy Virginia businessman in exchange for favors, McDonnell's defense is "she did it, not me".

C'mon. Man up. Take some responsibility.

-David

The fear of the Tea Party is strong in these ones.

Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. - Yoda, Empire Strikes Back

Oh please.. :D You can't compare Pelosi's actions with Boehners..

Pelosi had absolutely NO CASE for impeachment against Bush because Congress had authorized each and every action Bush took..

NO ONE authorized Obama's actions...

But it's interesting..

If you are making a case for Bush's impeachment, then that same case would apply to Obama, no??

I mean, impeach Bush for domestic surveillance?? Obama's 10 times the "criminal"...

Impeach Bush for torture/rendition?? Obama's ASSASSINATING American citizens w/o Due Process...

So, if you think Bush should have been impeached, then you HAVE to think that Obama should be impeached as well...

OK, putting aside the white/black racial question, I have a question for you. Mitt Romney got less than 30% of the Latino vote. What percent do you think the 2016 Republican nominee will get? I mean, what is the high point you see? Personally, I don't think Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz could improve on Romney's number much. Maybe Jeb Bush, but the GOP will never nominate him, so I think that's largely theoretical.

It's silly to speculate on the 2016 election.. So much could happen between now and then that could turn black AND hispanic Americans against the Democrat Party...

That's a long way from voting to remove a sitting president. Just sayin'...

A long journey starts with a single step...

MANY Democrats oppose Obama's actions..

Enough to vote to remove from office??

Well, let's take a look at history..

Do you think that there would have been Republican Senators who would have voted to remove Nixon from office??

There you have it....

Michale

Oh, please. Here was Nancy Pelosi, showing some real leadership as she took over the House, back in 2006, when many Dems were hot under the collar for impeaching Bush:

"Impeachment is off the table."

And what does Boehner have to say about it now? "Well, right at this very moment, we're not contemplating impeachment among the House leadership."

Yeah, right. That's what he said about not shutting the government down, too. Which is why most Dems know (1) he's a weaker leader than Pelosi, and (2) he will have to do whatever the Tea Party tells him to do, eventually. If he was a real leader, he'd say exactly the same thing Pelosi said, back in 2006. But he can't.

Chicken.

As for "taking the Senate" how does that help quash the Republican calls for impeachement? Have you read the Constitution? It requires 67 senators to remove a sitting president. You really think Republicans are going to pick up 22 seats in the Senate? That is delusional, to put it mildly.

LewDan [3] -

I've got a column simmering (need to re-do some research) about the unconstitutional method of "let's sue the president," which is based on Andrew Jackson's response to being "censured" by the Senate. You're right -- the House (now) is just as politically annoyed as the Senate (under Jackson), but neither one of them has a single constitutional leg to stand upon.

Michale [4] -

Except for the fact that there are a dozen (or more) Democrats who are fed up with Obama's lies and bullshit and incompetence...

If Obama's poll numbers continue to drop, then it's definitely a possibility that an impeachment will get thru the Senate.

Nurse, this is an especially severe case of ODS -- get the extra-strong sedatives...

I mean, seriously, name me even FIVE Democrats in the Senate that would vote to impeach Obama. It's laughable, sorry, dude.

LewDan [6] -

All I can say is: "What he said!" Well done!

Michale [8] -

Nurse? I called for a nurse! This is a severe case of ODS... sedate this man, stat!

Heh.

[13] -

OK, putting aside the white/black racial question, I have a question for you. Mitt Romney got less than 30% of the Latino vote. What percent do you think the 2016 Republican nominee will get? I mean, what is the high point you see? Personally, I don't think Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz could improve on Romney's number much. Maybe Jeb Bush, but the GOP will never nominate him, so I think that's largely theoretical.

[15] -

That's a long way from voting to remove a sitting president. Just sayin'...

-CW

I point to specific incidents of racism,

No, you didn't... As usual, you simply assume racism where none exists...

JFC,

LewDan, I was already clear about your racial identity,

Yea, who isn't???

Michale

Dem polititians' fearing racist conservatives and the impact of racist conservative propaganda does not make them racists.

"To a racist, everything looks like racism."

I point to specific incidents of racism, such as your libel about race riots that never happened, and aren't going to happen. Libeling an entire race is definitely "racist."

...But to you, "everything looks like racism."

I'm Black. We don't get "shot randomly while Big Brother watches." We're "profiled."

We get shot specifically while Big Brother watches.

If Obama's poll numbers continue to drop, then it's definitely a possibility that an impeachment will get thru the Senate..

A perfect case in point...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/213757-vulnerables-balk-at-obama-action

Not all Democrats are on board with the Messiah's actions..

I guess that means their racist too, eh LD??? :D

Michale

LewDan, even though we no longer have freedom from health insurance, look at the upside. We still have the liberty to get shot randomly while Big Brother watches.

Why don't you come down on him??

Harry Reid has made some blatantly racist statements..

Why don't you come down on him??

Seems the only "racists" you have a problem with are the "racists" that don't kiss the Messiah's ass...

Funny how that is, eh??

You don't really care about racism..

You just care about Obama....

Michale

Of course it is... :D

Racism is the root cause. And racists, such as yourself, are the proponents.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail..

To a racist, everything looks like racism... :D

Michale

Yes, you may safely depend upon me to "play the race card" whenever racism is a factor.

Oh, and "I am constrained to point out" that "Obama to be impeached, the resulting race riots (See Trayvon Martin)" is racist.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/07/15/who_s_disappointed_about_the_lack_of_mass_zimmerman_verdict_riots.html

Once again you promote false racial stereotypes, imply that blacks are all racists and criminals, and denigrate truthful comments about the President being Black as "playing the race card."

You see, Michale, its actions and beliefs such as those that make you a racist. Its attacking Obama due to beliefs and actions such as those, that make the Republican opposition racist, and not simply partisan or ideological. Which als explains why Republicans won't even support their own initiatives if Obama lends his support. Partisanship and then ideology are just excuses, not causation when it comes to conservative animosity. Racism is the root cause. And racists, such as yourself, are the proponents.

:D

Michale

Now, I realize that she didn't really write that sentence (because it's actually a sentence), but she did publish it under her name. I would imagine that she'd resent all these RINOs (like the Orange One) implying that the Socialist Traitor Tyrant is pulling her strings, but maybe she just hasn't figured it all out yet. $aracuda could play the victim again.

Youbetcha.

Michale

That is YOUR opinion..

And, as you are so fond of saying, opinions are not facts... :D

You wingers love to delude yourselves that ninety percent of Blacks vote Democratic because we're racist freeloaders dependent on government handouts, not because of the actions of the Republican party.

You said it, not me.. :D

I am again constrained to point out that YOU are a "winger" too...

Matter o' fact, you are MORE of a "winger" than I am.. :D

Maybe after you've finished adding Latinos, women, gays, and everyone under thirty to your list of ardent opponents the Republican party will undergo a deathbed conversion.--The operative word being "deathbed," of course!

Again, we can revisit the issue on 8 Nov 2014.. :D

Michale

The only evidence I have is the utter lack of any justification for impeachment. There aren't enough Red-state Democrats suicidal enough to impeach Obama no matter how many seats Republicans may win. The backlash would be nothing like Clinton's. The public in the Clinton years granted that Clinton was in the wrong, though nowhere near impeachable crimes and misdemeanors. Obama has done no wrong. And the public knows it. Conservatives deluding themselves that all the right-wing op-eds and conspiracy theories over the years constitutes proof of Presidential wrongdoing won't sway the vast majority of Americans, who, unlike Conservatives, are rational.

You want Republicans to impeach the first Black President on discredited conspiracy theories, providing uninsured Americans with health insurance and lowering the cost of healthcare and government healthcare related expenses, and exercising his own authority to address America's issues instead of allowing the most do-nothing Congress in history to prevent government from functioning at all?--I almost wish that they would!

You wingers love to delude yourselves that ninety percent of Blacks vote Democratic because we're racist freeloaders dependent on government handouts, not because of the actions of the Republican party. Maybe after you've finished adding Latinos, women, gays, and everyone under thirty to your list of ardent opponents the Republican party will undergo a deathbed conversion.--The operative word being "deathbed," of course!

Speaking of which, Obama's approval rating just took a HUGE nose-dive in the past week....

"Big mistake. Big.. HUGE..."
-Julia Roberts, PRETTY WOMAN

:D

Michale

Except for the fact that there are a dozen (or more) Democrats who are fed up with Obama's lies and bullshit and incompetence...

If Obama's poll numbers continue to drop, then it's definitely a possibility that an impeachment will get thru the Senate..

and it would absolutely devastate the Republicans in 2016 if they actually managed it.

The *ONLY* evidence you have to support that claim is the Clinton impeachment.

And I have already proven that the Clinton impeachment has absolutely NO BEARING on an Obama impeachment...

Michale

He hasn't a prayer in any court. But he can begin the process, and have it pending in court, during the next election. Its yet another way of smearing the President. Like all the House committees' investigations of groundless conservative conspiracy theories. They have no evidence. There is no evidence. But Republicans are convinced both of the validity of their absurd claims and that evidence will be forthcoming imminently.--And they've believed that for years!

The Republican party has simply refused to act in good faith since the black man moved into the Whitehouse. They are a party of extremists dedicated to undermining the democratic process, gaming the system, and deceiving the public. Like all their other accusations, Republicans want to slander the President without ever actually having to prove their accusations.

As for Michale's fantasy of impeachment in 2015; Republicans could never win enough Senate seats to pull it off, and it would absolutely devastate the Republicans in 2016 if they actually managed it. Though I can't fault the logic, since Republicans seem dedicated to eliminating themselves as a national party, and I can't think of a better way to help accomplish it!

Let Obama initiate Amnesty-By-Fiat...

Just let him do it and reap the PR benefits of that, coupled with the complete and utter lawlessness on the southern border.

Those Dems who are in a political fight to save their jobs will be utterly and completely torpedoed by Obama's actions... Every state that is a TOSS UP state will become a Definite Red state...

The GOP just needs to keep their powder dry until AFTER they take the Senate..

If the GOP can do this, then their majority in the Senate will be a LOT higher...

Michale

Boehner doesn't NEED the threat of impeachment to galvanize the GOP base.. There are a PLETHORA of scandals that Boehner can pick and choose from..

As fighter pilots say, "It is a target rich environment"

As I said, Boehner doesn't need impeachment to galvanize the GOP base.

But Democrats sure need impeachment to galvanize the DEM base...

Which is why impeachment should just stay where it is right now.. On the fringes...

Once the GOP takes the Senate (82% chance as of yesterday) THEN the threat of impeachment will hang over Obama like the Sword Of Damocles...

THEN it will be the GOP who is pulling the strings and playing the tune that Obama and MINORITY Leader Reid will be dancing to...

Can't wait for the show!! :D

Yea, I know.. It's petty...

Ungh! Let me tell you something. I was on the fast track once. Employee of the month every month Forever. I'd walk these halls, and people would avert their eyes!

But I'm petty!!!"
-Zachariah, SUPERNATURAL, The Dark Side Of The Moon

:D

Michale