Rep. Jim Clyburn: GOP will try to impeach President Obama

[GourmetDan]

Please see the post immediately following this one of yours.

Now I'm done.

I never said you were an un-constitutionalist.

I simply pointed out that your opinion that the '99 impeachment hurt the GOP was not consistent with the fact that Bush won the presidency...

[Bigun]

Agree.  Should be impeached, removed from office and then tried for treason.

I was referring to the Senate trial but I would go for a Treason charge as well!

What I was trying to get to is that your objections of impeaching Obama are practical and not a matter of principle and since we have established that they are the next question becomes:

What should be most important principle or expedience?

[Cyber Liberty]

I was referring to the Senate trial but I would go for a Treason charge as well!

What I was trying to get to is that your objections of impeaching Obama are practical and not a matter of principle and since we have established that they are the next question becomes:

What should be most important principle or expedience?

Strictly a practical matter in light of what's possible.  I thought we allowed ourselves to be pushed into impeaching Clinton on poorly founded charges and I see the same thing happening again.  Yes, Obama's offering much better founded charges, so it deserves a good looking in to.

Of course principle is of topmost importance, but one must approach the necessary task with a sense of what can be done, and when.  Standing strictly on principle is how we got snookered into bad moves, because it ceded the initiative to the other side.  We must resist being pushed into a course of action, no matter how principled, by the other side.  Sun Tsu.

[Bigun]

Strictly a practical matter in light of what's possible.  I thought we allowed ourselves to be pushed into impeaching Clinton on poorly founded charges and I see the same thing happening again.  Yes, Obama's offering much better founded charges, so it deserves a good looking in to.

Of course principle is of topmost importance, but one must approach the necessary task with a sense of what can be done, and when.  Standing strictly on principle is how we got snookered into bad moves, because it ceded the initiative to the other side.  We must resist being pushed into a course of action, no matter how principled, by the other side.  Sun Tsu.

Then you and I are in COMPLETE agreement!

[Cyber Liberty]

I never said you were an un-constitutionalist.

I simply pointed out that your opinion that the '99 impeachment hurt the GOP was not consistent with the fact that Bush won the presidency...

Fair enough. 

I was pointing out Bush's election to President was not necessarily a residual effect of Clinton's impeachment.  The causal connection just isn't there for me.  I maintain Bush was a good enough candidate in 2000 (and Gore was that bad) he could have won even if there hadn't been an impeachment less than two years prior.

(I know I promised to shut up, but I felt that needed an answer.  I get sucked into this stuff all the time.   :odrama: )

[truth_seeker]

I personally do not think you can compare the Clintoon experience to now.  The Clintoon episode was, in the public mind, "all about Sex" never mind that it was about the president lying under oath.

This is about the president directly lying to the American public on multiple occasions and failure to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed". Neither will play the same!

But just as Clinton was contorted to be about sex (not perjury), Obama would be contorted to be about his half-race, not about conspiring to deceive the citizenry.

Instead of a challenge to Obama's rule originating in high government offices, to be successful perhaps it would need to originate from the ground up; eg. citizens angry about the cost of their healthcare, or their family doctor being taken away, etc.

Is there a conservative community organizer in the house?  Liberals are effective, because they can stay on topic.

But with only 2 years remaining, I believe the GOP would be more wise to demonstrate their ability to run things, instead of failing to unseat Obama, and losing trust.

It is not a matter of deserving to be removed from office, but instead a matter of judgment, priorities, risk assessment, etc.

IOW the GOP is now in power to show it can run things BETTER, NOT to bring Obama down.

[Cyber Liberty]

Then you and I are in COMPLETE agreement!

Yes we are, and I never doubted that for a moment.

[Cyber Liberty]

But just as Clinton was contorted to be about sex (not perjury), Obama would be contorted to be about his half-race, not about conspiring to deceive the citizenry.

Instead of a challenge to Obama's rule originating in high government offices, to be successful perhaps it would need to originate from the ground up; eg. citizens angry about the cost of their healthcare, or their family doctor being taken away, etc.

Is there a conservative community organizer in the house?  Liberals are effective, because they can stay on topic.

But with only 2 years remaining, I believe the GOP would be more wise to demonstrate their ability to run things, instead of failing to unseat Obama, and losing trust.

It is not a matter of deserving to be removed from office, but instead a matter of judgment, priorities, risk assessment, etc.

IOW the GOP is now in power to show it can run things BETTER, NOT to bring Obama down.

 

[DCPatriot]

But just as Clinton was contorted to be about sex (not perjury), Obama would be contorted to be about his half-race, not about conspiring to deceive the citizenry.

Instead of a challenge to Obama's rule originating in high government offices, to be successful perhaps it would need to originate from the ground up; eg. citizens angry about the cost of their healthcare, or their family doctor being taken away, etc.

Is there a conservative community organizer in the house?  Liberals are effective, because they can stay on topic.

But with only 2 years remaining, I believe the GOP would be more wise to demonstrate their ability to run things, instead of failing to unseat Obama, and losing trust.

It is not a matter of deserving to be removed from office, but instead a matter of judgment, priorities, risk assessment, etc.

IOW the GOP is now in power to show it can run things BETTER, NOT to bring Obama down.

IOW....the GOP should have "Fun, Fun, Fun....till our daddy takes the T-Bird away!!"    

[GourmetDan]

I was pointing out Bush's election to President was not necessarily a residual effect of Clinton's impeachment.  The causal connection just isn't there for me.  I maintain Bush was a good enough candidate in 2000 (and Gore was that bad) he could have won even if there hadn't been an impeachment less than two years prior.

(I know I promised to shut up, but I felt that needed an answer.  I get sucked into this stuff all the time.)

And I was pointing out that Bush's election to president does not support the claim that an unsuccessful impeachment was bad for the GOP.  Were that the case, we would have expected a Gore presidency to result.

And nobody's making you say you're done when you aren't nor is anyone making you come back after you say you're done. 

Getting 'sucked into this stuff all the time' sounds like you have 'innocent victim' status...

[Bigun]

And I was pointing out that Bush's election to president does not support the claim that an unsuccessful impeachment was bad for the GOP.  Were that the case, we would have expected a Gore presidency to result.

And nobody's making you say you're done when you aren't nor is anyone making you come back after you say you're done. 

Getting 'sucked into this stuff all the time' sounds like you have 'innocent victim' status...

Why is is necessary for you to be so provocative?  We are all friends here.

[DCPatriot]

And I was pointing out that Bush's election to president does not support the claim that an unsuccessful impeachment was bad for the GOP.  Were that the case, we would have expected a Gore presidency to result.

And nobody's making you say you're done when you aren't nor is anyone making you come back after you say you're done. 

Getting 'sucked into this stuff all the time' sounds like you have 'innocent victim' status...

Furthermore....if the populace were really upset with the Republicans for impeaching Clinton...they should have been insane with rage that Bush, the dastardly Republican, STOLE the 2000 election.

Why then, did GWB throttle John Kerry by about 6 MILLION votes in 2004?

Not "that angry" it would seem.....   

[Bigun]

But just as Clinton was contorted to be about sex (not perjury), Obama would be contorted to be about his half-race, not about conspiring to deceive the citizenry.

Instead of a challenge to Obama's rule originating in high government offices, to be successful perhaps it would need to originate from the ground up; eg. citizens angry about the cost of their healthcare, or their family doctor being taken away, etc.

Is there a conservative community organizer in the house?  Liberals are effective, because they can stay on topic.

But with only 2 years remaining, I believe the GOP would be more wise to demonstrate their ability to run things, instead of failing to unseat Obama, and losing trust.

It is not a matter of deserving to be removed from office, but instead a matter of judgment, priorities, risk assessment, etc.

IOW the GOP is now in power to show it can run things BETTER, NOT to bring Obama down.

I would just point out that those of us who are currently opposing going the impeachment route ARE using Gruber type arguments to support our positions! (I.E. The voters are STUPID.)

[Cyber Liberty]

And I was pointing out that Bush's election to president does not support the claim that an unsuccessful impeachment was bad for the GOP.  Were that the case, we would have expected a Gore presidency to result.

And nobody's making you say you're done when you aren't nor is anyone making you come back after you say you're done. 

Getting 'sucked into this stuff all the time' sounds like you have 'innocent victim' status...

No, it just moved me to "Screw You Dan" status.  You don't deserve to hear what I have to say anymore.

[GourmetDan]

Why is is necessary for you to be so provocative?  We are all friends here.

Why is it provocative to reply to excuses?

When your behavior is 'not your fault', that is 'innocent victim' status.

We certainly have more than enough of those these days...

[mystery-ak]

I would just point out that those of us who are currently opposing going the impeachment route ARE using Gruber type arguments to support our positions! (I.E. The voters are STUPID.)

....and that's a very good argument indeed!

[Cyber Liberty]

Why is is necessary for you to be so provocative?  We are all friends here.

I keep a "friends" list and a "screw you" list.  There wasn't anybody on the second list until a few minutes ago.

[GourmetDan]

I would just point out that those of us who are currently opposing going the impeachment route ARE using Gruber type arguments to support our positions! (I.E. The voters are STUPID.)

Which is the whole problem with the 'failed 99 impeachment hurt the GOP' claim.

[Bigun]

Why is it provocative to reply to excuses?

When your behavior is 'not your fault', that is 'innocent victim' status.

We certainly have more than enough of those these days...

OK Dan. Have it your way.

I tried!

[Cyber Liberty]

Why is is necessary for you to be so provocative?  We are all friends here.

Some people must be born that way.  I've seen the poster in question viciously bait other posters for no reason whatsoever.

[mystery-ak]

...all right...stop the personal back and forth and get the thread back on topic...

[Bigun]

Some people must be born that way.  I've seen the poster in question viciously bait other posters for no reason whatsoever.

Just my opinion but I doubt that he even realizes that he is doing that!

[Cyber Liberty]

...all right...stop the personal back and forth and get the thread back on topic...

 

I don't want to see another thread locked.  Topic:  Clyburn, the most racist and one of the most liberal Democrats in the house, wants the GOP to try to impeach Obama.

[musiclady]

musiclady wrote above:
[[ After a lot of thought, I agree with this view.  It's not that Obama hasn't done a zillion things for which he could be impeached.
But at this stage of the game, with only two years left it wouldn't actually get him out of office, it most likely wouldn't pass the Senate, it would make Republicans look vengeful and not patriotic, nor principled, and it would turn Obama into a martyr. ]]

Once again, I will disagree.
We must at least -try- to remove Obama from office.

If we do not -- if we let him continue to wreak havoc based on the premise above -- he may actually do serious damage to the country that will become unrepairable by any succeeding president and/or Congress.

At the very least, even if the impeachment process fails in the Senate, it will serve as warning to Obama (and to his controller Jarrett) that their actions -can- indeed be called to account before Congress and the American people.

And also at the very least, it will place an unremovable stain upon his place in history.

There are those in this forum (most members, I sense) who will protest that we cannot do this because it will tear at race relations, incite riots, etc.

So be it. Blacks in America must learn that they do not rule -- the majority does.
Frankly, if an Obama impeachment and removal "sets back" race relations in America, I don't care one whit.

The process of impeachment is not intended to improve racial relations, nor should it be.
It is undertaken to rescue the nation from the irreparable damage that Obama and Jarrett are attempting to do.

It is to stop "the transformation of America".

That makes the impeachment process worth the trouble.

Final thoughts:
Is Bill Clinton a "martyr" as a result of his impeachment?
Who the heck remembers what Andrew Johnson was impeached for, anyway?

I don't think that the debate between impeachment and non impeachment should involve race........AT ALL.

The question is not whether or not Obama has committed impeachable offenses.  I would guess that 100% of the people on this forum agree that he has.  (Well.........maybe one or two don't).

I think what it boils down to with me is whether or not the ultimate goals will be achieved if the Republicans fall into Obama's Brer Rabbit trap and start impeachment proceedings.  There is no question that the Dems want the R's to go that direction.

Frankly, I don't ever think there has been a debate in which I have been so conflicted.  I AM a Constitutionalist.  Impeachment IS the way the Constitution provides for law breaking punks like Obama.

And yet................... and yet, I'm not sure that under all the circumstances that exist, it's the right thing to do right now.   I find myself agreeing with posts I'm reading on BOTH sides of the debate on this thread.

I wonder if anyone else is experiencing the same thing............

[Cyber Liberty]

I wonder if anyone else is experiencing the same thing............

'Firmtive, Lady.