Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, “no mas.”More (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/08/Exclusive-Sarah-Palin-Time-to-Impeach-President-Obama)
Without borders, there is no nation. Obama knows this. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. This is his fundamental transformation of America. It’s the only promise he has kept. Discrediting the price paid for America’s exceptionalism over our history, he’s given false hope and taxpayer’s change to millions of foreign nationals who want to sneak into our country illegally. Because of Obama’s purposeful dereliction of duty an untold number of illegal immigrants will kick off their shoes and come on in, competing against Americans for our jobs and limited public services. There is no end in sight as our president prioritizes parties over doing the job he was hired by voters to do. Securing our borders is obviously fundamental here; it goes without saying that it is his job.
Be quite Sarah. I really liked you at one point. You are just irritating now a days. This is what bammy wants. It will help surge his base.
I don't find her irritating, but I do think she'd be wiser not to utter the "i" word until after the election. That's the trouble with media personalities. It's imperative in their line of work to be ahead of the curve, and so they often pounce on issues before they are "ripe."
impeachment of Obama will never be ripe, and it's the heighth of irresponsibility for someone like Palin to be pimping for it - unless, of course, she's deemed herself no longer particularly relevant any more.
I think impeachment will be discussed quite openly, even by the GOP leadership, after the 2014 election.
impeachment of Obama will never be ripe, and it's the heighth of irresponsibility for someone like Palin to be pimping for it - unless, of course, she's deemed herself no longer particularly relevant any more.Stick a fork in her. She's done. (http://i.imgur.com/KTBRuW0.gif)
Stick a fork in her. She's done. (http://i.imgur.com/KTBRuW0.gif)
The fact that the GOP seems to have not learned this lesson from the Clinton debacle is frightening.
Then the GOP is really unserious about winning the presidency in 2016, or of even keeping the seats it gains in the 2014 elections. As far as can be seen, there will never be bipartisan support for impeaching Obuttocks and as this article - Watchmen in the Night: the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon (http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05-2696) - from the UT Library's digital repository makes clear, impeaching Obuttocks (or any other president) without bipartisan support would be seen as the ultimate partisan fiasco and as seriously detrimental to the Constitution.
The fact that the GOP seems to have not learned this lesson from the Clinton debacle is frightening.
"What me worry?"
I seem to recollect GWB got elected in 2000.
I seem to recollect GWB got elected in 2000.
He wouldn't have if Al Gore hadn't torpedoed his campaign with his anti-gun stance in West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee.
I seem to recollect GWB got elected in 2000.
And again in 2004. :pondering:
I had a vacation with my best friend, a union type Democrat moderate, (he actually does vote Republican sometimes). He complained of the same things that we do. Republicans stand for nothing. Vote for a Republican, and you have no earthly idea what they will do. He said Republicans used to stand for business, lower taxes, small government. Now... well, neither one of us could define a Republican. My friend has proven to be an excellent barometer of the mood in Ohio.
THAT is the Republcan problem, and why 2014 won't be a run away. Even though we're encouraged to vote establishment types who are the poster children for having no idea what you're getting, because winning is what matters. I think winning comes after you define yourself and stick to your own definition.
Conservatism needs to be resold, to voters that are far too young to have learned back when Reagan and others effectively sold it.
Sadly there seems to be little interest in that chore. When I have posted twice in the last week a challenge for each to convert one voter, it attracted zero attention.
Conservatives have mastered the interwebs, to cluster and huddle and moan and groan together. And to influence nobody whatsoever outside their circle.
Palin plays to that minority huddle.
Conservatism needs to be resold, to voters that are far too young to have learned back when Reagan and others effectively sold it.
Sadly there seems to be little interest in that chore. When I have posted twice in the last week a challenge for each to convert one voter, it attracted zero attention.
Conservatives have mastered the interwebs, to cluster and huddle and moan and groan together. And to influence nobody whatsoever outside their circle.
Palin plays to that minority huddle.
Well, first off, if you vote establishment Republican, you are not getting conservatism.
Secondly, the establishment Republicans have a hard time defining "vote for whatever brings us money" into a saleable package.
I don't think truth_seeker's comment was intended to argue for voting for the GOP establishment, merely pointing out that conservatives - whether republican or not - have heretofor done a miserable job (to be charitable) of explaining to the ordinary, non-partisan, American what they stand for rather than simply yelling about what they're against.
Increasingly, across this city, the “I” word is being heard.More (http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/impeachment-a-bridge-too-far/)
Impeachment is being brought up by Republicans outraged over Barack Obama’s usurpations of power and unilateral rewriting of laws. And Obama is taunting John Boehner and the GOP: “So sue me.” ...
Any Republican attempt at impeachment would go up against a stacked deck. And the GOP would be throwing away a winning hand for a losing one...
Agreed.I do enjoy throwing bombs. Often intended to make one consider something differently.
Conservatives say they stand for something, but don't explain it well.
Establishment types stand for nothing, and that needs little explanation.
Oh, and you shouldn't presume to speak for truth_seeker, he seems to enjoy throwing bombs as much as anyone.
People often talk about Conservatism as being the opposition to 0bama and the dims. It's not. There are more political views than just the far Left and far Right ends of the political spectrum. The dims have an easy time explaining what they are for, because they are all huddled at the far Left of the political spectrum. And they know who their voters are, and how to keep them loyal.
Since we are a two party system, any of us who don't like the liberal rule have to find a way to get enough votes for the GOP to defeat the dims. And those votes can come from anywhere else on the spectrum. Some countries have multiple parties, so they just form coalitions of parties to get a majority vote. We have to attract enough of the non-liberal vote to the polls to get a GOP win.
So far, we have people on the far right fighting with the more moderate people and people with a specific slant (for example, libertarians) fighting with other groups. It isn't so much a matter of convincing people to move to any particular place on the spectrum as it is a matter of convincing people with slightly different views that a coalition that defeats the dims is the best solution for all of us.
I do enjoy throwing bombs. Often intended to make one consider something differently.
But that isn't fertile ground, on conservative interwebs.
As I said, my friend is moderate to left leaning. He would vote Republican if he had some idea of what that meant.
Yes, I have friends like that as well. But what Republican means in any general election is really where on the spectrum that specific candidate lies. I usually wait until after the primaries and discuss the specific GOP candidates vs. the dim one. That has been working pretty well in recent elections. And this Nov. is going to be an easy sell.
What I usually do is find out what issues my friends are concerned about and talk to them about GOP politicians who have similar views. It helps when they find prominent GOP Reps. or Senators who have ideas very like theirs. Even if that isn't their delegate, it encourages them to vote for a GOP majority. Which is what I think is most important this year.
It doesn't help when a Republican runs to the right in the primary, moves to the middle for the general, and then does whatever the heck his or her money people require be done. How do you quantify that?
It doesn't help when a Republican runs to the right in the primary, moves to the middle for the general, and then does whatever the heck his or her money people require be done. How do you quantify that?
And in 2006 the Democrats took over control of the House, giving them unfettered control of Congress.
They can only get away with that once, can't they? But it's always good to make sure they are doing what the "money" people want, and not what their constituents want. I don't really have a problem with someone who listens to constituents instead of sticking to a position that might not have been well thought out - or might be a problem with changing circumstances. Stubborness is not always a virtue.
Bombs are one thing, insults are another. Perhaps you don't get people to engage with you because your posting style is that of an abrasive, arrogant twit lacking depth?Itching to get into it with me? I made no offensive directed at you, or at anybody here personally.
After all, there usually is two sides to a story. Consider that.
Itching to get into it with me? I made no offensive directed at you, or at anybody here personally.
I take it you are not equipped to deal with the substance and depth of my remarks, hence you slither into the personal.
I do enjoy throwing bombs. Often intended to make one consider something differently.
But that isn't fertile ground, on conservative interwebs.
As long as it is in a reasonable consistent direction. When Republicans flop on positions that make no sense, that's usually a sign of money driving their votes.
So what you are saying is that the Clinton impeachment had an 8-year delayed effect?
The effect wasn't delayed - it is a not unreasonable position to take that GWB did not win the 2000 election - by 2006 the GOP had simply accumulated so many stupid pony tricks - like impeaching Clinton - that it essentially gave the democrats supermajority control of Congress in 2006.
And now, after having finally overcome a lot of that idiocy, the GOP wants to wade right back in there and do it again.
Impeachment does not happen unless there is bipartisan support for it and there will never be bipartisan support to impeach Obuttocks. Not. Ever. Period. Impeaching Obuttocks would be the surest way of guaranteeing that President Clinton will have a solid democrat-dominated Congress when she takes office Jan. 20, 2017.
I maintain that the failure to get political closure on Clinton benefited the GOP in 2000. If there is widespread public outcry for impeachment, blocking it will be a political liability for the Democrats. There is already a vast amount of discontent with OPapaDoc. He is more unpopular than Carter. Once irrefutable evidence of his crimes is public knowledge there will be public support for impeachment. At that point, the GOP would benefit from pursuing it and forcing the Dems to block.
We aren't there yet, but we may be by this coming winter.
If they keep goin' the way they're goin', the Republicans are on the verge of transforming into "a party about nothing"....
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party...Not true.
Not true.
True of some Republicans, but not all.
Most?I wouldn't know. I can speak only of what I know - something some people need to consider.
I maintain that the failure to get political closure on Clinton benefited the GOP in 2000. If there is widespread public outcry for impeachment, blocking it will be a political liability for the Democrats. There is already a vast amount of discontent with OPapaDoc. He is more unpopular than Carter. Once irrefutable evidence of his crimes is public knowledge there will be public support for impeachment. At that point, the GOP would benefit from pursuing it and forcing the Dems to block.
We aren't there yet, but we may be by this coming winter.
If that is so, then the republic is lost.
Thank you for making my point: "If there is widespread public outcry for impeachment ..."
That there never will be. Period.
If that is so, then the republic is lost.
If the American people are so ignorant as to not realize the blatant wrongdoing that has gone on here, then there is no hope for this country.
Period.
Failing to impeach Obuttocks is hardly the end of the world, let alone the country. After 2016 Obuttocks will be history. There's no point in spending - wasting - so much time and effort on him. Time and effort should be spent on dealing with the democrat parasites who will still be around sucking the country's blood after the upcoming 2014 elections and then the 2016 elections.
In point of fact, impeaching Obuttocks would, as they say, suck all of the political oxygen out of the Congress and make it impossible to continue the investigations into the IRS, etc. Losing those investigations would be a lot worse than not getting the chance to impeach Obuttocks.
Aye, the end is near, because an entertainer has directed the time has come to impeach the President, with zero chance of completing said political action (takes 2/3 of the Senate).
The truth is Obama is a lame duck already, assuming the GOP takes the Senate, which is more likely without pointless talk of impeachment.
Politics is more difficult than it appears on the simple surface. Even the best and the heroes stumble (Reagan, Clinton Obama).
The GOP will have enough votes to impeach in the Senate next January.Are you telling me that the GOP will control 2/3 of the Senate after the November elections?
I understand not wanting to do it....but how much damage are we going to endure, running out the clock on this guy?
The effect wasn't delayed - it is a not unreasonable position to take that GWB did not win the 2000 election - by 2006 the GOP had simply accumulated so many stupid pony tricks - like impeaching Clinton - that it essentially gave the democrats supermajority control of Congress in 2006.
And now, after having finally overcome a lot of that idiocy, the GOP wants to wade right back in there and do it again.
Impeachment does not happen unless there is bipartisan support for it and there will never be bipartisan support to impeach Obuttocks. Not. Ever. Period. Impeaching Obuttocks would be the surest way of guaranteeing that President Clinton will have a solid democrat-dominated Congress when she takes office Jan. 20, 2017.
Are you telling me that the GOP will control 2/3 of the Senate after the November elections?
Because if you are, I want some of the stuff you are smoking.
Read "Process"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Process
"Not ALL of them are traitorous bastards."
ahem...shall we say 90% are?
These traitorous bastards stick together like glue.
Make that 95% and I challenge anyone to find the 5% that aren't.
I believe most of them are cowered by fear. Fear not only of loss of their career, but with this crew....their financial ruin and even their life.We'll see DC.
Once the November elections are behind us, some will find the courage to speak out "ENOUGH!"
And impeachment takes place in the House of Representatives! What might or might not happen in the Senate after that action has taken place should not be of any consideration what-so-ever to a member of the house who, acting on principle, votes to impeach!
What good is impeaching 0bama if there's no hope of a conviction?
There are better ways to stand on principle, particularly using that time and effort to get some legislation actually passed. And that could be done with a simple majority in the Senate, which might well be the case after next Jan. 20th.
The fact that you stood on principle and did what needed doing would speak VOLUMES in the long run!
I repeat, There are better ways to stand on principle. Using your time and energy to actually accomplish something is more meaningful than just empty bluster.
The fact that you stood on principle and did what needed doing would speak VOLUMES in the long run!Run by us the House leaders of Clinton's impeachment proceedings. How did they benefit in the long run?
If that is so, then the republic is lost.
If the American people are so ignorant as to not realize the blatant wrongdoing that has gone on here, then there is no hope for this country.
Period.
Run by us the House leaders of Clinton's impeachment proceedings. How did they benefit in the long run?
Bob Barr, Rogan, etc.
Did the GOP pick up or lose seats, in the very next election?
Lost them! But the fact that you have bought in to the MSM spin that it was due to the Clinton impeachment does not make it so!! It was not!
Republicans ALWAYS loose when no one can distinguish the difference between them and the democrats!
Here's one towards that 5%.
Democratic congressman Henry Cuellar ripped President Obama for being "aloof" and "detached" by not visiting the Texas border to see first hand the immigration crisis. Cuellar made the comments on MSNBC:
Only 21 more to go...in the house.
The fact that you stood on principle and did what needed doing would speak VOLUMES in the long run!
... I am a pretty fierce critic of the president myself, but let me be among the first to say that Republicans would be insane to follow Ms. Palin’s counsel. Mr. Obama would never be forced from office, the effort would do tremendous damage to the GOP and conservatism, and it would further rend the nation, all on behalf of a campaign whose end result would produce … President Joe Biden? ...More (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/09/why-republicans-should-ignore-palins-call-to-impeach-obama/)
It has been a while since former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) embarrassed herself, but staying out of the news isn't good for her livelihood, which relies on lucrative speeches, television appearances and a regular stream of news accounts of her Facebook posts where she offers up her special brand of leadership. So since things have been a bit quiet for her, this week she insisted that everyone who resists impeaching President Obama must go. In her words, "we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment," and this other choice sentence: "Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'No mas.' Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. It's time to impeach." She surely didn't want you to miss her slap at Latino battered wives while she accused the president of the United States of intentionally creating a humanitarian crisis involving more than 70,000 people.More (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/211979-palin-the-constitutional-expert)