Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Working 1 to 5

Comments Filter:
  • If Bush43 had pulled something as asinine as ObamaCare, they'd've impeach not only him, but Bush41 as well.

    Are you kidding? Bush wouldn't have been impeached for it; they would have built statues in his honor in front of every insurance building in the country. Then the other business leaders would have lined up at the same trough upon realizing that he had brought about the greatest big business handout in the history of history.

    • Are you kidding?

      Are you serious that you thought I was serious that not only '43, but '41 would have been impeached? Seriously?

      • Are you kidding?

        Are you serious that you thought I was serious that not only '43, but '41 would have been impeached? Seriously?

        Considering conservatives only occasionally and transiently acknowledge the fact that the 43rd presidency happened, it is often more reasonable to assume that when you say "President Bush" you are referring to the senior. Furthermore as you are an open advocate for extralegal removal of the current sitting POTUS, it is not at all unreasonable to expect you to be an open advocate for extreme revisionist history as well.

        I fully expect that if you were to somehow remove the records of both presidents Bush

        • Furthermore as you are an open advocate for extralegal removal of the current sitting POTUS

          So, you're back to your making-stuff-up hobby horse again? YOUR bad.

          • Furthermore as you are an open advocate for extralegal removal of the current sitting POTUS

            So, you're back to your making-stuff-up hobby horse again? YOUR bad.

            Your favorite conspiracy theory is Benghazi.

            You believe against fact that the POTUS had an active hand in the failures of that night.

            You continue to parrot the lie about how you can somehow provide "justice" by removing the POTUS.

            You continue to ignore two independent reports on the incident with the insistence that only an "investigation" - which ends in the removal of the POTUS of course - is capable of providing "justice" or "truth".

            There is nothing made up there. Those statements all come from

            • Your favorite conspiracy theory is Benghazi.

              It's so hard to pick favorites. Which is why I don't. But, to take a slice of the list, I'd have to rank the IRS scandal above Benghazi. Sure, being dishonest and circling the wagons on Benghazi probably affected the 2012 elections, and helped ensure that the ObamaCare wrecking ball would give the economy a good shagging. So there's that. But the long term, iron-rod weaponization of the IRS against American citizens? Any reasonable observer should be able to see that the IRS targeting of conservative groups

              • Your favorite conspiracy theory is Benghazi.

                It's so hard to pick favorites. Which is why I don't. But, to take a slice of the list, I'd have to rank the IRS scandal above Benghazi.

                Based on your posts, it would seem reasonable to assume that the Benghazi nontroversy occupies much more of your thoughts than the IRS nontroversy. You seldom seem to go more than 10 posts on anything without mentioning Benghazi, you can go weeks without bringing up the IRS.

                But the long term, iron-rod weaponization of the IRS against American citizens?

                Are you attempting a sojourn into comedy here?

                Any reasonable observer should be able to see that the IRS targeting of conservative groups is a far more diabolical precedent

                If that indeed was what they were doing, it could be. Strangely enough you seem to have completely overlooked the function of the IRS here. In case you have forgotten, the IRS exists to

                • You seem to be interested in moving us in the direction of an absolute monarchy

                  That is a very bizarre argument coming from someone who is opposed to the direct election of senators and governors by citizens.

                  Does your non-grasp of Federalism indicate that you haven't understood the systemic issues brought on by our Progressive collapse, or are you merely attempting humor?

                  I dare to point out that your dream of throwing President Lawnchair out with force

                  Your insatiable need to mis-represent what I have posted here or anywhere else on the internet is its own laugh track. You stay funny, girl.

                  • You seem to be interested in moving us in the direction of an absolute monarchy

                    That is a very bizarre argument coming from someone who is opposed to the direct election of senators and governors by citizens.

                    Does your non-grasp of Federalism

                    You can come up with whatever excuse you want for reducing the amount of public involvement in federal government, but that doesn't make it a good idea. I'm willing to bet you $5 right now that if the GOP takes back the senate in the 2014 midterm election you'll be one of many starting to pretend that you never proposed doing such a thing.

                    I dare to point out that your dream of throwing President Lawnchair out with force

                    Your insatiable need to mis-represent what I have posted here or anywhere else

                    You cannot impeach the president over what happened in Benghazi. There is no indication anywhere that there is any such evidence that it can be done under the confines

                    • reducing the amount of public involvement in federal government

                      There has simply never been a finer dodge in the annals of Progressive collapse into authoritarianism. Boss, you not only nailed that one out of the park, you blew away the stadium with it. Adhering to your ideas, I'm sure we can eventually attain Soviet levels of public involvement in elections. You're such an artist.

                    • You cannot impeach the president over what happened in Benghazi.

                      As though you have a clue [tbo.com]. But keep repeating the talking points, little tool.

                    • reducing the amount of public involvement in federal government

                      There has simply never been a finer dodge in the annals of Progressive collapse into authoritarianism.

                      Exactly WTF are you talking about? You are the one advocating for less public participation. You want more people involved in the creation of legislation who are not in any way beholden to the people or the will of the same. The authoritarian in this discussion is YOU.

                      Furthermore, I will again state my thesis that if the GOP held the senate you would not be calling for this, and if the GOP takes the senate in the 2014 elections you will be backpedaling furiously on this matter.

                    • You cannot impeach the president over what happened in Benghazi.

                      (editorial link)

                      OK, you found someone who wants President Lawnchair out as much as you do, but was willing to state their grievances on the editorial page of a newspaper in Florida. Bravo.

                      Now, if we were to dare suspect that you might have actually read it before linking to it (a rather daring assumption with you, but we'll try it here), please enlighten us with:

                      • Which of these are impeachable offenses?
                      • Why do questions like "how did XYZ make her feel" even matter?
                      • How would you decide if you had an adequate answer to a
                    • Arguing that "more votes==better", architectural side-effects be damned, indicates that you've either not considered the point thoroughly, or you HAVE, and rendering the 57 states moot is part of your shiny plan.
                    • Arguing that "more votes==better", architectural side-effects be damned, indicates that you've either not considered the point thoroughly,

                      I happen to be fond of the idea of a representative democracy, where government represents the will of the people. Apparently you see that as a bad idea. Interesting that you levied no such complaints when your party controlled both houses of congress and held the white house simultaneously not too long ago and did whatever they wanted.

                      In other words, I am calling you insincere. Your silly closing line about

                      57 states

                      Does not help you to look like you are being reasonable.

                    • I happen to be fond of the idea of a representative democracy, where government represents the will of the people. Apparently you see that as a bad idea.

                      I've supported and defended the Constitution of the United States. A century back, it was hijacked by (possibly well-meaning) fools.
                      Given that you support BHO, I find you as insincere here as anywhere else.

                      57

                      I understand that a humor-ectomy is a requirement to join the Statist club, yes.

                    • I've supported and defended the Constitution of the United States.

                      But apparently, not the entire constitution. Were you sworn to defend the entire constitution, or were you given the option to only defend the parts you liked?

                      Given that you support BHO, I find you as insincere here as anywhere else.

                      If you would ever dare to break your standard MO and actually read my comments you would find that I oppose President Lawnchair at least as often in my posts here as I support him. Of course that kind of non-hyperpartisanship is not part of your game anymore.

                      57

                      I understand that a humor-ectomy is a requirement

                      Really? Considering how often you use things like that to try to make a factual point, i

                    • When have I not defended even the parts of the Constitution that I oppose, specifically?

                      you would find that I oppose President Lawnchair at least as often in my posts here as I support him

                      Keep in mind that I don't actually believe anything you write, as a result of your deliberate falsifications of what I have written. AFAICT, you're a sycophant given a pass to write sweet nothings like "President Lawnchair", while spending your little throne-sniffer days playing the "Nothing to see here, move along" card whenever any hint of actual discussion of his abdication of his Oath of Office comes up. One hopes yo

                    • When have I not defended even the parts of the Constitution that I oppose, specifically?

                      Being as you are supporting movements to overturn the 1st, 5th, 13th, 16th, 17th, and 22nd amendments at least in part, you are not defending the entire constitution. Considering you especially don't see the 5th as relevant to your political agenda, you are very much one who does not practice what he preaches regarding defending its ideals.

                      I don't actually believe anything you write

                      Then why do you bother responding to any of it at all?

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        Are you serious that you thought I was serious that not only '43, but '41 would have been impeached? Seriously?

        Ever heard of Poe's Law?

        You never can tell, with y'all.

You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone

Working...