Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

Who is Odumbo?

You lie when you say or insinuate such, LL. And my full statement -- in context -- directly refutes your lie regarding impeaching Odumbo, LL, just as the Founding Fathers and Rehnquist refute your interpretation of the Constitution.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is that the only way you can appear correct is to cherry-pick words out of context .... Is this thread about impeaching Bush (either one), Clinton (either one), or the "next" President? Please recall I didn't begin this thread and your "beginning" post was as I quoted ... the full text.

I have been consistent that the House has limitations on its ability to indict with Articles of Impeachment, and you, IBH, have consistently claimed the House as "full discretion" ... so if you weren't talking about THE PRESIDENT ....

.............who have you been arguing about for days!

Romney if he gets elected .... after all he's "white"?????\

IBH: "IMO if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach." #12

There is a distinction between "wanting" to do something and "refraining" from doing it for whatever reason. The most common area in which the two are separated in a legal context is criminal law. For the most part in this country we do not prosecute for "wanting" to commit a crime, we prosecute for "acting" on the "want." The expression of the "want" to do it is often used to prove the intent to do the crime or in some instances to add to the circumstantial evidence to prove that person did.

Your expression of wanting to impeach Obaminable supported by your obsessive argument throughout this thread that "Congress" has the "full discretion" without SCOTUS supervision to impeach for whatever the Congress wants to impeach AND your various references throughout the thread that Obaminable has committed acts justifying an impeachment.

Otherwise your days of struggling to prove the "full discretion" of Congress (since Obaminable has not committed any "criminal' acts ... a violation of a criminal statute ..... like Judge Nixon (in the case .. Judge) did) to justify and support the "full discretion" of Congress to impeach him.... is just a bunch of hot air. You have done that before.

Enjoy your holidays and your new friend, WTF.

BTW: Do you assert that Bush "LIED' ABOUT WMD'S"?

It's OK, LLIdiot. You made him, you supported him, you raised him.

YOU KEEP HIM!

Enjoy your holidays and your new friend, WTF.
? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Lol...you seem desperate LL. I consider I B a good guy just as I consider you a good guy. That I do not agree with either of you at all times does not preclude me from being friends or friendly.

Obama is not white and if you look at what IB has written you would be able to see that he clearly does not want to impeach a black President Obama at this point in time in the history of the Republic. That was all i tried pointing out to you. Some posters in this thread thought it a good idea, IB was not one of them . When you post that he wanted to you are mistaken.You are compounding that mistake by distorting his words .

Lol...you seem desperate LL. I consider I B a good guy just as I consider you a good guy. That I do not agree with either of you at all times does not preclude me from being friends or friendly.

Obama is not white and if you look at what IB has written you would be able to see that he clearly does not want to impeach a black President Obama at this point in time in the history of the Republic. That was all i tried pointing out to you. Some posters in this thread thought it a good idea, IB was not one of them . When you post that he wanted to you are mistaken.You are compounding that mistake by distorting his words . Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, I clearly understood that he wanted to impeach Obaminable, but he would refrain from doing so because of the political backlash of attempting to impeach a black person (in this case the "first Black President."

Now just because you interpret what he said differently and he now claims otherwise does not make me a "liar" ... now does it? (Perhaps I am asking the wrong person!).

Let me explain it this way ..

Do you want to hit a hole in one at the golf course?

(Be careful with your answers, I'll ask The Lama, if he ain't watching now!)

It's OK, LLIdiot. You made him, you supported him, you raised him.

YOU KEEP HIM! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Wrong Sherlock. I suspect I got my nuts cut before he was conceived.

In fact that is exactly why I did. So, I wouldn't be blamed for mistakes.

Besides, you should be proud of him .....

He really doesn't want to impeach Obaminable, because Obaminable is not White, but if Obaminable ever turns White he will want to impeach him then of course, so long as he turns White while still President, and in the meantime he is going to spend days arguing about the "full discretion" of the Congress to impeach Obaminable in the event Obaminable turns White while President so that he will want to impeach him......!!!

I think I can hear Gruber saying .... Amen Brother!

Is that the only way you can appear correct is to cherry-pick words out of context .... Is this thread about impeaching Bush (either one), Clinton (either one), or the "next" President? Please recall I didn't begin this thread and your "beginning" post was as I quoted ... the full text.

I have been consistent that the House has limitations on its ability to indict with Articles of Impeachment, and you, IBH, have consistently claimed the House as "full discretion" ... so if you weren't talking about THE PRESIDENT ....

.............who have you been arguing about for days!

Romney if he gets elected .... after all he's "white"?????\

IBH: "IMO if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach." #12

There is a distinction between "wanting" to do something and "refraining" from doing it for whatever reason. The most common area in which the two are separated in a legal context is criminal law. For the most part in this country we do not prosecute for "wanting" to commit a crime, we prosecute for "acting" on the "want." The expression of the "want" to do it is often used to prove the intent to do the crime or in some instances to add to the circumstantial evidence to prove that person did.

Your expression of wanting to impeach Obaminable supported by your obsessive argument throughout this thread that "Congress" has the "full discretion" without SCOTUS supervision to impeach for whatever the Congress wants to impeach AND your various references throughout the thread that Obaminable has committed acts justifying an impeachment.

Otherwise your days of struggling to prove the "full discretion" of Congress (since Obaminable has not committed any "criminal' acts ... a violation of a criminal statute ..... like Judge Nixon (in the case .. Judge) did) to justify and support the "full discretion" of Congress to impeach him.... is just a bunch of hot air. You have done that before.

Enjoy your holidays and your new friend, WTF.

BTW: Do you assert that Bush "LIED' ABOUT WMD'S"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Founding Father's intent was expressed in the Constitution: "Congress has the 'sole power' to impeach" with no recourse through judicial review. Rehnquist reiterated that fact in Nixon, LL. And I explicitly stated that I was against impeaching the Odumbo that presently resides in the WH, because it would be harmful to the Republic, LL. You are the one who dissembles, LL, and what Bush43 did in Iraq is irrelevant to both the OP and your cause, LL.

Actually, I clearly understood that he wanted to impeach Obaminable, but he would refrain from doing so because of the political backlash of attempting to impeach a black person (in this case the "first Black President."

Now just because you interpret what he said differently and he now claims otherwise does not make me a "liar" ... now does it? (Perhaps I am asking the wrong person!).

Let me explain it this way ..

Do you want to hit a hole in one at the golf course?

(Be careful with your answers, I'll ask The Lama, if he ain't watching now!) Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're a liar, LL, and every time you stated or implied that I was for impeaching the Odumbo that currently resides in the WH, you lied, LL. You cited post #12 to back up your POV, and post #12 explicitly and unequivocally states that I am against impeaching Odumbo because there can be no political reward for doing so.

You're a liar, LL, and every time you stated or implied that I was for impeaching the Odumbo that currently resides in the WH, you lied, LL. You cited post #12 to back up your POV, and post #12 explicitly and unequivocally states that I am against impeaching Odumbo because there can be no political reward for doing so. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You have reading comprehension problems ...

.... not to mention your mouth overriding your ass!

Since you have redefined the meaning of "lie" ... live with it.

Pretend you are a "winner" on a hooker board and pat yourself on the back.

In the meantime, try to figure out why you argued for days and pages of posts trying to prove something could be done that you now claim you didn't "want" to do. Go ahead, and sell that to Gruber's Flock. "Founding Fathers"? ... they'd be pissed at you!

IBH .. you are an intellectual lightweight. An amateur ... Enjoy yourself, because the only one who is outdoing you in the "I have the authority" department is Obaminable, who you would advocate impeaching if he were White. Like I said .... you want to impeach him, but he's the wrong color! And you call me a "Liar" ... you aren't even honest with yourself.

BTW: One does not initiate impeachment proceedings because there is "political reward" for doing so. Impeachment is to "get rid of the no good bastard" who committed one of the "offenses" for which articles of impeachment may be issued after a vote by the House.

You have reading comprehension problems ...

.... not to mention your mouth overriding your ass!

Since you have redefined the meaning of "lie" ... live with it.

Pretend you are a "winner" on a hooker board and pat yourself on the back.

In the meantime, try to figure out why you argued for days and pages of posts trying to prove something could be done that you now claim you didn't "want" to do. Go ahead, and sell that to Gruber's Flock. "Founding Fathers"? ... they'd be pissed at you!

IBH .. you are an intellectual lightweight. An amateur ... Enjoy yourself, because the only one who is outdoing you in the "I have the authority" department is Obaminable, who you would advocate impeaching if he were White. Like I said .... you want to impeach him, but he's the wrong color! And you call me a "Liar" ... you aren't even honest with yourself.

BTW: One does not initiate impeachment proceedings because there is "political reward" for doing so. Impeachment is to "get rid of the no good bastard" who committed one of the "offenses" for which articles of impeachment may be issued after a vote by the House. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're the "intellectual lightweight", and you're the liar, LL. You demonstrate you do not have a grasp of the impeachment process spelled out in the Constitution when imagine that impeachment is something more than a "political process" that falls entirely within the domain of Congress, LL. You out of hand, and dishonestly, dismissed Justice Story's interpretation -- no judicial review -- as irrelevant, though Joseph's words were employed during impeachment proceedings against both Johnson and Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator. Further, Hildabeast was herself using Story to create a case against President Nixon before he resigned, LL; so, you're the intellectual miscreant that has either "reading problems" or "comprehension problems", LL. And like Story, Rehnquist emphatically reiterated that the Founding Fathers left the impeachment process, LL, and the Constitution clearly declares that the House has the 'sole power' to define what is "high crimes and misdemeanors" without judicial review; not you, LL, or any justice sitting on the bench. BTW, LL, where did I unequivocally state that I wanted to impeach the Odumbo sitting in the WH or where I stated that impeachment of the Odumbo actually sitting in the WH would positively serve the best interests of this Republic?

Now just because you interpret what he said differently and he now claims otherwise does not make me a "liar" ... now does it? !) Originally Posted by LexusLover

If Dorothy Monroe thought you were LE and posted as much ....would she be a liar? Lying? Mistakenly telling a lie?

If after IB has told you your interpretation is wrong but you keep repeating it....that seems like lying to me.

If Dorothy Monroe thought you were LE and posted as much ....would she be a liar? Lying? Mistakenly telling a lie?

If after IB has told you your interpretation is wrong but you keep repeating it....that seems like lying to me. Originally Posted by WTF

For a little while I thought you were genuinely "concerned" that Dorthy_Monroe was posting dangerous accusations about people, i.e. me. And I was going to thank you for your continued inquiry, which resulted in her implied admission of calling me LE. I still will express my appreciation for being a "stand up' guy ....

I believe IBH, along with you, were calling me a liar and I pointed out repeatedly the language upon which I based my opinion and the FACT that he spent DAYS asserting the Congress had "full discretion" to impeach on any basis it wanted to impeach without Court supervision.

That may be a mistaken belief, but that is not a lie. When IBH keeps hounding about it being a lie, just like he does about other shit, I will repeat the basis for my opinion.

More importantly, you example is apples and napalm. Accusing someone of being LE on any hooker board subjects that person to outrageous and unnecessary risk of physical harm and/or loss of life. You should know that, and I think you do. Dorthy_Monroe is a piece of trash.

As you know, I have always contended that an opinion based upon information that may be subject to different interpretations is not a lie. As the old example goes ... 5 people witnessing an intersectional collision will most likely give 5 different versions of the event ... even though some versions may seem similar in some aspects.

I asked you about a "hole in one" .. i didn't see your answer.

My assumption is that you "want" to make a hole in one. My assumption also is that you perceive that is difficult to accomplish at least. Also, it is my assumption that if you actually tried to make one the "risk" of doing so might result in you not even making par on the hole. But all of that doesn't mean you don't want to make one.

The distinction with DM is apparent on several levels. She started calling me a liar about meeting her as well as her being "overweight." Like you, I caught her changing what she had posted in order to change the truth!

DM has done what is often done on here in this forum.... changing "overweight" to claiming I called her "fat" ... I did not.

Again, I appreciated your efforts in the DM thread and hope your use of that information in this thread was not the basis for your efforts. If it were, then my appreciation is dampened to say least, because it would indicate a lack of sincerity on your part regarding some outrageous accusations being made for purely and obviously vindictive reasons: because I called her "overweight" (which she is) so she wants to put cross-hairs on me.

It is because the democrats are so partisan. They won't vote to convict a democrat even if the witnesses and video show the absolute truth. Notice how the DNA on the blue dress lied? Remember, it was the GOP who went to Nixon and said time to go. Can you imagine the democrats going to someone like Clinton and saying the same thing? Oh yeah, here it is;



They ALL went to the White House and told Clinton his ass was covered.

For a little while I thought you were genuinely "concerned" that Dorthy_Monroe was posting dangerous accusations about people, i.e. me. And I was going to thank you for your continued inquiry, which resulted in her implied admission of calling me LE. I still will express my appreciation for being a "stand up' guy ....
. Originally Posted by LexusLover

No need for thanks....what she had done and was trying to cover up was total bullshit.

I believe IBH, along with you, were calling me a liar and I pointed out repeatedly the language upon which I based my opinion and the FACT that he spent DAYS asserting the Congress had "full discretion" to impeach on any basis it wanted to impeach without Court supervision.



. Originally Posted by LexusLover

After you opinion was pointed out as incorrect , you then become a liar by repeating it. That was what I pointed out.

That may be a mistaken belief, but that is not a lie. When IBH keeps hounding about it being a lie, just like he does about other shit, I will repeat the basis for my opinion.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

A mistaken belief is a lie. It does not mean the person with the mistaken belief is a liar unless they repeat the mistaken belief after knowing it if mistaken.