do we keep him or not?

[waterdog101]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

[GeoFisher]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

Why make it out to be a "Bush" issue.

Bush has been out of office for 4 years, and out of power, in reality for 6.

In 4 years, (2 under bush, 2 under obama), the Democrats have had a super majority and basically accomplished NOTHING for the American public.

* Health care is still a mess.
* The economy is still a mess.
* Spending is still a mess.
* Transparency in politics is still a mess.
* Partisan politics are worse than they have ever been.
* Race relations are a mess.
* Gubment entitlements are at an all time high.

There are many other things on this list...but since I agree with those, I will leave them alone.

So yea, throw his good for nothing, sorry butt out.

Let someone else take the heat for a while.

I will tell you this.........If we don't get a politician in office, WHO can bring both sides together, and MAKE **** happen, we're in for years and years of this.

Finally, in my opinion, Obama will go down in history as the single worst president in the history of this great nation.

[bassin_bug]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

Whether to re-elect Obama is a no-brainer. Why would a suffering person want to continue in his pain and misery? It's idiotic to continue chewing the same old roadkill and keep blaming Bush. Each president must stand or fall on his own actions. Just grow some balls and admit that Obama will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the United States has ever had. I didn't vote for Obama the first time and won't do it this time.

[DJD]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

Hahaha I'll take this post as a jab at anyone who considers themselves a conservative! So I'll lean back, side step it and just ask you point blank.....do you like the potus and his accomplishments, vision and policies to re-elect him?
I don't.

[Chubminnow]

In my opinion...I'd say judging from the lack of postive and forward moving leadership he has shown...and the financial damage he has done to this great country of our's, I'm saying dump him ASAP!!

[Tom523]

In my opinion...I'd say judging from the lack of postive and forward moving leadership he has shown...and the financial damage he has done to this great country of our's, I'm saying dump him ASAP!!

We may not get the chance to dump him if Issa gets the documents he wants through a court order, Obama may be impeached.

[GeoFisher]

We may not get the chance to dump him if Issa gets the documents he wants through a court order, Obama may be impeached.

I think THAT is where this is all going, but I believe the Justice department has already stated they will not investigate Holder.

I'm SICK of Obama, I'm sick of Holder, I'm Sick of Pelosi, I'm sick of Harry Reid.

I'm SICK of every **** democrat on the hill.

Later,

Geo

[RoadToad]

We may not get the chance to dump him if Issa gets the documents he wants through a court order, Obama may be impeached.

For what??? Issa himself has said that he has no evidence whatsoever that Holder know about Fast & Furious ahead of time, or that he did anything but the right thing when he learned about it. The documents are internal to the Justice Dept, and have to do with them formulating their responses to Congress. So are you saying that somewhere in there is evidence that Obama had some involvement, and that whatever it was is impeachable? HOGWASH. Holder would have asserted executive privilege himself, except for the fact that Ronald Reagan said that any claim of executive privilege had to be authorized by the White House. That's the only reason Obama has to be involved. Issa's claim that the fact that Obama has asserted executive privilege shows he's involved is crazy, and ignores the legal precedents set ever since Reagan was in office.

Hate Obama for ObamaCare; I won't (can't) defend him there. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that it's Constitutional, but I also agree that, as Roberts all but came out and said when rendering the decision, it's BAD POLICY. But what's going on now over Fast & Furious is nothing but Republicans pandering to their base, and it's disgusting. It proves that they're more interested in slinging mud than in doing the work of the people.

[Tom523]

For what??? Issa himself has said that he has no evidence whatsoever that Holder know about Fast & Furious ahead of time, or that he did anything but the right thing when he learned about it. The documents are internal to the Justice Dept, and have to do with them formulating their responses to Congress. So are you saying that somewhere in there is evidence that Obama had some involvement, and that whatever it was is impeachable? HOGWASH. Holder would have asserted executive privilege himself, except for the fact that Ronald Reagan said that any claim of executive privilege had to be authorized by the White House. That's the only reason Obama has to be involved. Issa's claim that the fact that Obama has asserted executive privilege shows he's involved is crazy, and ignores the legal precedents set ever since Reagan was in office.

Hate Obama for ObamaCare; I won't (can't) defend him there. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that it's Constitutional, but I also agree that, as Roberts all but came out and said when rendering the decision, it's BAD POLICY. But what's going on now over Fast & Furious is nothing but Republicans pandering to their base, and it's disgusting. It proves that they're more interested in slinging mud than in doing the work of the people.

The republicans have been gathering evidence on Obama for awhile. There are two instances of bribing candidates not to run in an election by offering a higher paid position in the administration. One in Pennsylvania and one in Colorado that they have been holding in there hip pocket. Interference with a congressional investigation would be considered a high crime or misdemeanor. If evidence is uncovered that Fast and furious was started to give the administration support for stricter gun laws, which they kept hammering ("90% of the guns confiscated in Mexico came from U.S. gun dealers") while they were shipping guns to Mexico it could get ugly here in America. We all know that Obama and the majority of his advisers are from the most politically corrupt state in the union. It would be hard to believe that out of all the crooked politicians from Illinois that his group is squeaky clean.

[Chubminnow]

Despite as much as it's been in the news and talked about...for some reason I'm behind on what Fast and Fuurious is all about...can someone give it to me in laymen's terms (one sentence) that describes what Fast and Furious is? Judging from what I'm reading...it sounds like Fast and Furious is a way for the democrats to eliminate guns in the United States, is this true?

[RoadToad]

The republicans have been gathering evidence on Obama for awhile. There are two instances of bribing candidates not to run in an election by offering a higher paid position in the administration. One in Pennsylvania and one in Colorado that they have been holding in there hip pocket.

I hadn't heard of those, and I can't find anything with some quick google searches (not that that proves anything). Can you provide some links or something to back that up?

Interference with a congressional investigation would be considered a high crime or misdemeanor.

Yes it would. But there is ZERO evidence of that happening, and ZERO chance of Obama being impeached over Fast & Furious, just like there was no chance of George W. Bush being impeached any of the SIX TIMES he invoked executive privilege:

I. President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege in December 2001 to deny disclosure of sought details regarding FBI misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, former Attorney General Janet Reno, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton’s fundraising tactics.


II. In 2004Bush invoked executive privilege “in substance” in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President **** Cheney’s meetings with energy executives.


III. Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.


IV. On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld.


V. On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.


VI. On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President’s Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that “Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity”.


http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/exec...-obama-6-to-1/

[Tom523]

I hadn't heard of those, and I can't find anything with some quick google searches (not that that proves anything). Can you provide some links or something to back that up?


Yes it would. But there is ZERO evidence of that happening, and ZERO chance of Obama being impeached over Fast & Furious, just like there was no chance of George W. Bush being impeached any of the SIX TIMES he invoked executive privilege:

I. President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege in December 2001 to deny disclosure of sought details regarding FBI misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, former Attorney General Janet Reno, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton’s fundraising tactics.


II. In 2004Bush invoked executive privilege “in substance” in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President **** Cheney’s meetings with energy executives.




III. Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.


IV. On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld.


V. On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.


VI. On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President’s Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that “Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity”.


http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/exec...-obama-6-to-1/

You can't be impeached for invoking executive privilege but you can be for obstructing justice. Do you know what is in the documents that Issa wants and Obama invoked executive privilige on? No you don't and neither do I. If there is evidence that there was a cover up in an attempt to circumvent the congressional investigation he can be impeached. The interference of the election occurred when Bill Clinton representing the Obama administration offered a position in the administration to Arlen Specter's opponent if he would drop out of the race. I don't remember the names of the politician in Colorado. Presidents don't get impeached for invoking executive privilege. They get impeached for breaking the law.