I actually thought these were jokes when I first saw them, but apparently they’re selling well and the proprietors of the web sites seem, in many cases, to be completely serious. Clinton’s impeachment was bogus imo, but at least there was a “valid reason if you squint, stand back a way, and want him impeached” reason for it, but how the fuck can you talk about impeaching a man who was inaugurated last week?
And of course all manner of merchandise available for the googling.
How freaking lame and desperate can these people be? Dubya gave ample cause for impeachment proceedings and I wasn’t even in favor of them because I think it’s terrible international PR and should be reserved for absolute necessity.
Totally lame R.O., but still, just pissed me off a bit anyway, especially following Rush’s “Hope he fails” comments. Of course if he’s impeached it will be good news for the black conservative pundits who were all employed by CNN and FOX during the election and are now out of work (or at least media exposure) as they can get their special commentator status back so the networks can bash Obama without being accused of racism.
Haven’t Clinton and Bush made it rather traditional? Wouldn’t it be somewhat spooky if the current US prez, whomever it may be, didn’t have someone cheerleading for their impeachment?
ETA: and as for the timing, it’s all so they can say, ‘I was for impeachment back before it became cool’.
Yeah, there were quite a lot, but AFAIK it started no sooner than the latter days of his first term, perhaps even not until his second. At the point where Bush had, y’know, done stuff.
obamaimpeachment.org was registered on July 25th, 2008, which was a month before the convention, even.
Setting aside for a moment the apparent lack of any coherent grounds for impeachment of a President who’s occupied the seat for a almost a whole week, are these yo-yos saying they’d rather have President Biden instead?
That Impeach Obama site is calling for his expulsion from the Senate. Apparently it hasn’t been updated since the election. The operators’ heads exploded, prolly.
Clinton lied under oath. If that’s not grounds for impeachment, then what the hell is? Oh, right, having policies you disagree with (a la bush). :rolleyes:
Clinton lied about something that was none of anybody’s damn business anyway. And I think lying the country into a war is a bit more than a policy disagreement (which in any case isn’t his only offense).
It’s a fact that we invaded Iraq based on allegations of WMDs that weren’t there. There are essentially two possible scenarios- Bush knowingly misled the public (criminal), Bush unwittingly misled the public (possibly criminal).
Personally, I don’t believe there’s a case for impeachment, but I don’t believe that there isn’t cause for it.
You are an idiot. Lying under oath while president is lying under oath while president, I don’t care what it was about.
And it’s nice how in one post you illustrate the odd SDMB double standard on lying–Clinton’s lie was OK but you are willing to cry “lie” about anyone else without showing any actual intent to deceive.
So two versions of Bush misleading the public covers all possible scenarios? I don’t think you know what the logical fallacy of “false dichotomy” means.
This is The Pit, so I can admit to being really ticked off at this comment. I’ve been up for 16 hours, including 6 hours driving and most of the rest skiing, You, on the other hand, have clearly been asleep for the last eight years.