Yeesh. Get a pamphlet press for that diatribey pablum, Mr. Upton Sinclair. I’m going to go take a shower now.
My fellow countrymen who are signing the petition are quite extraordinary in their approach to spelling, grammar and (my personal favorite) bizarre racist epithets.
Shall we now start the urban legend that the impeach Obama site is an Obama KGB infiltration site, devoted to collecting the names and internet addresses of rabid anti-Obama-istas for convenience in tracking them down later and putting them in the gulags.
All in favor?
How, you may ask, could we do this? I suggest the internet. We make a couple of emails to this point, mail them back and forth among ourselves to give them that done-been-forwarded look, and then let them loose on everyone we know. Alternatively, we tell 4chan.
“…You, on the other hand, have clearly been asleep for the last eight years…”
Nope, just an observer of the political scene for more than 50 years. Way back when one actually had to read to be informed, as opposed to now, when one relies on googling to support their position.
What other possibility is there? Bush said Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That statement was not correct. Either he was misled or he lied.
I never denied that he lied under oath. However, his lie was not relevant to anything. Virtually every President has cheated on his wife while in office. What makes Clinton so special?
What the fuck? Torture is okay? Invading a country that never attacked us is okay? Firing federal officials for not doing enough to prosecute Democrats is okay?
I didn’t know that Google could be used by illiterates. Tell me, are you this stupid and snobbish in real life, or do you play it on the Dope?
The underlying assumptions are that the public was actually misled and was not knowingly complicit, and that there were no WMDs. I excluded the possibility that either of those are not true, admittedly.
So, enlighten me. Which one is not true?
Damn-you’re shitting me? Fuck, some people have waaaaaay too much time on their hands.
At least they’ll probably be taken about as seriously as most of the yahoos on Free Republic. And the ones claiming that Obama is only rooting for the Steelers because they have a black coach. (See my thread here in the Pit)
Considering that we know that he made claims that are factually untrue, yes, that does cover all possible scenarios.
(bolding/redface mine)
Hence the “in my opinion” qualification, and I even admit there was, technically, a valid reason. Now what the possible relevance to asking a question about an adulterous sexual encounter with a consenting adult who had kept silent on the incident and did not dispute that it was consentual had to do with an investigation into a real estate deal years before or for that matter into national security is a completely other matter, hence the “bogus” in my opinion. I would have said the same thing if George Bush’s sex life or his purported cocaine use in the '70s (“I honestly can’t remember”- c’mon, that’s lame as “I didn’t inhale”) was called into question under oath- it’s simply a non issue in relation to his president.
If you’re implying that I think Bush’s willful lies to cause a war in which 4,200+ Americans and tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed (while allowing the Taliban, who most definitely had links to al-Qaeda, to regrow its hair in Afghanistan, where we DID have not only valid cause for war but could actually have made a positive difference) or that his culpability in presiding over and administration that outed CIA operatives/invaded the privacy of U.S. citizens for political purposes/advocated and lied about torture/ignored the Geneva POW Convention and the Constitution in dealing with prisoners/refused to hand over subpoenad documents on asinine grounds/refused to allow its members to be sworn under oath and on record in an investigation/funded mercenaries who committed war crimes/etc etc ad nauseum is worse than lying about committing adultery in terms of national consequence then yeah, you’re quite correct, though I doubt you don’t see the distinction as nobody that benighted could possibly type or even construct sentences.
This is an extraordinary claim.
There have been 43 men in the office. I’m not sure how many “virtually every” is in your view, but if the phrase is to have any meaning, you’ve made an utterly unsupportable claim.
I can’t think of a way to check for sure, but I’m pretty sure that I saw Bush impeachment stuff early on in his first term aimed at the “Bush stole the election” crowd.
The phenomenon precedes the Clinton impeachment hearings (though that certainly increased its popularity, I think). I remember seeing Clinton impeachment stuff aimed at dittoheads around 1994 or so.
Well, I guess it depends on the definition of “cheating”. Someone once told me that, strictly speaking, “do you want to fuck?” can be regarded as sexual intercourse. When I suggested that he was confusing “discourse” with “intercourse”, he told me to fuck off.
Well, it could be a simple question seeking only information about someone’s mental and emotional well-being. Amongst us monkeys, the answer usually lies somewhere between “Well. yes, rather” to “God, yes! Yes, yes, yes, oh, God, YES!”
I mean, it doesn’t *necessarily *infer a willingness to participate.
We have been over this and over this. If I say “x is true” and it turns out that x is not true, that does not mean that I lied.
Yeesh-classic Sampiro posting; you get paid by the word bub? This was of course just a long way of saying “I disagree with Bush’s policies.”
How gratifying to see you admit that the Bush Administration had a policy of lying, condoning torture and starting wars.
Which would fall under the latter case.
Did he kiss you after? 
Which brings us to the question of negligence. A President who makes a mistake in negotiations over international fishing rights is probably not a candidate for impeachment. A President who makes a mistake which results in the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might be.