Originally Posted by edlib
OK... say we were all suddenly to see the light and agree with you, Garf... Sooo... Then what?
I'm still unclear what pointing out the questionable past business practices of unelected appointed administration officials will ultimately prove.
Is it to remove this particular group of folks from office, and replace them all before they get a chance to even do anything? Or is the goal to eventually bring Impeachment charges against the whole administration?
If there's anything the last 16 years have proven, it's that impeachment is a highly unpopular process with the public. And I imagine it would be doubly (if not more) so with this particular president.
So what exactly is the point with all of this, except for publicly griping about the folks in power who's politics you don't happen to agree with?
I'm not pushing for impeachment unless it can be proved that he committed an impeachable offense, what I would like is for him to get new vetters for choosing appointees.
That said, if Obama committed bribery, then public opinion or no Public Opinion the Constitution defines it as an impeachable offense.
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
That's Garfy's M.O., ed. Pretty much every single post of his is some sort of fearmongering platform that he's found on or is basing off of his beloved conservative blogs. As can be expected, there is little to no logic used, and he is far too brainwashed to respond to reason.
Sorry if I'm not falling for the Obama is the second-coming garbage.