Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't think that obstructing a harmful agenda is a bad idea.
That it's harmful is only our opinion.
And I have a right to it, don't I? What's the alternative? You get to decide what is actually harmful and what isn't and make it illegal to oppose things you don't think are harmful? That seems a bit overboard, right? So how about accepting that it's perfectly legitimate for those who oppose given political actions to... well... oppose them.
Quote:
The president is our elected leader. You don't see any problem with another law-maker making bogus impeachment attempts to, admittedly, hinder our governmental process?
Did he make an "impeachment attempt"? I thought that what happened was a random person in a crowd asked him about whether or not it would slow down the Obama agenda if we impeached him, and the congressman said "yeah, it would tie up his agenda" (or something like that). Get back to me when he files articles of impeachment and calls for a vote or something. Absent that, this is just him answering a question, not some broad statement of intent.
Quote:
That's pretty cheesy, even for politicians.
What was he supposed to do? Fall over himself insisting to one of his constituents that it would be wrong to impeach the president because there isn't sufficient cause and it would be inappropriate to do so just to slow down his agenda? Or should he just kinda go with the question, get some laughs from the crowd, and move on? This is only even a deal at all because there's a liberal movement out there that apparently does nothing at all but scan every blog, news story, and event to try to find something which can be twisted around in a negative way against Republicans and/or Conservatives.
It's literally much ado about nothing.