Which is a near impossibility when the jury in this situation is as corrupt as the usurper whom they protect.
>>> Everyone who doesn’t agree with YOU is corrupt. <<<
What? WHAT!? Seriously, WTF?
How do you go from “people don’t agree with me” to “they are corrupt”?
[I realize you posted this to edge919, but the gap in logic here is inexcusable.]
So is the implicit assertion that America’s government *ISN’T* corrupt.
I mean how can you say that with a straight face? I mean yeah it’s not quite as blatant as Mexico’s corruption BUT at least Mexico has both the decency and humility to realize that there _is_ a corruption problem. If everyone arrogantly asserts America’s non-corruption as you do then I must say all is already lost, America is no longer great and is ready to fall utterly and completely.
A single instance of American corruption: the GM/Chrystler takeover. IT was *not* legal on the face of it, nor did it follow the legally required interactions with their bondholders. Another instance: TARP. A third: Obamacare (”we have to pass it in order to find out what’s in it!”). A Fourth: Dodd-Frank “financial reform.”
Dude, this was YOUR point, suggesting that Obama could be impeached. I'm simply pointing out that he can't when his own party has helped protect him. The 'jury' in this case would not be impartial. Do you comprehend the words that I'm typing or are you going to keep going all Drama Queen here??