Missouri Rodeo Clown Dresses as Obama, Crowd goes Crazy.

[Vosem]

I'm sure if you dressed as a hated white politician (say Nancy Pelosi) and asked them if they would like to see her run over by a bull they would've reacted the same way.

I'm sure all these people are just patriots who disagree with Obama's economic and foreign policies.

Exactly.

Also, the level of bigotry and rude behavior against Obama is more than Bush ever got.

Before we even get to domestic opponents, Bush was actually the subject of a serious assassination attempt once, which hasn't happened to Obama. Bush's domestic opponents failed to acknowledge his legitimacy (while neither of Obama's elections were challenged), attempted  to impeach him in 2007 (which has never happened to Obama), and Bush's intelligence was mocked during his term far more than Obama's has been. Bush received way more sh**t than Obama has.

[Vosem]

attempted  to impeach him in 2007 (which has never happened to Obama),

Uh ... false?  Like I'm sure Kucinich or some other loon might have put in a bill, but there was absolutely no real movement among Democrats to try to impeach Bush.  On the other hand, half of the Tea Party representatives have openly tossed around the idea of impeaching Obama.

Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, which no Tea Party representatives have yet done. And don't tell me elected officials didn't openly toss about the idea of impeaching Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush#Political_views_and_actions

[Vosem]

attempted  to impeach him in 2007 (which has never happened to Obama),

Uh ... false?  Like I'm sure Kucinich or some other loon might have put in a bill, but there was absolutely no real movement among Democrats to try to impeach Bush.  On the other hand, half of the Tea Party representatives have openly tossed around the idea of impeaching Obama.

Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, which no Tea Party representatives have yet done. And don't tell me elected officials didn't openly toss about the idea of impeaching Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush#Political_views_and_actions

In the sense that Kucinich was an elected official, you are correct.  But you're blind if you think the "movement" to impeach Bush was bigger than the "movement" to impeach Obama.  Most Tea Party congressmen will openly discuss it, even if they aren't allowed to bring forth bills to do it.

Read the article, bro. You had Democrats in positions of leadership -- including the House Minority Leader, Pelosi herself -- saying impeachment was "on the table." Today, you have just some random TP backbenchers, most of which were elected in the past few elections and have little influence. Now, that said, Obama's still in his fifth year of office (at this stage in Bush's presidency, literally nobody was calling for impeachment yet), so perhaps the movement will get bigger. But it's absolutely undeniable, just by looking at the facts, that the movement to impeach Bush was far more serious than the one that currently exists against Obama.

gun control

Negative success with this one, since the only change of note has been allowing guns into national parks. Thankfully.

[Vosem]

attempted  to impeach him in 2007 (which has never happened to Obama),

Uh ... false?  Like I'm sure Kucinich or some other loon might have put in a bill, but there was absolutely no real movement among Democrats to try to impeach Bush.  On the other hand, half of the Tea Party representatives have openly tossed around the idea of impeaching Obama.

Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, which no Tea Party representatives have yet done. And don't tell me elected officials didn't openly toss about the idea of impeaching Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush#Political_views_and_actions

In the sense that Kucinich was an elected official, you are correct.  But you're blind if you think the "movement" to impeach Bush was bigger than the "movement" to impeach Obama.  Most Tea Party congressmen will openly discuss it, even if they aren't allowed to bring forth bills to do it.

Read the article, bro. You had Democrats in positions of leadership -- including the House Minority Leader, Pelosi herself -- saying impeachment was "on the table." Today, you have just some random TP backbenchers, most of which were elected in the past few elections and have little influence. Now, that said, Obama's still in his fifth year of office (at this stage in Bush's presidency, literally nobody was calling for impeachment yet), so perhaps the movement will get bigger. But it's absolutely undeniable, just by looking at the facts, that the movement to impeach Bush was far more serious than the one that currently exists against Obama.

gun control

Negative success with this one, since the only change of note has been allowing guns into national parks. Thankfully.

Impeachment is not the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Falling short of the expectations of voters is subjective. Violations of the law or failure to perform the duties of the President would be grounds for impeachment.

Obviously there weren't grounds to impeach Bush, and there aren't grounds to impeach Obama as yet (and no obvious grounds are on the horizon), but recently that doesn't stop people from spouting about it.

[Vosem]

attempted  to impeach him in 2007 (which has never happened to Obama),

Uh ... false?  Like I'm sure Kucinich or some other loon might have put in a bill, but there was absolutely no real movement among Democrats to try to impeach Bush.  On the other hand, half of the Tea Party representatives have openly tossed around the idea of impeaching Obama.

Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, which no Tea Party representatives have yet done. And don't tell me elected officials didn't openly toss about the idea of impeaching Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush#Political_views_and_actions

In the sense that Kucinich was an elected official, you are correct.  But you're blind if you think the "movement" to impeach Bush was bigger than the "movement" to impeach Obama.  Most Tea Party congressmen will openly discuss it, even if they aren't allowed to bring forth bills to do it.

Read the article, bro. You had Democrats in positions of leadership -- including the House Minority Leader, Pelosi herself -- saying impeachment was "on the table." Today, you have just some random TP backbenchers, most of which were elected in the past few elections and have little influence. Now, that said, Obama's still in his fifth year of office (at this stage in Bush's presidency, literally nobody was calling for impeachment yet), so perhaps the movement will get bigger. But it's absolutely undeniable, just by looking at the facts, that the movement to impeach Bush was far more serious than the one that currently exists against Obama.

Are you trolling?  Pelosi's phrase, in that Wikipedia page and everywhere else, was that impeachment was "off the table."  I honestly can't believe you simply made an error when you typed the she said it was "on the table."

...that has to be the single most embarrassing misreading I've made since the occasion in 7th grade Science when I misread "organism" as "orgasm". You're right, though.

But not about the fact at hand. John Conyers -- an extremely senior House Democrat -- introduced a resolution calling for an investigation of Bush that got more than 30 co-sponsors, some of whom were fairly senior Democrats (here's the list: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00635:@@@P ). The Tea Party has yet to try anything remotely similar.

Practically every Tea Party member of Congress hints at impeachment when they go home to Town Halls or when they appear on TV.  I don't know how you could miss that...

I agree, but the Democratic leadership in the House during Bush's second term was much more open to flirting with impeachment than the present Republican leadership. And even the Democratic 'weird backbenchers' of the time were more enthusiastic; Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced an actual resolution to impeach Bush, which the TP has yet to do. The Democratic movement to do so was clearly far more serious than the TP-ers are today.

attempted  to impeach him in 2007 (which has never happened to Obama),

Uh ... false?  Like I'm sure Kucinich or some other loon might have put in a bill, but there was absolutely no real movement among Democrats to try to impeach Bush.  On the other hand, half of the Tea Party representatives have openly tossed around the idea of impeaching Obama.

Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, which no Tea Party representatives have yet done. And don't tell me elected officials didn't openly toss about the idea of impeaching Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush#Political_views_and_actions

In the sense that Kucinich was an elected official, you are correct.  But you're blind if you think the "movement" to impeach Bush was bigger than the "movement" to impeach Obama.  Most Tea Party congressmen will openly discuss it, even if they aren't allowed to bring forth bills to do it.

Read the article, bro. You had Democrats in positions of leadership -- including the House Minority Leader, Pelosi herself -- saying impeachment was "on the table." Today, you have just some random TP backbenchers, most of which were elected in the past few elections and have little influence. Now, that said, Obama's still in his fifth year of office (at this stage in Bush's presidency, literally nobody was calling for impeachment yet), so perhaps the movement will get bigger. But it's absolutely undeniable, just by looking at the facts, that the movement to impeach Bush was far more serious than the one that currently exists against Obama.

gun control

Negative success with this one, since the only change of note has been allowing guns into national parks. Thankfully.

Impeachment is not the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Falling short of the expectations of voters is subjective. Violations of the law or failure to perform the duties of the President would be grounds for impeachment.

Obviously there weren't grounds to impeach Bush, and there aren't grounds to impeach Obama as yet (and no obvious grounds are on the horizon), but recently that doesn't stop people from spouting about it.

There simply weren't the votes.

That didn't stop the Democratic Party's left-wing from going ahead with multiple different resolutions to do it, which the TP has yet to attempt even once.

[Vosem]

Rep. Blake Farenthold (a real-life Congressman) says that a majority of the House would vote to impeach Obama.

http://newsone.com/2675245/impeach-obama-blake-farenthold/

Farenthold is a random junior backbencher talking out of his ass. John Conyers, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, an important member of House leadership, actually introduced a resolution that got 38 co-sponsors, including other influential Democratic House leaders. I think it's extremely clear that, at least as yet, the movement to impeach Obama has nowhere near the strength that the movement to impeach Bush did.

[Vosem]

They both have equal strength: nil. Conyers' effort was symbolic and if a Republican introduced an impeachment bill it would get way more than 38 co-sponsors. There was never any plausible effort to impeach Bush.

Rep. Blake Farenthold (a real-life Congressman) says that a majority of the House would vote to impeach Obama.

http://newsone.com/2675245/impeach-obama-blake-farenthold/

Farenthold is a random junior backbencher talking out of his ass. John Conyers, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, an important member of House leadership, actually introduced a resolution that got 38 co-sponsors, including other influential Democratic House leaders. I think it's extremely clear that, at least as yet, the movement to impeach Obama has nowhere near the strength that the movement to impeach Bush did.

But there hasn't even been a symbolic effort from Republicans. Doesn't that show something?

attempted  to impeach him in 2007 (which has never happened to Obama),

Uh ... false?  Like I'm sure Kucinich or some other loon might have put in a bill, but there was absolutely no real movement among Democrats to try to impeach Bush.  On the other hand, half of the Tea Party representatives have openly tossed around the idea of impeaching Obama.

Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, which no Tea Party representatives have yet done. And don't tell me elected officials didn't openly toss about the idea of impeaching Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush#Political_views_and_actions

Because you were apparently under age 12 at the time, allow me to assure you that Kucinich's motion got a blip on the nightly news and almost new Democrats or liberal groups (certainly none of note) backed it. If you weren't playing Pokeman at the time, you'd know this was an utter non-event.

In addition to the two separate resolutions that Kucinich introduced, John Conyers also introduced a resolution in 2005 that got 38 co-sponsors. Obviously it was symbolic, as Democrats were still in the minority at the time, but it shows that many key Democratic Party congressional leaders wanted to make impeachment of Bush a key goal going forward, which doesn't seem to be the case with today's Republican leadership. (Yes, you get random TP backbenchers, but even after Pelosi took impeachment off the table, you still had random Democratic backbenchers introducing/backing impeachment resolutions, which isn't the case with today's TP backbenchers).

Rep. Blake Farenthold (a real-life Congressman) says that a majority of the House would vote to impeach Obama.

http://newsone.com/2675245/impeach-obama-blake-farenthold/

But...but.....Kucinch! CONYERS!!

Yeah, in case you hadn't noticed Conyers (before even getting to his co-sponsors) was/is much more influential and went much farther than Farenthold. Completely correct.