Obama impeachment in process

Discussion in 'Politics' started by IamJoseph, Aug 24, 2010.

  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well I am not so quick to write off Obama. One of the things that has impressed me with respect to the man is that he does learn. He is not a george II who does not learn or question his decisions.

    Ultimately time will tell how effective Obama has been and will be. He has made mistakes...most notably in trying to appease Republicans. But his presidency is not over.

    He has done more that Clinton or any other recent president in his first year in office. Let's see what he can do with his remaining 2.5 years in office.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    Wow, that is incredible. It was fun reading how you just kinda slipped right past the part of acknowledging that when someone mentions founding principles usually it means the DOI & Constitution by claiming that I am spinning. I love that how easily you just act as if you knew that all along.

    Additionally, I love the easy manner in which you walked right into the slavery reference and are now claiming that in fact you believe the document to be a pro slavery one. Imagine how much you fooled your cronies into thinking you have been on topic the entire time. But you are not fooling me.

    Also flattering yourself by insulting doesn't equate with intellectual superiority. I assure you it doesn't exist with you in reference to anyone else here. Read between the lines.

    Okay, so now that you are on topic with what I have said from the very beginning.

    Tell me how being endowed with certain unalienable rights such as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness hasn't been violated. Your focus needs to expand beyond republicans & democrats and obama & Bush, etc,, you know your usual bullshit. This isn't a temporary issue. It has been ongoing for years by all politicians.

    Within this violation comes the right to abolish the goverment. Yet you and others continue to desire it (the government). What are your thoughts when you hear the words secession and then tell me one of the founding principles aren't followed. Spare us the monologue about how me & my ilk would......... Get over yourself with this government and your love of it, it hasn't kept in line with it own laws for years.

    Tell me where is inference that it is my duty to pay for your health care? Note I gave you some latitude with this, I wrote inference. Tell me how this is line with my personal rights? Drop the fearmongering bullshit and actually answer those questions, and try to do so without the usual, well, republicans this and Bush that. Answer the fucking question as it relates to the founding documents that only you understand according to yourself!!

    I am certainly not blind to see that there were differences among the founders, but again those differences were nuanced version of freedom. Your attempt to is to make it out as if they debated socialist and capitalist principles and capitalism won out. Newsflash socialism was never seriously considered. Capitalism did win out the debate was over how much, not the alternative. For the morons out there who will say, b,b,b,b, but those terms weren't valid then. I know that as a matter of language but the ideas existed, they just weren't named as such at that time. So spare me the benign banner on this.

    Show me where slavery was sanctioned in the Constitution? Remember things were very nuanced at the time, and the goal was to create a country big & strong enough to stay intact. History is on my side when it comes to what many of the founders believed about slavery. Please, don't throw ownership of slaves as evidence against it. I am not blind to the dark side of this issue with respect to America. But at the same time, I also understand the history of slavery beyond its American version. Therefore my eyes don't bulge with rage like yours do when it is discussed.

    And, no joe slavery is not why the Civil War was fought. I certainly cannot deny its import, but to say it was why is just factually incorrect. It is also a nice attempt by some to curry favor with the African community, but it is disingenuous as at the time of slavery. Hatred was a national not political issue. Both sides own this. even if you refuse to see it. As the war went on, strategies to gain favor with slaves became more prominent. The end result was to lay claim that the purpose was to free slaves, but it certainly wasn't it initial purpose. And yet even that depends on which perspective you choose. Perhaps, for Lincoln it was an issue, but not the seminal issue. Certainly for the south, it wasn't the primary issue although one can certainly debate it as an ulterior motive.

    However, in any case, the fact that the issue remained unresolved at the time of the founding does not indicate that it was condoned constitutionally or culturally.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Here is the part you forgot or overlooked, how are the "founding principals" not being adhered too?

    I don't know what your point is here, if you have one. It is quite clear that the Constitution condones slavery by specifying how slaves were to be counted for representation. It is what is is. So what is your point?
    I don't suppose you would care to offer some proof?

    Is there a point wrapped up in there somewhere? Since you seem to feel that the founding principals have been as represented in the Declaration of Inepenence and Constitution have been violated and are being violated, tell us how they are being violated. Get specific. To date, all you have done is made unsupported allegations to scare people.

    So let me repeat my challenge to you and others you share your belief, how have the founding "principals" been violated...name names and details...support your claims with facts.

    Well when I here right wing whacko politicians like the governor of Texas threaten succession because his party does not get elected, I think he is stupid and does not know his history. That is what I think.

    And despite all you your repeated rhetoric, you have not once shown how the founding principals are not being followed. You make the claim and run away or throw up a bunch on non related chaff. I repeat my challenge to you, show the proof of claim.

    And since you obvioulsy don't like the way laws are being intrepreted today, who should intrepret laws going forward. Should you and br replace the Supremes in intrepretation of the Constitution? How does this strange new world of yours work? Who determines if we have strayed from the "founding principals"? Would that be you?

    You see you and those like you are really big on drama, but real short on facts and the ability to support your claims.

    LOL back to strawmen. Where did I say that only I understand the founding documents? We havea system in this country for interpretation of law and the Constitution. I don't always agree with the decisions, but I am ok with the process. You apparently are not. But you have not been able to give any details or proofs of you claims.

    I merely asked you to support your claims...something you have failed to do.

    Now what makes you think you are paying for my healthcare? For your information, my company pays for my healthcare...not you. And I know you don't own my company.

    The inference I make is that we as citizens of this country should act as responsible good citizens. Good citizenship is something the extreme right in this country as represented by Fox News/News Corp & Clear Channel have forgotten.

    It appears you have reversed yourself yet again. It was not that long ago that you were telling me there were no differences in the opinions on our government by the founding fathers. Now you say there were some differences.

    Well when and where was this big debate over socialism and capitalism fought by the founding fathers? I don't even think it was an issue for them. They were concerned about constructing an enduring government. And there were serious difference between the founding fathers on the roll of government. That is why I have asked you repeatedly which founding fathers in you view should be followed and which should be ingnored. Something by the way, that you have repeatedly failed to answer.

    Oh so now you can see my bulging eyes can you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    As I said earlier, I don't know what your point is here or if you even have a point. The fact is that the Constitution recognized slavery, it was not perfection if you don't believe in slavery. But it did provide a mechanism for change. Which means the founding fathers never intended for the Constitution to be an immutable document as you and others like you claim.
    Well you can attempt to revise history all you want. But the fact is, the Civil War was about slavery. The key contention between the north and the south was slavery. And as the nation expanded the nation could not contain the pro and anti slavery balance in Congress. Fighting broke out in Kansas before the Civil War began. The nation came apart over the issue of slavery and that is the simple truth no matter how much you would like to revise history.

    The issue of a states right to succeed from the Union was solved by the Civil War and the blood of a half a million patriots. So when I hear the whackos get up and claim their right to succeed, the first thing that pops into my head is that they do not know their American history.

    Here is a link for further reading:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Slavery
     
  8. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    Not usually impeachable, except under oath.

    I doubt any bribes have been documented, at least not in the sense of what most people would consider a "bribe" in the illegal sense.

    "subverting? ? That's also pretty vague. Any attempt whatsoever to affect an election process could be called "subverting", even if it were an attempt to stop someone else from "subverting".

    You mean corporate bailouts? Any expenditure of money can be made to look like a "payoff" if you spin it right.

    Spin Spin Spin..... You mean the Taliban? (That would be news.) Because N.Korea and Iran are not formally at war with us. Or are you reaching even further than that?

    Is he seeking it through legal means, or illegal means? And what is an "abrogation" in your opinion?

    ---- This all just looks like spin to me.


    Consider the sheer number of CIA insiders who have come forward and accused GW (or at least Rumsfield) of purposefully subverting and hijacking their intelligence gathering process. Any given instance would have been an illegal act, and most of the claims are wholly uncontested.

    Trouble is, "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean "illegal enough to impeach over."
     
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    you have to remember the problem they ran into with dealing with the bush admin was a lot of things they did weren't technically illegal mainly because no one thought any one would have been corrupt, dishonest, or partisan enough to cross certain lines.
     
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    couldn't give a shit. as far as I'm concerned your delusional and your opinions founded on the failings of minds mentally ill.
     
  11. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Bush and Co. did the heavy lifting.
    Obama only has to dangle his legs in the wading pool.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    So if he's impeached, who the hell replaces him? How far in will they go to chop away the dead wood?

    Will we end up worse off than before?
     
  12. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    Here is the part you forgot or overlooked, how are the "founding principals" not being adhered too?'

    I gave you an example of a real world situation and you called it a strawman argument, of which it wasn't. You cannot answer that situation because it doesn't fit your worldview. So continuing makes no sense, since your primary objective is not ideas, but rather insulting and demeaning your opponent by being condescending.


    Well when and where was this big debate over socialism and capitalism fought by the founding fathers?

    This response suggests 2 things: First, you are not as up to speed on your history as you think you are. I also said that those terms were not used at that time, but the ideas were certainly there. That leads me to my next point. Second, you clearly have no idea of the tyrannical affects of socialism, nor the effects of freedom with capitalism. The debate was over tyranny and freeedom. That isn't revisionist history, incidentally one of your favorite pasttimes, that is fact.

    It appears you have reversed yourself yet again. It was not that long ago that you were telling me there were no differences in the opinions on our government by the founding fathers. Now you say there were some differences.

    Wrong as usual, I never there were no differences I said that the differences were nuanced. Furthermore, I said that those differences were measured by degrees of the debate. Not the differences that you are assigning them. Your point is that they somehow differed on freedom and they didn't. They all adhered to it. Their differences were in how limited our government should be.

    You on the other hand are trying to say that some of the founders were damn near statists and that was the existence of their differences, statism or freedom? That idea is totally not consistent with history, but then what is history if you can't revise it? Right joe?

    The key contention between the north and the south was slavery. And as the nation expanded the nation could not contain the pro and anti slavery balance in Congress. Fighting broke out in Kansas before the Civil War began. The nation came apart over the issue of slavery and that is the simple truth no matter how much you would like to revise history.

    I cannot for the most part totally disagree with you here, the alone exception is the absolute contention that slavery was the cause.

    But when the war broke out it was not over slavery, it was over economics. It is true, and I have always felt the south could never reconcile slavery in my mind, that slavery may well have been an underlying cause of that economics. But the bigger question with many was what to do with slaves if they were set free? But I digress.

    The big issue was money and states rights. Did the congress have the authority to unevenly distribute taxes to the southern states because of slavery? Thats a states rights issue. If the states have no control over their governance, even if in doing so meant they were in the wrong, then what is the point of having a Constitution that specifically called for states rights.

    Yet, at the same time, during the convention the 3/5 compromise was clearly designed to push along the end of slavery.

    Basically, I could go on and on but my primary point is that slavery was not the sole cause, and in my opinion not even the primary cause, of the Civil War. That said, I certainly understand those who do say it and I was wrong to point out to you that you were dead wrong on it. You're not. That said, I still disagree with you.

    The issue of a states right to succeed from the Union was solved by the Civil War

    And wrongly so!
     
  13. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    Wow that was powerful. So filled with poetry and yet evident of ones looking into the mirror.
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    what ever lets you sleep at night
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No you didn't. I again challenge you to show how the founding principals are not being adhered too.


    Well when and where was this big debate over socialism and capitalism fought by the founding fathers?
    I did not say anything about terms. I asked when and where was the concept of socialism and capitalism discussed by the founding fathers as you claim? Bottom line, you have not proven your statement yet again. The founders only knew capitalism. The revolution was not about economic systems (capitalism-socialism) it was about representation.

    You are again mixing economic and political systems. Most people like you would consider Sweden and Germany socialist countries. Coinciendently, their economies are booming and their people are quite content. So how does that fix with your notion that socialism equals tyranny?

    It appears you have reversed yourself yet again. It was not that long ago that you were telling me there were no differences in the opinions on our government by the founding fathers. Now you say there were some differences.
    Your story is changing. At first they were all in agreement on everything. Now that I have pointed out that was not the case. You are trying to hide in your words...obfucation. As previously pointed out, the various founding fathers disagree signficantly in their view on the roll of government.

    And I repeat my challenge to you to identify which founding fathers vision of government should be ahered to and which founding fathers should be ignored and why.
    Oh back to fear words

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What is the meaning of a statist exactly? And where have I said he founding fathers were statists? I have not. That is you errecting another strawman my friend.

    The key contention between the north and the south was slavery. And as the nation expanded the nation could not contain the pro and anti slavery balance in Congress. Fighting broke out in Kansas before the Civil War began. The nation came apart over the issue of slavery and that is the simple truth no matter how much you would like to revise history.
    Like I said, you can try to disguise the issue...but the bottom line the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. Slave-Anti Slave forces could no longer be contained in Congress.

    And the issue of state rights to succeed was resolved...and not in your favor.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    No you didn't. I again challenge you to show how the founding principals are not being adhered too.

    I guess you missed or totally ignored it, I am betting on the latter. However, the president back in March put together a fast vote for Bam-Bam care. It got passed through by fiat (all of this is totally contrary to our founding principles). I am not even focusing on that part. What I am focusing for the second time is where does the DOI or the Constitution even infer that it is my duty through the tip of the spear to provide for your health care?

    Where joe, you can ignore all you want say bogus things (strawman argument, fearmongering, etc) but it is a legitimate question that you cannot answer because it doesn't exist and you know it. That is why your avoiding the point. You can't answer it, and so rather than try. You attack around the issue.

    Though I will admit this much about your tactics here, it seems to me that by omitting the point you are saying it hasn't happened yet. And in this, you are correct. But it is slated to begin in 2014, and in many ways has already started even if it hasn't begun with our checkbooks yet. so are you hoping a new congress will intervene and destroy this disasterious plan?

    I did not say anything about terms. I asked when and where was the concept of socialism and capitalism discussed by the founding fathers as you claim?

    I already answered this question and for the second time in the previous post. Reread and comprehend. In fact, I answered it when I first brought it up. But I guess you didn't quite catch it, go back and reread the original post.

    Additionally, that is clever little tactic to reference socialism and capitalism as being respectively a social system and an economic system. You cannot have one without the other joe. Because there economic consequences to socialism and social consequences to capitalism. Therefore you are incorrect in trying to divide as something not even on the same plane. Furthermore, if they are so polar opposite of one another than why did Marx focus so much on capitalism? Even he knew, but you a ginormous fan doesn't comprehend it.

    Oh back to fear words

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What is the meaning of a statist exactly? And where have I said he founding fathers were statists? I have not. That is you errecting another strawman my friend.


    First, I am definitely not your friend so please stop referring to me as such. I am your enemy. But only because you were mine first.

    Second, reread the original post on the issue there is nothing among fear words. Where did that even come from? I am discussing about the founding fathers and somehow that discussion turns into fear words. I can only think you must be losing the argument so this is what you retort to? It is either that or you simply are having comprehension problems about the topics and the direction of the discussion.

    Third, really joe, you don't know what a statist is? Perhaps my either/ or was a correct analogy. So which iis it, are you losing, or are you simply not comprehending the discussion?

    I am done with the Civil War discussion. I have explained my understanding and have even conceded you your point while not agreeing to it, but at least understanding it and seeing why you think it. So there is really nothing left to discuss.

    BTW- I know this has nothing to do with our discussion but I love reading your exchanges with count, who consistently kicks your rear end and points out your tactics. He does so much better than I do. Anyway, it is interesting to see that my thoughts on your posting habits are spot on. Thus, I refer back to another exchange between you and I when I said that your insulting doesn't equate to your intellectual superiority over anyone here.

    It my great disappointment that moderators allow you to use these tactics. They are allowed to agree with you, but in the interest of keeping the board honest and intellectual. They should have stopped you a long, long, long, time ago.
     
  17. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    You know you do bring up a great point, and yes I sleep quite well at night. Even though I know that some are still geatly uneducated and misguided.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ah, finally a partial answer.

    Now how did it get passed by "fiat"? Do you know the definition of the word? Now do you know how the bill was passed? It was passed by a majority vote in the House and a super majority vote in the Senate.

    And a subsequent financial reconcillation bill was passed with a majority vote of both houses. Now how does that violate anything in the Constitution?

    Additionally, how does anything in the bill require you to pay for my healthcare? Because the honest truth is, it does not. Sorry to ruin you fantasy...but it just is not true. If you believe otherwise, now is your time to prove it.
    I believe I just answered it. I think you need to go back and check your facts my dear mr. galt.
    And just what is so disasterous about this plan? What is so disasterous about saving a trillion dollars over the course of 20 years?
     
  19. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    mr. galt, you need to learn how to use quotation marks. Improper use of quotations makes your posts bearly readable.

    Defense mode? You must be into the good stuff. You claimed that healthcare reform was passed by fiat and that was a violation of the "founding principals" . And I asked you to defend that statement...to show how you can honestly make that statement. And that is something you have failed to do...instead choosing to blather nonsense about defense and intellectual response.

    But you know there is no intellectual response for your accusation that healtchare reform was passed by fiat, because clearly it was not. It was passed by the House and Senate with majority votes - including one super majority vote in the Senate and signed into law by the POTUS.

    OH, if the healthcare reform law was not what you are refering to, then what are you refering too?

    Under the healthcare reform law, all of us pay for healthcare instead of the some of us under the current scheme which lowers the cost for those of us currently paying the bill for everyone.
     
  21. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Still having trouble managing the quotations I see.

    No I don't have a problem with the way Democrats passed healthcare reform. They did it in daylight hours with the usual congressional negotiations. They did not hold in in early hours when it would get press coverage. Nor did Democrat officials (congressmen) go work for the healthcare industry...like Republcians did after passage of Medicare Prescription Drug in 2003.
    Just what the hell are you talking about? This is a bunch of disconnected jibberish.
    A couple of things, one you sources are fine. But SO? What is your point or do you have one?

    They all point out that Healthcare Reform Law passed last year was enacted by normal congressional legislative process and not "fiat" as you claimed. The idea here is that you are supposed to support your claim, not mine.
    What are you talking about? If you are trying to say that no where in the Constitution does it give the Congress the explicit authority to enact the healthcare reform law passed last year. Then I would ask you the same thing I have asked buffalo roam and for which he has never answered and it is this;

    Where in the US Constitution does it say Congress can create an Air Force?

    The Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate commerce and healthcare is commerce.
    LOL, well if you have answered then it should not be a problem for you to point it out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You know full well you are wrong. I thought you were the guy who reexamined in premise when found to be wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Don't look now but you just contradicted yourself. Your memory appears to be fading fast.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    LOL, go back to those personal attacks. Because in the end, you cannot support your positions with fact nor reason.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    One of the differences, which has proved critical in such matters as environmental protection in the Soviet Union or US military facilities, is that government often has an easier time regulating private business than regulating itself.

    Not always, of course - witness the Federal Reserve - but in most circumstances.

    So that government ownership can lead to less, not more, "government control".
     

Share This Page