RE: Impeachment?

RE: Impeachment? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 6:59:53 PM)
Awww shit ,I just lovs that lady[:)]

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 7:13:06 PM)
The parallels and the equivalencies are all there mike, but I cant force you to see them. Neither can I make MSNBC or HuffPo or KOS or The New York Times hammer and push and rail away at them as if George Bush was still president, nor is preaching the anti-war / anti-liberation message my forte. But the true antiwar crowd is still around and still very vocal. You know who they are, the same ones the Dems so conveniently used and then tossed like a soiled tissue? If you really want to know what the simularities are, tune into them.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 7:25:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The parallels and the equivalencies are all there mike, but I cant force you to see them. Neither can I make MSNBC or HuffPo or KOS or The New York Times hammer and push and rail away at them as if George Bush was still president, nor is preaching the anti-war / anti-liberation message my forte. But the true antiwar crowd is still around and still very vocal. You know who they are, the same ones the Dems so conveniently used and then tossed like a soiled tissue? If you really want to know what the simularities are, tune into them. In your opinion...........and perhaps in the opinion of Code Pink and other like minded organizations.....but here's the deal,one you seem to be having a hard time wrapping your head around......I can support and agree with going into Afghanistan.....than turn around and be pissed off about Iraq.....still later I can be okay,heck even proud, that my country has answered a call for aid and is playing part in the international effort to prosecute a NFZ in Libya. When the next situation pops up(and pray to hell it doesn't)ask me than and we can go over it.

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 7:34:35 PM)
Everyone will believe what they will. What do you think about these Libyan rebels? Are they al-Qaeda? Are they Iranian allied Shiites, are they interested in a democratic form of government? Some kind of a mix? Any idea?

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 8:13:14 PM)
They are,as far as I know,a disparate group of dissatisfied citizens of Libya ...dissatisfied at the decades long suffering at the hands of a dictator. Beyond that I can not claim much knowledge of the rebels political leanings.....beyond the vague desire for what they have identified as freedom(and which I wholeheartedly support in them in that quest)...I would go so far as to say that there are few experts around who would ,t this point ,hazard a guess as to what exactly might follow after Qadhafi....but I would imagine it would be an improvement

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 8:34:10 PM)
You mention Code Pink ok..... quote: There are those however who we have been pointing to as consistent in their message, and one great example of such leftists would be the Code Pink people. If Code Pink was all about a political movement... then why the following? June 3, 2009: Code Pink flew a banner that said "End the siege of Gaza" at President Obama's Muslim-outreach speech at Cairo University.[22] December 31, 2009: Code Pink was one of the organizers of the Gaza Freedom March on December 31, 2009 which brought over 1,300 people from more than 43 countries to join the Palestinians of Gaza in a non-violent, mass march to the Israeli border.[23] May 11, 2010: Code Pink attempts to arrest Karl Rove at a book signing.[24] June 8, 2010: Code Pink heckles House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over lack of funding for states.[25] March 2011: Code Pink members demonstrate outside of the FBI headquarters building in support of suspected Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning.[26] quote: and once the Dems were in power that tool and those who really believed in the antiwar message were thrown away. I dont see this movement going away simply because Obama is in office now, do you?

tweakabelle -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 2:00:13 AM)
What puzzles me is this: Sanity, FirmhandKy et al seem to be complaining that Obama's policies are the same as Bush's. Now if that was really the case, shouldn't they be delighted that the policies they believe in and have defended so stoutly here are being carried on? That would appear to me to be the logical case. If Bush, Palin et al were to suddenly convert to being pro-gay marriage, I'd be delighted, not sniping maliciously at their followers. It looks more and more like Sanity et al know they should be hating Obama, they do hate Obama but have realised, to their horror, they can't find a valid reason to hate Obama without showing their own policies to be discredited failures they were and are. So, like some punch drunk boxer stumbling around the ring in a daze looking for and throwing wild haymakers at an opponent long gone, they're just lashing out blindly hoping to connect with something ... anything .... anything at all. Sadly, it's unlikely it will dawn on them that, being the only person in the ring, the only person they can land a punch on is themselves. Which of our resident far right wing pundits will be the first to knock themselves out? Who will be the first to proclaim: "I cudda bin a contendah"? Watch this space! [:D]

DomKen -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 2:54:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity For that part of the argument, now this depends on intellectual honesty... go to the most logical source, which wouldnt be us. There are those however who we have been pointing to as consistent in their message, and one great example of such leftists would be the Code Pink people. Think of all the slogans that were thrown at Bush, billions for war but, uhm, how did that go... guns not butter? Something like that. "Bombing them isnt the answer, stop selling them bombs is". All that leftist antiwar rot, it used to mean something to everyone on the left but for most it was just a convenient tool for hammering away at the Republicans and once the Dems were in power that tool and those who really believed in the antiwar message were thrown away. Are we out of Iraq yet? Or Afghanistan? Gitmo closed? Are there "no more wars"? Or as Sarah Palin put it, hows that "hopey-changy thing workin' out for ya" quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I dont view their actions as similar. Can either you, Firm, or Sanity show me where I am missing the correlation? Maybe you are too stupid to understand this concept but I'll try to explain it in simple terms. There are pacifists on the left. They never see justification for violence even to prevent violence. Everyone on the left does not share their opinions. They seem to be the ones opposing the air strikes. The leftists who came to oppose the Iraq war weren't all pacifists. Most were people like me who felt the justification for invasion was a lie, the war wasn't being run well, our money was going to mercenaries and private contractors and the slaughter of Iraqi civilians actually got worse under US occupation. You interpreted it as political when it wasn't. This group bore a lot of similiarities to the coalition that came to oppose the Vietnam War under Johnson. The fact that many of us despised GWB before the Iraq War was immaterial, you can even go through my posting history here and see that I always oppsed the guy and was initially in favor of the war.

BitaTruble -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 3:23:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Everyone will believe what they will. What do you think about these Libyan rebels? Are they al-Qaeda? Are they Iranian allied Shiites, are they interested in a democratic form of government? Some kind of a mix? Any idea? They have labeled themselves the NLC - National Libyan Council.. basically an anti-Gaddfi coalition seeking a democratic state of governement with rule of law protecting equal rights for men and women, general human rights, free elections and general freedom. From what I can glean from the little information I could find, they started out as peaceful protesters who then got fired upon by Gaddafi's military. They appear to be disorganized and not very well-armed and the scuttlebutt is that they are hoping for military intervention from western forces to help their cause. Obama has assigned a diplomatic liason to interact with the coalition leaders and France has recognized the NLC as the legit government. That's the readers digest version of all the combined sources I found. There's other stuff, too, though. Of course, it's all Internet generated, so take it with whatever size grain of salt you desire.

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 3:50:29 AM)
quote: BREAKING: Obama’s Abu Ghraib: The Stuff Hits the Fan When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2003, the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere couldn’t find enough column inches to express adequately their shock and revulsion. The New York Times alone published 56 stories on the hideous revelation that members of the U.S. Army Reserve had tortured prisoners of war and posed for “trophy pictures”—inexcusable acts that the Times placed squarely at the feet of then-president George W. Bush. Nor could left-leaning sources conceal their delight when President-elect Barack Obama boldly proclaimed: [U]nder my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals. What a difference a president makes. Until you flash forward to today’s bombshell, dropped by the British newspaper The Guardian, noting that members of a self-styled U.S. Army “kill team” posed for photos not with tortured prisoners but with corpses. Of civilians. Whom they had killed. ... So far, the White House has released no statement regarding the images or accounts. Neither, surprisingly, has the New York Times. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/21/breaking-obamas-abu-ghraib-the-stuff-hits-the-fan/

gothikbutterfly -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 4:04:12 AM)
i am repulsed by the actions of "President" Obama. Some of the things he has done and said aren't even worth dignifying with a response. He is a narcissist in the extreme sense of the word and is systematically destroying the country. People wanted to see change, but at what cost?

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 4:10:41 AM)
What are you, a one post wonder? What costs are you speaking of? What changes have you not seen? If you are going to post, post with substance.

gothikbutterfly -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 4:18:46 AM)
lets see.... 1. a debt that is equal in total to the US economy. 2. fighting wars that are completely pointless at this time 3. a bad case of saying one thing and doing another 4. a presidency that is based on complete LIES 5. he had to have an organization fake ballots during the election so he could start his two year power trip you want the short list or the long?

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 4:41:24 AM)
A debt his administration added very little too. I posted on that somewhere around these boards. He inhereted a 1.3 trillion deficit. Its current at 1.645, i believe. I find it amusing how others wish to chastise the man over something he had no control over. In contrast, Bush inhereted a 350 billion dollar deficit from Clinton, depending on what source you use. 350 Billion to 1.3 Trillion... thats alot of deficit Bush left for this country. As to the rest, do you really believe you are armed for this debate?

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 5:23:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nearly 7 in 10 support air strikes in Libya, CBS News poll finds I believe the percentage was even higher for the Iraq invasion. That didn't work out any better than this will.

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 5:27:33 AM)
I completely agree. The longer we stay, the faster those polls will drop.

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 5:34:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Pull your head out, Ive never pretended I am impartial! You would be a lot better off to just admit that you dont have the slightest clue what this thread is about. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I've read it. But you apparently want to be able to post things and then try to pretend you are just impartial and posting them for informational purposes only. So when you said you were not slamming Obama did that not imply you were pretending to be impartial, or have I just lost my grasp of language?

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 5:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gothikbutterfly i am repulsed by the actions of "President" Obama. Some of the things he has done and said aren't even worth dignifying with a response. He is a narcissist in the extreme sense of the word and is systematically destroying the country. People wanted to see change, but at what cost? This is what I really love. The Republicans push a drama queen talking point about how "he is destroying the country" and then it just gets mindlessly repeated.

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 5:46:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I completely agree. The longer we stay, the faster those polls will drop. I'm not so much talking about the polls, but what we have gotten ourselves involved in, yet another time.

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/23/2011 5:48:56 AM)
BIDEN FLASHBACK: 'If he gives authorization to war... without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him!'

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02