RE: Impeachment?

RE: Impeachment? (Full Version)

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

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:12:02 PM)
Yeah, how about that turn of events. And so many wanted the US to rush in because the Arab League asked for help. What did they think would happen?

Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I never stated who coined it. I stated it was a liberal term, and the person you claim who coined it said it did as well. I dont understand what you are arguing. That the political philosophy "neoconservatism" is used to describe is primarily based on Futyama's writings, and that the term was first used to describe a specific flavour of conservatism (rather than any ex liberal defector) by him.

Lockit -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead When's that ever stopped you warring? [;)] When has it ever stopped you from warring? It seems we all hold hands in most of these things. Most American's have no real say in any of this. I find you repeatedly offensive. [;)]

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I never stated who coined it. I stated it was a liberal term, and the person you claim who coined it said it did as well. I dont understand what you are arguing. That the political philosophy "neoconservatism" is used to describe is primarily based on Futyama's writings, and that the term was first used to describe a specific flavour of conservatism (rather than any ex liberal defector) by him. Regardless, becauswe we wont agree on this point... Fukuyama coined it.. so you say... and since, in your opinion, he did, he has also stated its become a dirty word. Accept that and more on. If you wish to continue this, start another thread. But stop entering every discussion with this argument.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its only one person calling for it, mike. The same one who wanted Bush impeached. I, personally, see no reason to impeach. No argument from me tazzy...as far as I can see only one contributor here would jump on this flimsy story and start a thread.....and have the balls to tittle it "Impeachment" As a matter of fact I think that's what my point was[:D]

Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl But stop entering every discussion with this argument. Until such time as Sanity either answers the questions he's raised by equating "neocon" and 'libtard" or retracts his statement, I'm keeping this up. Sorry. (Futuyama did not state that neonservatism has become a dirty word, btw: he's just made an effort to distance himself from it, much as the rest of the Republican party is doing. He was a year or two ahead of his time with that one, it seems.)

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:23:54 PM)
-FR- Legally, according to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President can commit US troops anywhere he wants unitaterally as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours and withdraws them (or receives Congressional approval) within 60 days. (I think he has 30 days after the 60 day mark for moving the troops out). So - right now - there really aren't grounds for impeaching Obama. Likewise, whatever one might say about the Iraq War - George W. Bush did receive Congressional approval and Congress did authorize the invasion prior to the start of hostilities - I'm not sure one could find solid grounds for an impeachment based solely on the invasion of Iraq. As regards Dennis Kucinich - in the American political spectrum he is regarded as not just "left" or "far left" but "extremely far left". Given that he is consistent in his beliefs and his actions (he is railing against Barack Obama the same way he railed against George W. Bush for what are similar activities) I have to credit his honesty and his integrity. The views of too many politicos, talking heads and policy wonks seem to shift radically depending on whether or not someone from "their side" is in office. I appreciate someone whose opinions do not shift when their party is in (or out) of power. Around here (NYC) neocon is generally used in conversation as a disparaging term. Liberals use it as a pejorative for "those stupid conservatives" and conservatives use it as a dismissal of other conservatives as being "big government, big spending faux conservatives". While at a national level there are neoconservatives proud of being named so, amongst the rank and file I don't believe anyone would own up to the title.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic That's going to be an interesting question, Mike. Did you see the latest report that the Arab League is doing a 180, and is now condemning the bombing? CAIRO�The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention. When the rebels do a 180 and condemn the efforts to enforce the NFZ....let me know. Hasn't at least one Arab nation flown sorties in prosecuting this action ?

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:28:34 PM)
quote: (Futuyama did not state that neonservatism has become a dirty word, btw: he's just made an effort to distance himself from it, much as the rest of the Republican party is doing. He was a year or two ahead of his time with that one, it seems.) quote: I want to begin by talking about neo-conservatism as an intellectual movement. The word 'neocon', especially in Europe, but also I think in many parts of the United States, has become a little bit of a swear-word. Those are Fukuyama's words. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1657712.htm

Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack Around here (NYC) neocon is generally used in conversation as a disparaging term. Liberals use it as a pejorative for "those stupid conservatives" and conservatives use it as a dismissal of other conservatives as being "big government, big spending faux conservatives". While at a national level there are neoconservatives proud of being named so, amongst the rank and file I don't believe anyone would own up to the title. No argument with that, but the description becoming nearly as unfashionable as "Trotskyite" was during the Stalinist purges doesn't make it a term of abuse or an insult in and of itself.

Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:32:48 PM)
Fair enough. The UK interviews I saw of that vintage, he didn't go quite that far in disowning his coinage. (A very mild swear word still isn't much of an insult, though.)

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:34:06 PM)
You would look a lot smarter if you had read the OP before giving your opinion on it mike, I kind of sided with the president on this. And in this news item it is a Congressman at the federal level from Obamas own party who is calling for impeachment, not just a state rep. But I'll tell you what - if you dont believe its a news item worthy of comment you really arent required to enter the thread. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u No argument from me tazzy...as far as I can see only one contributor here would jump on this flimsy story and start a thread.....and have the balls to tittle it "Impeachment" As a matter of fact I think that's what my point was[:D]

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:46:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You would look a lot smarter if you had read the OP before giving your opinion on it mike, I kind of sided with the president on this. And in this news item it is a Congressman at the federal level from Obamas own party who is calling for impeachment, not just a state rep. But I'll tell you what - if you dont believe its a news item worthy of comment you really arent required to enter the thread. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u No argument from me tazzy...as far as I can see only one contributor here would jump on this flimsy story and start a thread.....and have the balls to tittle it "Impeachment" As a matter of fact I think that's what my point was[:D] Don't trouble yourself with how smart I look sanity(if I were you the appearance,,or lack thereof,of my own intelligence would consume my thoughts)I read the Op....and my appraisal of your purpose in posting was more along the lines of trying to exhibit cracks in President Obama's base(or at least your perception of that base)Do not think for a moment that you fool anyone that has even a passing knowledge of your posting that you were "kind of sided with the President on this"(and yes I corrected your lack of capitalizing in that quote...you are welcome.)

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:54:44 PM)
No, the cracks in Obamas base wasnt my primary focus, my thoughts were more, its amazing how much like Bush Obama seems sometimes, even more and more all the time. But to your point, you dont believe there are cracks in Obamas base over this? Or is it more, you resent that the point is up for discussion.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 4:58:26 PM)
Sanity why would I "resent" anything being up for discussion?Why the fuck do you think I come here? Are you really this dense? I find it hard to believe any grown man could be this slow on the uptake,discussion is,after all is said and done the only justification for hanging around here....well that and laughing at you.[:D]

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 5:05:05 PM)
If you dont resent that its up for discussion why did you spend so much time trying to condemn me for posting it? And why are you getting so angry... "bursting into flames" as another far left poster here likes to say (as well as demonstrate)

Lucylastic -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 5:14:39 PM)
This impeachment backtalk has the same chance of being taken seriously as much as the impeachment call by Newtshitcrazy Gingrich's whine about impeaching him for not standing behind DOMA, also, From what Ive seen, Obama is highly unhappy about the US putting troops in..I hope to god he can stick to that. The fact that this is dems whining, isnt a shock, anti war protests are in full swing, and its something they felt strongly about since the iraq clusterfuck of lies. Hes gonna get it int he ass no matter what he does, very few people are happy about troops being put in another situation except the "bomb em all" funny mentalists who just drag their knuckles in fury at anything he does or doesnt do according to their "brilliant" minds

jlf1961 -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 5:23:05 PM)
quote: [snip]The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.[/snip] So, he has 48 to inform congress why he authorized military force. Considering that this whole action is pursuant to a UN resolution, they should be happy he is not willing to put troops on the ground in Libya.

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 5:33:27 PM)
Why? A UN resolution isnt law in the United States. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 So, he has 48 to inform congress why he authorized military force. Considering that this whole action is pursuant to a UN resolution, they should be happy he is not willing to put troops on the ground in Libya.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/20/2011 5:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If you dont resent that its up for discussion why did you spend so much time trying to condemn me for posting it? And why are you getting so angry... "bursting into flames" as another far left poster here likes to say (as well as demonstrate) You really do have trouble reading things,don't you sanity?I am having a ball here.As for my condemnation of you for posting it,above and beyond that I don't like you,there are the reasons I have already stated.To wit: your assertion the other day of a lack of newsworthiness on the "shoot the illegals" thread"....your disingenuous claim of "siding with the President"(again notice the capitalization)on this one...we all know you would rather cut off your dick than agree with this particular President. Some free advice for you oh sane one....go back to ignoring me,engaging me doesn't quite work out for you.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875