RE: Impeachment? (Full Version)

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



Message

Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 6:10:38 AM)

This is Sanity you're talking to, remember...
[;)]



Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 6:12:04 AM)


In moonbeam world, maybe.

In reality? She was responding to rml.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

This is Sanity you're talking to, remember...
[;)]



FirmhandKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:56:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

-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.


This pretty much answers all the questions and issues posed in the OP, I think.

Therefore, I do not think that a further conversation on other topics raised in the thread are in any danger of "hijacking" the conversation.

Firm



slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:59:36 AM)

Correct Firm,there is absolutely no basis for Impeachment...so we are free to jump anywhere this silly thread might take us....lol.



mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 9:02:38 AM)

Jedi Knights.   Men about town, or symbolic neo-cons.....

I ask you:  Sanity!!!!



Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 9:57:51 AM)

I suspect they're probably a metaphor for Grognards. Alec Guinness really has that cantankerous air you associate with old farts of wargamers in Star Wars, doesn't he?



Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:04:23 PM)


Video -
Dem Congressman: "We're In Libya Because Of Oil"

Article - OBAMA GHRAIB

Obamas a war criminal?

Thats what leftists would be screaming if this were a Republican president...




slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:05:54 PM)

Prove it?



tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:10:35 PM)

Couldnt possibly be that this congressman is saying this to push his own agenda.




mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:12:49 PM)

Yawn, and no, there is not a fucking sliver of a glimmer of a aught of a mote of a chance that he's impeachable.

W was treasonous, ant a traitor, and nothing happened to him, except fading out and hiding. 



slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:13:07 PM)

Could it possibly be that sanity started the thread to further his own agenda?



Lucylastic -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:13:54 PM)

Hes hoping....
wishing
but yanno what they say, shit in one hand wish in the other
but in this case all ya get is shit



mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:16:25 PM)

Tell me the story again about the neo-cons blowing each other at the RNC in the Minneapolis airport.

Or W choking on a pretzel. Or McCain vetting Palin.  Or the WMD or ......



slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:17:43 PM)

McCain vetted Palin?
Where do you come up with this shit?



mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:18:38 PM)

Faux Nuze.  Fair and balanced.



tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:20:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Could it possibly be that sanity started the thread to further his own agenda?



lol

gentlemen, I merely mean that Congressman Markey has made alternative energy his priority. What better way than to bash both the Japan incident and Obama.

"Well, we're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward," Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said on MSNBC.



slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:52:49 PM)

Well I have no truck with developing a renewable energy source....nor with creating some actual viable policy for arriving at that happy place[:)]



tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 2:54:44 PM)

I dont either. But this man offered nothing beyond his own belief in his assessment, which is biased.



slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 3:10:58 PM)

Fair enough...I was responding  solely to the quote you snipped....



FirmhandKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 3:13:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Could it possibly be that sanity started the thread to further his own agenda?

If his agenda is to point out that most of the protest and complaints from the left were not really about Bush's policies (which Obama seems to have adopted wholesale), but about gaining political traction and destroying your nation for purely partisan political purposes, then his agenda is one that I support.

As has been pointed out, if you protest and complain because of your convictions (even if I disagree with them), then I would place you in the "honorable" category of politicians and protesters.

If you protested and complained about Bush, but are giving Obama a free ride for doing essentially the same thing, then I place you in the "hypocrite" and "selfish partisan" category. (Not necessarily "you" personally, Mike, but generically.)

There seems to be a gaping hole of silence from many, both here on the boards, in the media, and within the ranks of our "elected statesmen" who protested - sometimes violently - about Bush's actions, but are "ho hum" about Obama's actions and policies: which are basically the same as Bush's actions and policies.

("Ho hum"?  Hell, they are justifying and supporting those actions, now that it's Obama, and not Bush!)

This particular incident (the use of US military forces against a "sovereign nation") simply highlights who the partisans and hypocrites really are.

So, yes, Sanity's agenda is certainly worthy of discussion.  As are the actions, words and agenda of anyone engaged in the political realm.

Firm



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125