Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 0:45:56 GMT -5
dont think obama should be impeached..it s true he hasnt dont agreat job of being president so far but he cant be worst than george bush jr.And no one brought up thanyhting about him being impeached...Im a bit dissaponited since i voted for the persident both times.. i really thought that after george bush he would turn things around and get this country going in the right direction.. Impeachment isn't for "hasn't done a great job", it's for breaking the law and violating the Constitution... knowingly. A valid question could easily be made for "Should G.W. Bush have been impeached?" The appropriate answer is "Yes." HOWEVER, just because he wasn't, doesn't mean Barack Obama shouldn't be. It's like speeding and getting caught/ticketed... just because others don't get a ticket, doesn't mean yours is any less deserved. If you want to back up to the most recent Impeachment that actually got sent to the Senate for Trial (Clinton), there was actually less reason to Impeach him. All he did was lie to Congress about getting a blowjob. Article 2 Section 4 of the US Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.The question that must be asked is this: Has Barack Obama been guilty of any of these? The unfortunate answer is "yes". One EASY example is: It is a crime for the President to withhold information from Congress (the release of the 5 terrorists from Guantanamo Bay). That alone would be enough to qualify. But his list doesn't stop there. I'm sure anyone that understands how to use Google can find a laundry list of other worthy offenses.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 1:14:35 GMT -5
Of course Paul, they aren't actually going to address the POINTS being made. Instead, the usual liberal playbook is brought out and they go on to attack the source, the author, Palin, W, or whatever boogeyman can actually be used to skirt the actual ISSUES that you bring to light. Uh huh. It's getting old. i think post 4 did an admirable job of appraising the OP. there are plenty of things we could use to nail Obama, but they will never be deployed. EVER.
|
|
truthbound
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 1, 2014 6:01:51 GMT -5
Posts: 814
|
Post by truthbound on Jul 14, 2014 5:02:53 GMT -5
Obama is not going to be impeached. Deal with it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 5:14:38 GMT -5
Obama is not going to be impeached. Deal with it. We know that. We have been... and we will be dealing with it for the next 50 years.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 14, 2014 8:39:00 GMT -5
The premise of this thread is ridiculous. Even Boehner isn't going there.
... And finally, the notion of impeaching GW Bush was flawed as well. The heinous invasion of Iraq and NSA overreaches were all authorized by Congress. Unhappiness about the war in Iraq isn't the only cause of the unsettled feelings of the electorate. Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby, the refusal of Vice President Cheney's office to surrender emails under subpoena to Congress and the President's prohibition of testimony of former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in front of the House Judiciary Committee have caused unease over claims of "executive privilege." In addition, many of the White House anti-terror initiatives and procedures — from the status of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping — have come under legal scrutiny in Congress and the courts. www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 14, 2014 8:47:34 GMT -5
Obama is not going to be impeached. Deal with it. We know that. We have been... and we will be dealing with it for the next 50 years. We will be dealing with, or rather not dealing with, abuse of executive power until Congress stops it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 14, 2014 12:03:24 GMT -5
Impeachment isn't for "hasn't done a great job", it's for breaking the law and violating the Constitution... knowingly. I don't think "knowingly" is a necessary component.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 13:53:23 GMT -5
Obama is not going to be impeached. Deal with it. We know that. We have been... and we will be dealing with it for the next 50 years. this is either trivially true or dubious. not sure which.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 13:58:59 GMT -5
We know that. We have been... and we will be dealing with it for the next 50 years. We will be dealing with, or rather not dealing with, abuse of executive power until Congress stops it. precisely. every president since Ike has violated parts of the constitution. the complicity of congress on this is simply their way of saying "we think that is OK". if they didn't- by golly- they would go after him. but the truth is, they like it. unilateral war is cool for them. they can wash their hands of it, and blame it on the president. and that is just one example.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 14, 2014 16:43:27 GMT -5
We will be dealing with, or rather not dealing with, abuse of executive power until Congress stops it. precisely. every president since Ike has violated parts of the constitution. the complicity of congress on this is simply their way of saying "we think that is OK". if they didn't- by golly- they would go after him. but the truth is, they like it. unilateral war is cool for them. they can wash their hands of it, and blame it on the president. and that is just one example. Legislation that is general enough to require the executive branch to interpret it to make it function and then potentially blaming them for any problems is another example.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 17:00:09 GMT -5
right. must be great to have enough accountability to take credit for successes, but not so much as to be responsible for failures.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 18:27:14 GMT -5
Impeachment isn't for "hasn't done a great job", it's for breaking the law and violating the Constitution... knowingly. I don't think "knowingly" is a necessary component. Valid point. according to the law "knowingly" (or unknowingly) is irrelevant. I'll agree with that. I just would hope that if it was a mistake, he (or she) would get the benefit of the doubt. As a self professed "Constitutional Law Professor" (he actually wasn't, he was a "senior lecturer"... but why should he let anything like the facts get in the way of his story)... Obama should be pretty well versed in the Constitution and not need any "benefit of the doubt".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 18:29:09 GMT -5
We know that. We have been... and we will be dealing with it for the next 50 years. this is either trivially true or dubious. not sure which. It's neither. It's truth. Love him or hate him, we'll be dealing with the fall-out from his policies for AT LEAST the next 50 years (assuming an asteroid, solar flare, or alien invasion doesn't get us first ).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 18:37:07 GMT -5
We know that. We have been... and we will be dealing with it for the next 50 years. We will be dealing with, or rather not dealing with, abuse of executive power until Congress stops it. That's absolutely true as well. Now... how can we get congress to stop "business as usual"? Here's a thought... how about people start voting for the best person for the job. Stop voting for "the guy", or "the woman", or "the black", or "the white", or "the Christian", or "the Atheist", or "the Democrat", or "the Republican"...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 18:45:50 GMT -5
this is either trivially true or dubious. not sure which. It's neither. It's truth. Love him or hate him, we'll be dealing with the fall-out from his policies for AT LEAST the next 50 years (assuming an asteroid, solar flare, or alien invasion doesn't get us first ). what fallout are we going to be dealing with for 50+ years, Richard?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 18:49:47 GMT -5
It's neither. It's truth. Love him or hate him, we'll be dealing with the fall-out from his policies for AT LEAST the next 50 years (assuming an asteroid, solar flare, or alien invasion doesn't get us first ). what fallout are we going to be dealing with for 50+ years, Richard? The economic issues from paying for Obamacare until it implodes... then the fall-out from that implosion as it ripples through the insurance markets and the healthcare industries... as well as possibly disrupting the financial markets, because they invest in insurance securities and "big pharma". That's just one example, from my "favorite" subject about his policies.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 14, 2014 19:01:16 GMT -5
We will be dealing with, or rather not dealing with, abuse of executive power until Congress stops it. That's absolutely true as well. Now... how can we get congress to stop "business as usual"? Here's a thought... how about people start voting for the best person for the job. Stop voting for "the guy", or "the woman", or "the black", or "the white", or "the Christian", or "the Atheist", or "the Democrat", or "the Republican"... I would go back a step and ask that people start treating government employees with respect that many deserve so that we start to have a situation in which quality individuals are willing to be a part of government. We can only vote for those who put themselves forward to run. If the "best person for the job" of the available choices is not a quality person, it won't make any difference if we elect them.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 14, 2014 19:07:51 GMT -5
I don't think "knowingly" is a necessary component. Valid point. according to the law "knowingly" (or unknowingly) is irrelevant. I'll agree with that. I just would hope that if it was a mistake, he (or she) would get the benefit of the doubt. As a self professed "Constitutional Law Professor" (he actually wasn't, he was a "senior lecturer"... but why should he let anything like the facts get in the way of his story)... Obama should be pretty well versed in the Constitution and not need any "benefit of the doubt". Actually it isn't irrelevant at all- it is part of convicting someone of anything. I don't recall a 'strict liability' clause' in there that imposes one where the law would ordinarily not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 19:12:38 GMT -5
what fallout are we going to be dealing with for 50+ years, Richard? The economic issues from paying for Obamacare until it implodes... you mean the economic issues that started under W? yeah, i agree, we will be dealing with that for a while. but not 50+ years, IF we can get someone serious about dealing with it in office. it only took 30 years to cut FDR's debt in half, and that was 2x the amount of debt on a GDP basis of even the WORST expectations of Obama.then the fall-out from that implosion as it ripples through the insurance markets and the healthcare industries... as well as possibly disrupting the financial markets, because they invest in insurance securities and "big pharma". That's just one example, from my "favorite" subject about his policies. i don't really see what you are talking about here. we had private insurance before, and now we have more of it. much ado.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 19:18:40 GMT -5
note on the above: i measure debt on a GDP basis. some of you don't like that. but when i say stuff like "cuts deficit in half" that is on a GDP basis, which is a better RELATIVE measure of the size of the debt than measuring it absolutely.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 14, 2014 19:24:44 GMT -5
50 years? For what? We will have some sort of single payer system way before that- we should just rip them (insurance companies) off like a Band-Aid sooner rather than later. That problem is quite solvable with a little will to do so.
I'd say these companies have already caused enough damage to the economy- and their bullshit started close to 50 years ago. How many raises have American workers lost tossed into the black hole of questionable health care coverage over the years?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 19:32:12 GMT -5
50 years? For what? We will have some sort of single payer system way before that- we should just rip them (insurance companies) off like a Band-Aid sooner rather than later. That problem is quite solvable with a little will to do so.
I'd say these companies have already caused enough damage to the economy- and their bullshit started close to 50 years ago. How many raises have American workers lost tossed into the black hole of questionable health care coverage over the years?
i think it is over 15 years now. i base that on the fact that basically every penny of raise that happened under Bush went to that increase, now with real wages falling, i am sure it goes back even further than when he started.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 20:27:29 GMT -5
The economic issues from paying for Obamacare until it implodes... you mean the economic issues that started under W? yeah, i agree, we will be dealing with that for a while. but not 50+ years, IF we can get someone serious about dealing with it in office. it only took 30 years to cut FDR's debt in half, and that was 2x the amount of debt on a GDP basis of even the WORST expectations of Obama.then the fall-out from that implosion as it ripples through the insurance markets and the healthcare industries... as well as possibly disrupting the financial markets, because they invest in insurance securities and "big pharma". That's just one example, from my "favorite" subject about his policies. i don't really see what you are talking about here. we had private insurance before, and now we have more of it. much ado. Obamacare didn't start under Dubya.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 20:59:14 GMT -5
i don't really see what you are talking about here. we had private insurance before, and now we have more of it. much ado. Obamacare didn't start under Dubya. no. but MedPartB did. and so did the Afghanistan War. and the Iraq War. and the tax cuts. and the economic collapse of the Naughties. and 911. and....other things that were so much more costly than ObamaCare...... but to add one final note: the depression happened under Roosevelt. and it is true that it took a long time to recover from that. but not 50 years. a lot of people regard him as one of the worst presidents ever. are you one of them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 21:40:37 GMT -5
Obamacare didn't start under Dubya. no. but MedPartB did. and so did the Afghanistan War. and the Iraq War. and the tax cuts. and the economic collapse of the Naughties. and 911. and....other things that were so much more costly than ObamaCare...... but to add one final note: the depression happened under Roosevelt. and it is true that it took a long time to recover from that. but not 50 years. a lot of people regard him as one of the worst presidents ever. are you one of them? If you look CLOSELY at what I commented on in my original post of this quote tree... you'll see that I referenced OBAMACARE, and the fallout from IT. I didn't reference Bush's wars. Keep it on the point presented if you'd like to debate. As to the Roosevelt question... I really haven't researched either of them enough to form an opinion of them or their presidencies. I have seen where they're ranked fairly highly though. As far as FDR, if people blame him for the depression... that's their error. The foundation of the depression was laid well before he got into office, and he's the one credited with pulling us out of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 22:25:25 GMT -5
no. but MedPartB did. and so did the Afghanistan War. and the Iraq War. and the tax cuts. and the economic collapse of the Naughties. and 911. and....other things that were so much more costly than ObamaCare...... but to add one final note: the depression happened under Roosevelt. and it is true that it took a long time to recover from that. but not 50 years. a lot of people regard him as one of the worst presidents ever. are you one of them? If you look CLOSELY at what I commented on in my original post of this quote tree... you'll see that I referenced OBAMACARE, and the fallout from IT. I didn't reference Bush's wars. Keep it on the point presented if you'd like to debate. the OP didn't mention ObamaCare. this is not a thread about ObamaCare. this is a thread about impeachment. how Obama measures against other presidents who have NOT been impeached is relevant to the discussion. in other words, if we can establish that Obama is no better or worse than, say, Reagan (i think we can easily establish that), then we should also consider why HE wasn't impeached. now, you can choose to ignore history if you like, like Palin did in the OP. but please don't ask me to do so. thanks. As to the Roosevelt question... I really haven't researched either of them enough to form an opinion of them or their presidencies. clearly.I have seen where they're ranked fairly highly though. As far as FDR, if people blame him for the depression... that's their error. The foundation of the depression was laid well before he got into office, and he's the one credited with pulling us out of it. no, they don't blame him for the depression. but your post is to blame for mine.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 22:41:10 GMT -5
If you look CLOSELY at what I commented on in my original post of this quote tree... you'll see that I referenced OBAMACARE, and the fallout from IT. I didn't reference Bush's wars. Keep it on the point presented if you'd like to debate. sorry, but i don't follow orders, Richard. you can choose to reply, or not. but i will post as i see fit.As to the Roosevelt question... I really haven't researched either of them enough to form an opinion of them or their presidencies. clearly.I have seen where they're ranked fairly highly though. As far as FDR, if people blame him for the depression... that's their error. The foundation of the depression was laid well before he got into office, and he's the one credited with pulling us out of it. no, they don't blame him for the depression. but your post is to blame for mine. Wasn't an order. It was a suggestion. If you'd like to continue going off on pointless tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with what's posted... don't be surprised if I ignore it... and the debate will flounder. There's lots of things that I haven't researched enough to form an opinion on... doesn't mean that my opinion about current events is any less valid because of that though. I haven't researched which were the best oceangoing paddle steamers of the 1800's (the first seagoing trip of a paddle steamer was by the Albany in 1808)... but that doesn't mean I can't rate a modern cruise ship (if I ever have the funds to take a cruise again).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 22:44:44 GMT -5
no, they don't blame him for the depression. but your post is to blame for mine. Wasn't an order. It was a suggestion. If you'd like to continue going off on pointless tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with what's posted... don't be surprised if I ignore it... and the debate will flounder. given that ObamaCare didn't appear in the OP, i could offer you the same suggestion.There's lots of things that I haven't researched enough to form an opinion on... doesn't mean that my opinion about current events is any less valid because of that though. i would suggest you read that back a few times and think it over before you type it on a public board again. I haven't researched which were the best oceangoing paddle steamers of the 1800's (the first seagoing trip of a paddle steamer was by the Albany in 1808)... but that doesn't mean I can't rate a modern cruise ship (if I ever have the funds to take a cruise again). and i haven't measured the sucking power of an average vaccuum, but that doesn't mean i can't comment on your posts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 19:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 22:55:40 GMT -5
Wasn't an order. It was a suggestion. If you'd like to continue going off on pointless tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with what's posted... don't be surprised if I ignore it... and the debate will flounder. given that ObamaCare didn't appear in the OP, i could offer you the same suggestion.There's lots of things that I haven't researched enough to form an opinion on... doesn't mean that my opinion about current events is any less valid because of that though. i would suggest you read that back a few times and think it over before you type it on a public board again. I haven't researched which were the best oceangoing paddle steamers of the 1800's (the first seagoing trip of a paddle steamer was by the Albany in 1808)... but that doesn't mean I can't rate a modern cruise ship (if I ever have the funds to take a cruise again). and i haven't measured the sucking power of an average vaccuum, but that doesn't mean i can't comment on your posts. Obamacare didn't appear in the OP? Really? I must have imagined the following: and (Obamacare is in "the list of abuse" that goes on and on) Touche on the vacuum reference (although, since my posts don't suck... it's not quite the valid reference you tried to make it ).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,176
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2014 23:12:08 GMT -5
and i haven't measured the sucking power of an average vaccuum, but that doesn't mean i can't comment on your posts. Obamacare didn't appear in the OP? Really? I must have imagined the following: and i was looking for "ObamaCare" in the OP. i didn't find it. so, yes- if you did, then you must have imagined it. Palin was suggesting that "fraud" was grounds for impeachment here, not the ACA.(Obamacare is in "the list of abuse" that goes on and on) but no SPECIFIC mention of the ACA as grounds for impeachment, right? (actually, i was kinda surprised by that. Palin missed a chance there).Touche on the vacuum reference (although, since my posts don't suck... it's not quite the valid reference you tried to make it ). your posts are fine- your analogy sucked.
|
|