How many prescriptions do you have?
pjdude1219
troaty mouth best song ever (13,503 posts)
Brainwashed, thoroughly.
Obama's War: Grounds for Impeachment?
- Thread starter Giambattista
- Start date
How many prescriptions do you have?
pjdude1219
troaty mouth best song ever (13,503 posts)
Brainwashed, thoroughly.
I fail to see the relevance.
its a joke. I know its confusing but I'm sure you will figure it out.
Yeah, they really lost that argument.
Does it have to do with you and "troaty" a long snake-like thing all the way down?
Is that why you have such trouble with your spelling and grammar and punctuation?
How "long" till James R "slenders" in here and gives us his "2" cents?!?!?
USURPER OBAMA. There is nothing else to say.
You know, if McPalin were in office, they would have ordered a full scale invasion along the lines of the Second Gulf War.
And you would be perfectly content with that wouldn't you?
For two cents I could give you a piece of my mine and all of yours.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Both Republicans and Democrats supported Bush's war. Was Bush's war constitutional? If it was did its 'constitutionality' make it an action hinged to wisdom? Is it actions like this or keeping troops on the ground in Iraq or vamping up military action in Afghanistan that earns Obama a Nobel Peace prize? Why can't you see that Giambattista is pointing out the hypocrisy in those who support Obama as an agent of change.:shrug: Whether Giam supports a republican or not doesn't change the fact there are many who continue to look at Obama through rose colored glasses and excuse every criticism. It doesn't help that the new way to deflect criticism directed towards Obama is it call all naysayers either a 'teabagger' or 'racist', a tactic just as counterproductive to dialogue as right wingers calling anyone who supports health care a socialist.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Bush's wars were Constitutional, but they were not wise nor were they competently executed.
The jury is out on Obama's war in Libya. We will see how effectively Obama prosecutes his war. Gadhafi is a known terrorist. The guy bombed an American airliner. The guy killed innocent Americans. He killed American servicemen in Germany in a separate incident. Gadhafi is not a trustworthy fellow...not to mention being a tryant to his own people.
A few dollars spent taking the guy out now might ultimately make the world a more stable place making it worth the investment to rid the world of him.
Certainly eventually
To consider a different tack, Joe, look at the attack itelf. Giambattista is simply test-marketing his latest obnoxious persona. I mean, really, by the time anyone gets around to making LaRouche a central pillar of the discussion, we know we are in dubious territory.
After all, LaRouche is sort of a left-wing icon. Reagan Republicans and other Cold War conservatives needed him. With someone like Lyndon LaRouche around, the capitalists could always comfortably keep up their scare lie about how screwy liberals are. And, to the other, we might shake our heads, then, and wonder how it is that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party in general, and other right-wing, LaRouchy-looking whack jobs have become so prominent in our culture.
It's hilarious in a way: LaRouche, the bogeyman, is irrelevant to American politics. His right-wing version, Ron Paul, actually gets elected, wins GOP straw polls from time to time, and has a viable chance to establish a genuine political dynasty in America. Sarah Palin, with her winkydink, Alaskan sort of LaRouchieness, was a veep candidate, and though I'm still convinced the only reason anyone talks about her as a presidential candidate is that Democrats are really, really hoping for that chance to scrap with the b— ... er ... the mama pit bull. Really, if politics wasn't the height of American humor noir°, nobody would tolerate the right wing's extreme silliness. Putting a LaRouchey face on the discussion only reinforces the bigoted stereotype that Lyndon LaRouche is actually relevant.
Those who think they see hypocrisy in supporting the Libya action while rejecting the Iraqi Bush Adventure implicitly assert that the two military endeavors are comparable. And, to be certain, they are: They both involve American service personnel blowing shit up.
That's it. Really, that's all there is. That is the only commonality. And for those asserting such hypocrisy, that is good enough.
And I suppose it should be enough for the liberals, too, if every liberal can be reasonably presumed to be an absolute pacifist.
Fewer of us than people tend to think are absolute pacifists. Unfortunately, reality gets in the way, and we invent stupid words like "deescalation".
Or should that be dêescalation?
Never mind.
At any who, I figure one thing that would help with this sort of discussion would be if those accusing hypocrisy could establish for us exactly what hypocrisy they're accusing. Because I feel like I would be insulting those folks to simply presume that the only common aspect between this, that, and the other is the fact that American armed service personnel performed acts of violence somewhere in the world. They must be seeing something else, and unlike the elusive constitutional considerations, these really can be the sorts of things that are true simply because they say so.
I mean, we get it. Everything is the same. And whether we agree with their reasons for seeing the world that way or not is irrelevant.
If it's important enough to them, I don't see why its expression should be so elusive. Certainly, they will make their points clearly, eventually°.
____________________
Notes:
° humor noir — Also known as "black comedy", referring originally to satire regarding death, but more commonly in the twenty-first century accenting absurdity and cruelty across a grim spectrum of considerations, as well as highlighting such traits in characters and audiences alike. In the U.S., many already use the phrase "dark comedy" in order to distinguish between the genre coined André Breton in 1935 and the idea that Martin Lawrence is funny. In considering American presidential and political absurdity, though, it is probably best to stick with humor noir, lest someone lecture us on the hypocrisy of liberals using words like "black" or "dark".
° certainly ... eventually — Says the Screaming Trees:
Joepistole said:
To consider a different tack, Joe, look at the attack itelf. Giambattista is simply test-marketing his latest obnoxious persona. I mean, really, by the time anyone gets around to making LaRouche a central pillar of the discussion, we know we are in dubious territory.
After all, LaRouche is sort of a left-wing icon. Reagan Republicans and other Cold War conservatives needed him. With someone like Lyndon LaRouche around, the capitalists could always comfortably keep up their scare lie about how screwy liberals are. And, to the other, we might shake our heads, then, and wonder how it is that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party in general, and other right-wing, LaRouchy-looking whack jobs have become so prominent in our culture.
It's hilarious in a way: LaRouche, the bogeyman, is irrelevant to American politics. His right-wing version, Ron Paul, actually gets elected, wins GOP straw polls from time to time, and has a viable chance to establish a genuine political dynasty in America. Sarah Palin, with her winkydink, Alaskan sort of LaRouchieness, was a veep candidate, and though I'm still convinced the only reason anyone talks about her as a presidential candidate is that Democrats are really, really hoping for that chance to scrap with the b— ... er ... the mama pit bull. Really, if politics wasn't the height of American humor noir°, nobody would tolerate the right wing's extreme silliness. Putting a LaRouchey face on the discussion only reinforces the bigoted stereotype that Lyndon LaRouche is actually relevant.
Those who think they see hypocrisy in supporting the Libya action while rejecting the Iraqi Bush Adventure implicitly assert that the two military endeavors are comparable. And, to be certain, they are: They both involve American service personnel blowing shit up.
That's it. Really, that's all there is. That is the only commonality. And for those asserting such hypocrisy, that is good enough.
And I suppose it should be enough for the liberals, too, if every liberal can be reasonably presumed to be an absolute pacifist.
Fewer of us than people tend to think are absolute pacifists. Unfortunately, reality gets in the way, and we invent stupid words like "deescalation".
Or should that be dêescalation?
Never mind.
At any who, I figure one thing that would help with this sort of discussion would be if those accusing hypocrisy could establish for us exactly what hypocrisy they're accusing. Because I feel like I would be insulting those folks to simply presume that the only common aspect between this, that, and the other is the fact that American armed service personnel performed acts of violence somewhere in the world. They must be seeing something else, and unlike the elusive constitutional considerations, these really can be the sorts of things that are true simply because they say so.
I mean, we get it. Everything is the same. And whether we agree with their reasons for seeing the world that way or not is irrelevant.
If it's important enough to them, I don't see why its expression should be so elusive. Certainly, they will make their points clearly, eventually°.
____________________
Notes:
° humor noir — Also known as "black comedy", referring originally to satire regarding death, but more commonly in the twenty-first century accenting absurdity and cruelty across a grim spectrum of considerations, as well as highlighting such traits in characters and audiences alike. In the U.S., many already use the phrase "dark comedy" in order to distinguish between the genre coined André Breton in 1935 and the idea that Martin Lawrence is funny. In considering American presidential and political absurdity, though, it is probably best to stick with humor noir, lest someone lecture us on the hypocrisy of liberals using words like "black" or "dark".
° certainly ... eventually — Says the Screaming Trees:
Oh, should I go or stay if I hear lies?
I feel them burnin' me in the back of my eyes.
And I see it all the time,
Visions scarin' me inside;
Half a simple day and night—
Should I stay or should I hide?
Black sun morning
Coming up to greet the dawn.
Black sun morning
Coming up to greet us all.
I feel them burnin' me in the back of my eyes.
And I see it all the time,
Visions scarin' me inside;
Half a simple day and night—
Should I stay or should I hide?
Black sun morning
Coming up to greet the dawn.
Black sun morning
Coming up to greet us all.
He and I both take medications...but probably less powerful ones than the ones you ought to be on...and I don't like anti-mental-illness prejudice.
...Since you asked, I carry my PC police badge right here, in fact...
La Rouche stopped being a left-wing icon in the 60's and is now more of a far-right person...I shall take the risk of copypasta from the wikipedia page...according to it the current movement views include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement
Again from that page:
LaRouche holds no cred for me, Giambattista. The guy is nuts... and as a nut, I would say LaRouche has no insight into his own nuttiness. The guy's intelligent, yes, and charismatic, but not sane.
--------
I noted in another thread that the Libyan resistance was begging for our help...Now, going in means we might end up looking imperialist...but if we'd hadn't gone in we'd have looked like a bunch of uncaring, hypocritical douches.
PR wise, not exactly a great situation to be in.
Last edited:
What a world ....
I would disagree, though only to make two specific points.
Functionally, it seems LaRouche went completely nuts in 1973 and hasn't really been back. But that's the whole point of this thread, anyway. LaRouche? The whole Nazi thing?
And you'll notice that any productive parts of the discussion are avoiding the fallacious agitation.
Chimpkin said:
I would disagree, though only to make two specific points.
• LaRouche's dimensions are more purely insane than left or right.
• Even so, conservatives tend toward labels instead of actual behavior; even accepting that his outlook is considerably dominated by right-wing perspectives, I would still expect conservatives to identify him as liberal or leftist.
• Even so, conservatives tend toward labels instead of actual behavior; even accepting that his outlook is considerably dominated by right-wing perspectives, I would still expect conservatives to identify him as liberal or leftist.
— Just a brief note on that point: In a world where Hillary Clinton is liberal, Josef Stalin is the definition of communism, and asking Sarah Palin what she reads is sexist, one must accept that such "subtlety" that some of us might consider within the range of blatant and in plain sight is a problematic expectation. Functionally, the person is not labeled according to their conduct, but, rather, their conduct is labeled according to perceived necessity.
Functionally, it seems LaRouche went completely nuts in 1973 and hasn't really been back. But that's the whole point of this thread, anyway. LaRouche? The whole Nazi thing?
And you'll notice that any productive parts of the discussion are avoiding the fallacious agitation.
Dude, his entire Presidency is completely dependent on the nature of the office - the institutionalized powers and privileges of the Presidency he was elected into. Those are very much dependent on W&Cheney and the rest of the Reagan era innovators.giambattista said:
And he hasn't used much of them, or to great effect, as yet. He hasn't set his VP (or any other official) up as a sort of power behind the throne, unanswerable to anyone, for example.
Impeaching him, even with conviction, would not much affect the nature of the office - Joe Biden would inherit the same office, with the same powers and privileges.
I hope you remember that the next time the Israeli's build another settlement.
name the legal precedent that allows the violation of international law oh wait their isn't one your just try to take pot shot in defense of your favorite violaters of geneva conventions
True that...I see him as right-wing, but there's certainly an argument for calling him left too, although I really think he's more populist, rather than either liberal or conservative.
Methinks it is, in fact, useful to visualize populism/elitism as a sort of political Y axis to the X of the typical leftwing/rightwing dichotomy.
(The above idea mostly lifted straight from my prerequisite government class-don't think this is my idea.)
...So I guess we could call the Larouche Party a party of Paranoia Populism?
The wiki page on his politics describes him as fascist. Ironic that, considering his movement's the one that initiated the 'shop of Obama with a little hitleresque mustache.
Of course. Quite frankly, if he was impeached for something like this, when Bush got away with what he did? I'd be convinced a far-right coup was imminent.
Obama hasn't been much of an agent of change-I pretty much expected that when I saw his lame-o cabinet picks, before he entered office. Obama supports the status quo of the slowly sinking country.
Those who are still impressed by the guy...well, I don't get it...but McCain would have been worse, so meh... What can you expect from a bought-off system?
Last edited:
I think a lot of people including myself are disappointed with the change in Washington. Democrats took a very simple principal, cheaper healthcare, and made a huge mess out of it. Even so, the Democrat healthcare mess is far better than our current healthcare system.
But given the state of business in our capital perhaps it was too much to expect so much change so fast. I don't fault Obama for his cabinet choices. He needs people who can effect his policies.
The next big item on the Democrat agenda should be election and campaign finance reform. We need to take the influence of special interest money out of our campaigns. Campaigns should be about leadership and ideas, not about who has the best advertising campaign. It used to be in the old days that the media would help mitigate the effects of campaign cash. But now days, the media is pushing its own agenda (e.g. Fox News, Clear Channel, etc). So the net effect is a huge number of misinformed people are out there voting for people and pushing for issues they know little about.
Well said, Tiassa.
Now I've been hearing the US won't be getting out of this Libya mess until it has ended with Qaddafi being removed. That will take allot of time and more bombing of tanks, trucks and people as well. I was told that this was a "humanitarian" mission to save peoples lives but here we are killing thousands of them anyway.:shrug:
A couple of minor details Cosmic, Gadhafi has been loosing ground rather rapidly since the US military intervention. All of the territory Gadhafi recovered prior to the intervention has been lost in a matter of days. So Gadhafi may be out sooner than you and other Republican/Tea Partiers would like.
Two, Obama's "humanitarian" mission has been and remains the protection of civilians (non combatants). Obama's "humanitarian" mission did not and does not include the protection of Gadhafi's thugs who are responsible for executing his policies of murder and mayhem...one of them minor details.