Obama's War: Grounds for Impeachment?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Giambattista, Mar 23, 2011.

  1. keith1 Guest

    The U.S. Republicans used European bases to attack Libya in the 80's...big deal. They did it alone, an uncoordinated fail.
    The U.S. Republicans today use their election money for lame commercials, trying to equate "Getting rid of the U.S government" with "Taking back control of the U.S. from Chinese Communist Corporation influence".

    I equate the failure of greedy intentioned U.S. corporations for taking jobs out of the U.S.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Gibbering idiot? That's EXACTLY what I was going for! How'd you know?

    Do you have a point?

    If you didn't get what I was aiming for in the post featuring Rudy "I was mayor during 911" Giuliani, then well...


    There was a thread about that not too long ago. I think Superstring started it. That's where I first heard about that apparent phenomenon. It seemed to be applicable.

    Those creepy blue eyes. That smile. I don't know what else to call it.
    The vintage Roland drum machine tells me to calm down.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What's got you so mad???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Did you just change your post? Cuz it was sorta making sense, but now it makes more sense.

    Pretending to protect America from "Marxists" while handing over the key to the proverbial city. Absolutely.
    It's both sides doing it. They just have different rhetoric for it.

    The United States has been outsourced. Both militarily, and in terms of jobs and finances.

    No disagreeing with this at all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    If your not mad, then why do you need to put three question marks when only one will do?

    I'm not mad, I'm amused.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    What are you babbling about? Existing defense budgets cover this sort of thing.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,832
    Considering Stupidity

    What, really, you have to ask?

    "By the way, you like my new look, avatar and all?"​

    I mean, what do you want us to tell you? That you've never looked more delusionally queer? It's absolutely fabulous? It would be a good idea, next time you decide to spend the weekend eating butt, to wipe the shit off your lip before having your picture taken?

    You're just trying to be an obnoxious priss, and after the last couple rounds, I don't think anyone's up for your kind of circle jerk.

    You can make whatever dumbassed excuses you want—

    —but there's no reason for people to actually believe you. And if they believe instead that, like LaRouche, you're just a nutty old closet case stringing out his last wank, that's enough of a connection.

    See, we actually do have rules against deliberate goading, but since you're aiming after Obama and taking a conservative viewpoint, your fact-free, "because I say so" logic, combined with Nazi invocations and pathetic attempts at provocation are specially protected under the current WE&P standard. And so are you. People simply are not allowed to speculate at the connection between the character you play and the offensive stupidity of the posts you write. After all, that would be undignified. Indeed, anything suggesting anything untoward about this sort of uneducated, intentionally provocative bullshit thread you've started is unsuitable for public discussion, according to the standing rules enforced at WE&P.

    In other words, you're protected because you're special.

    I can't speak for Joe, but what you get here is about as straightforward a translation of myself as I can fashion in such limited dimensions. Don't worry, I've long since stopped expecting the same presentation of other people. I would hate to think you're actually like the part you play here.

    But, yes, many people find me obnoxious. Especially dishonest thugs. So as you might imagine, conservatives find me quite annoying.

    That's the thing, though. See, I have to start taking a couple of pieces of advice. One of my colleagues suggests the average age of Sciforums posting members is somewhere around fourteen. To the one, he may be correct, and it may signify a decline, as I can remember a time when people knew what a primary source document was. To the other, though, it could be that he is overestimating people's genuine character and underestimating their naîveté. It is very nearly shocking, in the virtual world, the number of mundane, even observable realities that we must set aside as extraordinary in order to lend a veneer of legitimacy to ahistorical and ascientific rantings. Like your gasoline price thread. In the first place, I can remember when gas crossed $1.00/g°, and also when it crossed $2.00/g. In both cases, people were incensed. It never did really recover below a dollar, though. But I can tell you from experience in this decade that the first time it crossed $2.00/g, people were upset, and talked about it a lot. Then it fell, and when it climbed past $2.00/g again, people just made a note and dealt with it.

    The next benchmark is $5.00/g. We heard about it at one point, but maybe only about a hundred people in the nation have actually seen it. When that happens, Obama's political worries grow exponentially. Until then, though, it's just a bit of heat, much as I described in the B&E version of the thread.

    This is observable to anyone who has paid attention. So when people open threads going after President Obama that overlooks such aspects, I really do wonder who they are and why they're posting. Perhaps one really is fourteen, which would make him four or five when gasoline began its present price cycle. In that case, though, the complaint doesn't make sense because there is nothing unusual about the price of gasoline in that cycle. Thus, the outrage we're supposed to feel is based on a longer and more complex historical consideration. Except, of course, for reality being too complicated for the outraged.

    And this thread as well. With over a hundred occasions to examine in which the executive has ordered our troops to combat, there are only five declarations of war. That a president can deploy troops, advise Congress afterward, and expect to be done in sixty to ninety days is the mundane view of history and the Constitution. That a president following a mundane course of action is somehow impeachable is the extraordinary assertion, and one that needs some better argument than, "Because someone dedicated to hating Barack Obama says so."

    So we start out with an extraordinary, unsupported assertion, mix that with a Godwin violation, add a market research question ... and at what point is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

    The only obligation I have to take you seriously is to remind that portion of our community that is young and inexperienced that this sort of thread is not something to be respected, emulated, or otherwise deemed useful.

    Useful, I might specify, in any sense of academia or integrity. I'm quite sure a Republican will have a different view of such endeavors, but the requisite dishonesty is one of the reasons I've never been able to be a conservative.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° when gas crossed $1.00/g — I remember pumping gas as low as $0.899, but I've never purchased gas any lower than $1.019. And we're talking about the day when you could borrow two bucks from a nun and that would get you around fifty miles on the road—with a straight six under the hood, at that. At least since I started paying attention to the domestic "gas wars", I think $0.749 is probably the lowest I ever saw gasoline.
     
  10. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Tiassa, has anyone ever told you that you write like Keith Olbermann talks. Do you write for Keith? Are you Keith?

    You seem to have a natural talent for writing, your critique and analysis are to be envied. Not everyone can write and analyze like you, but most of us do our best. Truth be told, most of us probably envy your talent with the written word, my point is your standards for posting are a little too high, maybe?
     
  11. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Sexual harassment! HATE SPEECH!


    So people can no longer express anger, disgust, outrage, without being called unreasonable or illogical?
    "Oh, I would love to take you seriously, but the fact that you're angry and raising your voice means you're psychotic and have no legitimate point."

    Let's quietly disagree. Or better yet, shut our mouths. Apparently we arrive at the same destination anyway.

    What exactly does that mean?

    Protected? In what way? That the thread hasn't been terminated yet? Does it even matter? I've seen very few people here doing anything but excusing our President's actions, so what's the use?

    My first post stands. A number of Congressmen (and women) have expressed disagreement with the President on Constitutional grounds. I guess to you that equates to not having a valid point.
    And to others in general, if Obama is accused of violating the Constitution, then it's actually the fault of previous Presidents.

    Therefore, all who find Tiassa obnoxious are "dishonest thugs".


    BTW, I see Lindsey Graham reported my homophobic hate speech.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  12. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    From the wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

    Our tradition of common law predates colonization, and it's even more fundamental than the Constitution, if you can believe it.

    So...Presidents have a history of taking us into "military engagements" that don't quite seem to necessitate getting congress's permission. An over 100-year history of it.

    Now, there's not just the common-law issue...but the issue that if there's a move to take the de jure power of the executive away to fight wars without making it official, when the republicans get back into power, as they will, they will want that Presidential power available.

    If they impeach Obama for this, then they completely smash the power of the Presidency, by legal precedent.
    Meaning any President, in the future, will have to go to congress regardless of how fast any crisis is developing...and crises develop really fast these days. Faster than congress can generally get itself together, for certain.

    This is why impeachment is not going to fly, Giambattista.

    Why is it that you get abusive when disagreed with? Does it really make you that angry?
     
  13. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I don't see where in our Constitution that it says "Everyone is doing it. Everyone violates the Constitution of the United States, so that makes it alright if I do it, too!"

    Uhhh, de jure? Or du jour??? Whatever I want to do today, is okay...
    Who says the "Republicans" deserve that power? Why does reigning in the Executive branch mean one can do it, and the other can't? Are you even thinking this through?
    You're saying that it's wrong to prohibit a Democrat from doing it, because the mostly fake opposition posed by the Republicans would also want that power?
    Certainly you mean something else. If not, then how does restricting a president from doing it automatically give that power to the next? And even if it did, and it were the opposing party, how would that justify them?

    Reigning in the power of the Executive arm of the Federal government is not smashing it. If it was legal precedent to have law enforcement agencies that "violate the law in order to enforce it", it would then smash their powers and authority to ask them to abide by the law, instead of cutting corners or infringing people's rights in the name of upholding the law?
    Where did you get that idea?

    Very few crises demand that the President wage war on another country without Congressional assent. This goes doubly for a country half way round the world that is going through a rebellion and does not pose an immediate danger to our own country's border.

    I would also dispute that crises develop really fast these days. Sounds like an excuse used by someone who thinks anytime is a good time for military intervention.
    The Libyan crisis was unfolding over several weeks. Plenty of time for Obama to consult or convene Congress. Which didn't happen.
    First a no-fly zone, then two days later, a missile attack.
    And he had plenty of time in the days preceding to get the go ahead from Congress. He did no such thing.

    "It developed all of a sudden and he needed to act quickly and decisively..."

    Right.

    Seems impeachment wouldn't fly no matter what a US President does.

    I get abusive? I feel like my sensibilities are being abused by some of the talk I see around here.
    Either that, or I get a little soused and run my mouth. Which is a good form of entertainment.
    So, if you feel unduly criticized or insulted, perhaps it is the result of some spiked beverages and an air of good-natured argumentativeness that was to blame.

    As for anger, if you don't get angered by some of the shit that goes on in this country, then you probably don't have principles. Or you're on drugs. Or the wrong ones. Or too many of them. Or not enough.

    Why is anger an inappropriate reaction to either Obama, or his predecessor, or any other politician doing something you strongly disagree with?
    Is that what it's come to in this country? That if you raise your voice, you're a lunatic?
    That in order to have a legitimate argument, you need to take a number, and wait in line, and fill out reams of paperwork, in the hopes that you can file a complaint in a civil, and ultimately useless, but proper manner?

    I don't get why anger is improper. Doesn't make sense.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  14. YoYoPapaya Trump/Norris - 2012 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,039
    What do you mean offense??

    They spend money on defense to DEFEND Americas warmongering superpower status.
     
  15. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    They do?

    I thought any old reason thrown out by the Executive constituted legitimate defense.

    Oh. That's what you contend?

    Okay.
     
  16. YoYoPapaya Trump/Norris - 2012 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,039
  17. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Yes. If alcohol is involved, you might want to look into that.

    When I disagree with you, it just means I disagree with you.
    It means my thought process is different. This is not personal.

    I think one of the big problems our country is having right now is an intolerance for other points of view, and so I am rather rigorously against disliking people for their opinion.

    Unless they're being a bigot, at which point I will whip out my PC police badge. It's not fair to dislike someone because of what they were born being.

    Nor is it logical. As Jerry Seinfeld said: "There's so many good reasons to hate people...on an individual basis!"

    I actually don't know that it's good for ANY president to have that power...it is just that due to the self-interest of both parties, they aren't going to gut Presidential power.

    But it's something...I'm thinking Andrew Jackson did first-engage our military without congress's permission.

    So while I actually think there's a potential argument to be had about constitutionality of these non-congress-cleared actions...I'm trying to explain to you that you're running against 200 years of legal precedent.

    You're talking principle, I'm talking the practical...and that may be why you find it annoying. Sorry.

    Of course I get angry, and depressed, and resigned, and a host of other emotions.
    I often have to avoid the news, quite frankly, because it is overwhelming.
    But the problems in this country aren't of either of our making, and both of us have very little we can do to positively affect things.
    I'm not really sure anybody can make things better...our recent history is barreling down on us Americans like a freight train with shot brakes coming off a mountain.

    But us peons yelling at each other isn't productive.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,832
    Oh, poor, trollish you

    I have no idea what you're on about, Giambattista. Well, aside from your ego stardom. I mean, take a look at it: You're just babbling about yourself, now.

    It's not that you're angry or raising your voice, Giambattista. It's that you don't actually want to discuss any issues. You're just out to offend people and talk about yourself.

    Quit with all the stupid straw men.
     
  19. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    No. It's scary.
    Besides, a few drinks makes this site that much more interesting.

    Of course. You're allowed to differ all you want. Especially with me. Differ away.

    chimpkin
    has no clue (806 posts)

    Neither do I. What does opinion have to do with intolerance or disliking people for their opinion? Or being a bigot?
    Does this have to do with something I said about Senator Lindsey Graham?

    Poor him. I invite him to comment in this thread.

    So I can hate people, on an individual basis, including hating them for their opinions?
    Highly unlikely. Hate is not something that comes easy for me. But it's possible.


    No it's not good for them to have that power.
    Why is the Constitution explicit about Congress declaring war?

    Well, do you have an example? Let's go from there.

    I guess after the fifth or sixth dead body, we should just forget about a serial killer, since they already got away with it so many times before.

    It's never too late to bring such issues to the table.

    Then I'll be more quiet in my contempt. Whatever that means.
     
  20. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878


    Can we give Obama the Born Again Neo-Conservative Award?




    Washington Examiner: Obama makes direct Libya pitch to columnists





    Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions



    Clock Ticking on War Powers Resolution



    Congressman Brad Sherman Questions Deputy Secretary of State About Operation Odyssey Dawn

    Posted by ShermanCA27






    I guess we'll see, huh?

    We'll see that the current administration is a complete extenuation of the previous administration.
     
  21. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    They did it. Obama deserves to do it.
     
  22. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Obama's de facto war against Libya is bullshit. But so was the war against Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, etc. :shrug:
     
  23. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Most of them are, but that's not entirely the point.
    I think the point is not to ever let it become routine. And even if it is, and it is now routine, at least don't look the other way and say, oh, it's become so commonplace, I might as well not even make a whimper this time.

    Wrong then, wrong now.

    Don't let humanitarian pretenses fool you. Seems odd that most of the wars in the last decade and the spreading of democracy seem to be centered around countries that have oil.

    Or better yet. Take a lesson from Egypt.
    We've already seen reports of the new "democratic" Egyptian government running roughshod over protesters, and now this.
    What we had there was a Mubarak government that received the second largest annual foreign aid package from the US government's largesse, and suddenly overnight they turned on him. They were really eager for democracy to take hold? I have my doubts.
     

Share This Page