PDA

View Full Version : Should Obama now be impeached?



BJJ-Blue
03-22-2011, 02:14 PM
Obama himself makes the greatest argument for his own impeachment:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Barack Obama Dec 20, 2007

“In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.” Barack Obama Dec 20, 2007

In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

Source:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

Dennis Kucinch (D-OH) thinks so too:

"Here it is, and I'm gonna read this and then I'll tell you who said it. "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Now, that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20th, 2007. We've got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and President Obama didn't do that."

And so does ultra-leftist Ralph Nader:

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts, that the Obama administration is committing war crimes -- and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

I give Nader and Kucinch props for being consistant here. Of course you do have to marvel at the audacity of the community organizer though.

wenshu
03-22-2011, 02:39 PM
u·ni·lat·er·al/
Adjective: (of an action or decision) Performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others: "unilateral nuclear disarmament"

The Council then adopted resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution)

goju
03-22-2011, 02:53 PM
i would like to see him get the boot

David Jamieson
03-22-2011, 03:00 PM
Obama himself makes the greatest argument for his own impeachment: how so? you never did add that part.


“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Barack Obama Dec 20, 2007

That is indeed correct as it is written. In short, he says the president doesn't have the power to declare war where there is no threat to the american nation.


“In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.” Barack Obama Dec 20, 2007

....again he is correct and his sentiment is noble as well.


In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

Ok, I follow. So, what is wrong with that?


Source:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

ok


Dennis Kucinch (D-OH) thinks so too:

"Here it is, and I'm gonna read this and then I'll tell you who said it. "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Now, that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20th, 2007. We've got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and President Obama didn't do that." How did he not follow teh constitution? How about some context?


And so does ultra-leftist Ralph Nader:

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts, that the Obama administration is committing war crimes -- and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached." Nader is anti war and believes that his tax dollar should never be spent on bullets for war that is not entirely defensive.


I give Nader and Kucinch props for being consistant here. Of course you do have to marvel at the audacity of the community organizer though.

Kucinich is a very interesting and very smart man. If I had more context to determine what the point was that Obama faltered on constitutionally to the point of wanting impeachment, then I would listen to that.

Otherwise, this is a bunch of rally call sound bytes with no real context.

:)

BJJ-Blue
03-22-2011, 03:12 PM
Man, you're a piece of work. :rolleyes:


That is indeed correct as it is written. In short, he says the president doesn't have the power to declare war where there is no threat to the american nation.

No, the community organizer said "military action". In English. He did not say anything about declaring war.



....again he is correct and his sentiment is noble as well.

What?!?!


How did he not follow teh constitution? How about some context?

Context? Hello!!!! Kucinich cited the date the community organizer made the quote! And he also clearly stated how he felt the commnity organizer did not follow the Constitution.


Otherwise, this is a bunch of rally call sound bytes with no real context.

It appears "context" is the buzzword of the day. :rolleyes:

Face it, the community organizer has one set of rules for George Bush and another set of rules for himself.

Drake
03-22-2011, 03:32 PM
Actually, the President has always had the authority to act. Gulf of Tonkin, folks, was the last great debate we had on this. This is right up there with people calling the invasion of Iraq illegal, and Fmr Pres Bush a war criminal. Read and understand the laws and resolutions. Nothing illegal has been done.

David Jamieson
03-23-2011, 05:10 AM
1bad, you never did say how he was doing something wrong.
You merely reiterated that you thought he was.

What exactly is it that he said that is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment but more importantly than that, because you've quoted the part you believe to be an impeachable offense, why not enlighten me as to why what is said there is impeachable?

Syn7
03-23-2011, 06:15 AM
cause he's a community organizer...


he thinks that the UN resolution wasnt enough, he figures congress should have sanctioned it if there wasnt a direct threat to american sovereignty... just a guess, but what else could he mean? traditionally its congress that declares war... but then its easy enough to call this anything but a war... korea and vietnam werent even wars... korea was a police action because they were under the auspices of the UN... and what was it they called the vietnam war? they were there in an advisory capacity or some sh1t like that... shouldnt be too hard to look up tho...


i love how guys like kucinich and nader are only credible to bjjblue when they are supporting his point of view at the moment... next week their opinions will be sh1t again... but today, coz they say something he likes, they are credible... classic...

BJJ-Blue
03-23-2011, 06:41 AM
Gotta clear up some misconceptions here.

First off, imo the community organizer should not be impeached. He had every right under the Constitution to do what he did. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. It's his blatant hypocracy I take issue with. He CLEARLY pointed out things Bush did that he felt were not within his power to do, then he did the EXACT same thing! Right or wrong, it's hypocritical.

Second, I never said Kucinich or Nader were not 'credible'. They are both wrong politically, but they are still credible people. Kucinich and Nader are both very honest about who and what they are. Do I usually disagree with them, yes. And this time I still do! That's consistency. I do not feel the community organizer should be impeached, yet those 2 do. Of course according to his own words, the coommunity organizer acted outside the the powers given him under the US Constitution.

Syn7
03-23-2011, 06:45 AM
can you name one president that hasnt been a hypocrite??? show me a president and i'll find you one of their bold faced lies... and dont say reagan, coz the only cat with more recorded lies is nixon...

Drake
03-23-2011, 06:46 AM
Gotta clear up some misconceptions here.

First off, imo the community organizer should not be impeached. He had every right under the Constitution to do what he did. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. It's his blatant hypocracy I take issue with. He CLEARLY pointed out things Bush did that he felt were not within his power to do, then he did the EXACT same thing! Right or wrong, it's hypocritical.

Second, I never said Kucinich or Nader were not 'credible'. They are both wrong politically, but they are still credible people. Kucinich and Nader are both very honest about who and what they are. Do I usually disagree with them, yes. And this time I still do! That's consistency. I do not feel the community organizer should be impeached, yet those 2 do. Of course according to his own words, the coommunity organizer acted outside the the powers given him under the US Constitution.

Yeah, while not illegal, he DID sort of step on his own poncho there. Gotta be careful what you say, because that sort of stuff can come back to bite ya. Fmr Pres Bush had to make a lot of tough decisions that he knew would be unpopular, and the opposition capitalized on it.

It's not so easy now that you are in the hot seat, is it, Mr. President? :D

Syn7
03-23-2011, 07:03 AM
no matter what youre gonna take heat from the other side... right or wrong, they'll find something to b!tch about...



i was just reading the news... looks like pawlenty is officially exploring a bid now... lol... whatever the fukc that is.... throw ur hat in or stfu... i love how he's using stock getty footage to show his multicultural support... a la newt, haha... that sh1t always makes me laugh... to me, thats almost like lying... republicans and democrats are both so ridiculous for such different reasons... but that pawlenty cat is a halfwitt... i love how as gov he teams up with napolitano to promote green energy and climate change solutions... he called for congress to cap greenhouse gas pollution... now that he's trying to run for potus, of course he's just anti everything green now... hows that for a hypocrite, huh??? heres his driect quote when called on it. "yeah, it was a mistake. it was stupid. i was wrong. i changed my position."... whoops... are we really supposed to believe that he has changed his view for any other reason than to get support from big donors and neo cons??? thats some transparent sh1t right there... and then theres newt, he made that ad with pelosi about climate change... but now that he's kinda sorta running, he calls obamas environmental policies a "war on american energy"... strong words for somebody that went on tv and said otherwise not so long ago...


IMO obama is one of the worst presidents in history... the only thing that needs to be figured out at this point is whether he's a manipulative lying sack of sh1t, or just a pathetic gutless no backbone having sad excuse for a man... either way, they guy is a huge failure...

David Jamieson
03-23-2011, 07:28 AM
Near as I can tell, hypocrisy is not grounds for impeachment and is the hallmark of all politicians. :p

Syn7
03-23-2011, 07:32 AM
blue said he was a hypocrite but shouldnt be impeached... and kucinich didnt say he should be impeached but didnt say it was for hypocracy...

im not feeling your response DJ... aside from the hypocracy being the norm part...

David Jamieson
03-23-2011, 08:27 AM
This thread = noise:signal = 1:0

I don't think Obama should be impeached. There's no grounds for it really reading through this stuff.

..seems like an empty bun just thrown out there to generate words like "impeach" at the same time as "Obama". lol

No_Know
03-23-2011, 08:34 AM
Gotta clear up some misconceptions here.

First off, imo the community organizer should not be impeached. He had every right under the Constitution to do what he did. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. It's his blatant hypocracy I take issue with. He CLEARLY pointed out things Bush did that he felt were not within his power to do, then he did the EXACT same thing! Right or wrong, it's hypocritical...

Getting a Buddhist to help you look for something then he steps in the place the wasps are and you leave... while initially peaceful, the Buddhist is in effect under direct attack and while lured into this situation is in the situation and might understandably react to the imminent danger. You, however went looking for it and didn' mid others getting in trouble for a pouty, spoiled brat hissy-fit you had because you got stung and left alone.

Now if the Buddhist in this story leaves the wasps are likely to follow, harass while the Buddhist is departing and cause great harm. It is reasonable that the Buddhist being a person stays with the mess he was essentially lead into and deal with the imminent and also now impending danger.

If you get punched in the face by a guy or a gang and they leave after a few hits to you there isno imminent danger. Stopping the punches during getting punched is more something. They didn't keep it up. They didn't go after any other target than to hit you some in the face. You didn't defend and they were done with those strikes. That you rile the masses with convincing words putting into jeopardy lives and other resources for reasons not necessarily disclosed...they were not coming back after you anytime soon. They just went after something to brag about amongst themselves and boost their status in the group or some such...

Unless you had the altercation arranged as an excuse to go where you normally couldn't and unbeknownst to your collaborators you were going to take their stuff or have it taken blahh blahh, blahh. But imminent~ danger you were not there.

The situations were a similar result from different places/situations thereby here,n hypocracy-lacking.

No_Know

Syn7
03-23-2011, 08:38 AM
not to be cryptic or anything tho... right...?


lol

Drake
03-23-2011, 08:55 AM
So, what you're saying is...

Float like a hypocrite, sting like a wasp?

David Jamieson
03-23-2011, 09:46 AM
So, what you're saying is...

Float like a hypocrite, sting like a wasp?

no one but wasps can sting like wasps.

especially since te wasps make all the decent stingers... :p

Syn7
03-23-2011, 10:13 AM
no one but wasps can sting like wasps.

especially since te wasps make all the decent stingers... :p

only the american stingers are any good... those imports just fall apart in flight...

David Jamieson
03-23-2011, 11:37 AM
only the american stingers are any good... those imports just fall apart in flight...

and americans are mostly wasps. :p

until about 2050, then they'll be mostly catholic mexicans :D

Drake
03-23-2011, 11:50 AM
and americans are mostly wasps. :p

until about 2050, then they'll be mostly catholic mexicans :D

Latinos!

If they are here, then they are Americans. Besides, considering a huge chunk of our country was won by hook or crook from Mexico, this shouldn't be terribly surprising.

The whole race thing confuses me, probably because I've spent over a decade in a very diverse business. I've been a minority at my last few assignments.

Lucas
03-23-2011, 01:03 PM
i believe it is important for everyone to live as an ethnic minority at some point in their life, preferably while they are young.

David Jamieson
03-23-2011, 01:11 PM
Latinos!

If they are here, then they are Americans. Besides, considering a huge chunk of our country was won by hook or crook from Mexico, this shouldn't be terribly surprising.

The whole race thing confuses me, probably because I've spent over a decade in a very diverse business. I've been a minority at my last few assignments.

True, catholic latinos will be the majority of the USA come 2050.

Race confuses you? lol I think the whole idea of it is confusing.

Lately I was thinking about Libya, and why not, it's topical, but there was a statement about "The Libyan People" in some clip and I thought to myself if ever there were people that were defined as a people by borders instead of race, it is Arabs.

The Libyan people are the same people as the Egyptians, Tunisians, Saudis, Jordanians, Lebanese and virtually all other Arabs in the region. There separation is religious, but ethnically, all Arabs are Semites more or less. Which is weird, because many Israeli Jews are not Semites and are of Germanic origins or ethnic remnants of the long defunct Kazhar empire which adopted Judaism as it's state religion long ago and far away. This is what a great thing the genome project is and was. Mainly because despite even those ethnic divides it conclusively showed us that there is only one race and that we are all bound by shared genetics and especially that we all shared the same basic genetics.

So, nations, races and even ethnicity are actually an intellectual constructs that we use to identify ourselves. It is in fact highly superficial and bears far less meaning than the true and actual genetic map of humanity.

BJJ-Blue
03-23-2011, 01:16 PM
Yeah, while not illegal, he DID sort of step on his own poncho there. Gotta be careful what you say, because that sort of stuff can come back to bite ya. Fmr Pres Bush had to make a lot of tough decisions that he knew would be unpopular, and the opposition capitalized on it.

It's not so easy now that you are in the hot seat, is it, Mr. President? :D

Thank you. You put it in words better than I did.

BJJ-Blue
03-23-2011, 01:18 PM
i believe it is important for everyone to live as an ethnic minority at some point in their life, preferably while they are young.

I did. When I was bussed into East Austin in 8th grade, whites were by far the minority there. It was there that I learned firsthand that racism cuts both ways.

David Jamieson
03-23-2011, 01:21 PM
I did. When I was bussed into East Austin in 8th grade, whites were by far the minority there. It was there that I learned firsthand that racism cuts both ways.

I did when I moved from the white bread west to the multiculti east.

I am very close to being a minority! Yay! :p

A BIONIC LEG
03-24-2011, 05:32 AM
I've lived two years in L.A. a year in Korea and now I'm in Okinawa, so yeah I think I'm doing my part.

David Jamieson
03-24-2011, 01:41 PM
I still remember my first day going to work in Toronto.
I still remember coming home.

I took a bus, then a subway in.
On the buses, I swear I was the only white dude on bothe ways and people gave me the stink eye for being on a bus!

weird.

this town is messed though in so many ways.
No unity, a bunch of ghettos, a dubious mayor, crappy infrastructure, get this, the hydro outfit spends money on posters telling you to beware of walking near electrical poles because they might shock you as two dogs have died recently.

awareness messages override getting the problem fixed! lol Idiots.
I hated it in TO and moved up north to Markham.

Much better. Even more of a minority up here, but it's mostly Chinese. So, no offense, but it is not bad living in predominantly Chinese neighbourhoods but I am not to crazy about the prospects of the others. lol racist pr1ck that I seem to have become being a minority and all. hahahaha. :D

Syn7
03-28-2011, 07:13 PM
I did. When I was bussed into East Austin in 8th grade, whites were by far the minority there. It was there that I learned firsthand that racism cuts both ways.

so in the 8th grade you knew some white people hated everyone different, but you didnt know that some people who have more complexion hate the pale ones??? did you think they just took all the hate and just loved the white man back??? or that people didnt bring their own bullsh1t drama when they immigrate??? you should know these things by the 8th grade...

BJJ-Blue
03-29-2011, 07:47 PM
so in the 8th grade you knew some white people hated everyone different, but you didnt know that some people who have more complexion hate the pale ones??? did you think they just took all the hate and just loved the white man back??? or that people didnt bring their own bullsh1t drama when they immigrate??? you should know these things by the 8th grade...

I'd never experienced it before. And I'd honestly never gave it any thought. I was surprised that it was quite common too. I figured racists were just a small percentage of the population. I'd grown up in a mixed neighborhood, and we never had any problems due to race.

Syn7
03-29-2011, 10:37 PM
in the 8th grade i got punched out by a skinhead at the bus loop... i didnt do anything... it was me and a friend who was black... we were just waiting for the bus and when they came thru they decided to hit me, but not my friend... and then when they were pretty far away they started yelling clear out n****r over and over... odd scene... not sure why they hit me and not him... before that i hadnt really known much about skinheads... i knew racism but id never actually met one of those big boots, plaid tight pants (if thats what you wanna call them) SS tattoo on the side of their head type of guys... id seen lots of punks, but not skinheads... most of the racism i was familiar with was the back and forth in the community between this group and that group... theres always something...

BJJ-Blue
03-30-2011, 09:24 AM
Was your friend bigger than you?

I actually worked at a grocery store as a teenager with a skinhead. He offered me "literature" one day, but I said I wasn't interested.

David Jamieson
03-30-2011, 11:25 AM
I think when it is youth doing it, it is about identifying and fitting in and the behaviours associated are nurtured once inside the group.

Kids in general don't naturally hate at all.
That is easily provable and in fact has been shown in generational models and in long term multi-cultural societies.

Not saying racism doesn't exist in Canada, it sure does, but the divide is becoming an urban vs rural question.

you will find a lot of racism in rural areas and it is markedly less so in urban areas.

So, from that we can conclude that it is an exposure issue and therefore, once again has to do with the fear of the unknown that is built into many, if not most of us.

I don't believe it can be fully attributed to one narrow line of thinking though. But it is interesting observations that define racism these days.

Lucas
03-30-2011, 11:56 AM
skinheads are garbage. whats really funny is when you get a racist person trying to 'recruit' you and you arent even 100% white but you just look it.

i have a friend with blond really curly hair, who looks white but his father is black. u can see it in his features but not in coloring.

i really think it has to do with how you are brought up, where, by who, and what you deal with in life.

racism does go both ways for sure.

many years ago i used to smoke cigs, and quit. one day i went to the bus stop and a black guy my age was in the bus shelter smoking (no smoking shelters btw), i had just quit like 2 days prior so i stood outside because i didnt want to be around the smoke. he flipped out at some mis percieved slight and started yelling at me at how im racist and wouldnt sit next to him. i ignored him. the bus came he got even louder and more vocal, trying to make me look racist to about 20 people. i had it. i told him; you're racist for even going there. i just quit smoking and you were in the no smoking booth smoking, do the math idiot. i have equal love for all people until they proove they dont deserve it. you are the racist here not me. stop being ignorant. you think because you are black and i am white im just goint to take your reverse racism bull****, im not. stop being a biggot, you obviously dont like white people. dont project your hate on me.

he stfu quick. at that point i was pretty ****ed too, trying to make me look like that in front of a group of strangers is too much.

everyone got very quiet lol. i dont think anyone expected the white man to defend himself on the subject of racism between a white and a black man.

BJJ-Blue
03-30-2011, 01:08 PM
You're right David.

I also have read that many skinheads, racists, etc come from poor backgrounds. They often blame other races for their (and their family's) bad lot in life. Hitler played on that perfectly.

Lucas
03-30-2011, 01:27 PM
definately. the few skinheads ive met all came from white trash backgrounds. they just decided to become even bigger trash :rolleyes:

up here we have an anti racist gang call themselves sharps. its odd, they are like a gang that is anti skinhead.

last year one of their highly involved and outspoken members was victim of attemted assassination by some skinheads. ended up paralyzed from the waste down....

David Jamieson
03-30-2011, 01:37 PM
*snip*
he stfu quick. at that point i was pretty ****ed too, trying to make me look like that in front of a group of strangers is too much.

everyone got very quiet lol. I dont think anyone expected the white man to defend himself on the subject of racism between a white and a black man.

People in general react like closing flowers when witness to confrontation.

Rare is the man who will step up to end a bad situation amicably.

This is a very difficult thing for people to breech and it is also just as difficult to teach yourself to step up when it is appropriate.

although, I don't think anyone should have stepped into that scene you were in. You said the right thing, the confrontation ended and everyone got something to digest with their heads as they took their bus ride with you and smokey the jerk. lol

Syn7
03-30-2011, 03:09 PM
yeah my friend was bigger than i was, but we were both alot smaller than all of them... they were grown men... it was a weird experience... ive been in alot of violent situations, but ive always understood what was going on... at like 13 years old i didnt expect grown men to hit me unprovoked... i guess they saw me as a traitor...

Syn7
03-30-2011, 03:12 PM
I think when it is youth doing it, it is about identifying and fitting in and the behaviours associated are nurtured once inside the group.

Kids in general don't naturally hate at all.
That is easily provable and in fact has been shown in generational models and in long term multi-cultural societies.

Not saying racism doesn't exist in Canada, it sure does, but the divide is becoming an urban vs rural question.

you will find a lot of racism in rural areas and it is markedly less so in urban areas.

So, from that we can conclude that it is an exposure issue and therefore, once again has to do with the fear of the unknown that is built into many, if not most of us.

I don't believe it can be fully attributed to one narrow line of thinking though. But it is interesting observations that define racism these days.

totally... people just dont know other races and just repeat an inherited bigotry... but the real hate isnt there... i see that alot, even today in the city...

ofcourse there will always be racists miserable pr1cks who just hate everyone...

Syn7
03-30-2011, 03:19 PM
You're right David.

I also have read that many skinheads, racists, etc come from poor backgrounds. They often blame other races for their (and their family's) bad lot in life. Hitler played on that perfectly.

yeah you really see that in your neck of the woods with the mexicans and south americans... how many times have you heard THEY TOOK MY JOB... makes me think of the south park where all the rednecks keep saying THEY TOOK MAH JAB... funny sh1t...


what you have is the merging of workers from a poor economy moving into a wealthy one... they have a lower standard and the wealthier ones feel they bring down those standards... thankfully they havent been completely over-ridden because of the big unions keeping wages in the american ballpark and not the mexican standard... if an owner of a company had the option to pay 2 bucks a day to each worker do you think they would be patriotic and turn that down? no of course not... they would jump at it... thats why unions are so important... its the only thing keeping a balance... the only thing that stands between a worker and less pay is unions and government... government isnt very reliable in that respect, so unions become the backbone of the working class... whether you are in a union or not, you benefit from them...