newt wants to impeach obama by NewOldBrownCoat

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

newt wants to impeach obama

POSTED BY: NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 16:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1981
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 9:34 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20110228/cm_theweek/212596

Gingrich says if Obama won't enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, he should be impeached.
The link is from Yahoo editorials, provides links to both sides of the argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:25 AM

DREAMTROVE

He's gone over the edge, pity that.

Obama should be impeached of course:

He runs an assasination program
He outsources torture, y'all would've impeached the last guy for it, and they should've, this guy doesn't get an exemption for precedence
He unconstitutionally invaded Kandhar and a number of other places, and broke a treaty to invade Pakistan.
He sold top secret technology to countries suspected of acts of terrorism against the USA
He spies on americans
He encourages spying on Americans
He has made laws to gaterape Americans at the airport (ETA: Phooey. Still love the iPad.)
He has sent troops to shoot Americans at the border. And also mexicans.
He handed trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to the worst criminals in the country and didn't even ask for accountability.
He's raising everyone's taxes to pay for it, making it impossible for American businesses to compete
He is forcing Americans to buy a commercial insurance product for the first time putting an exhorbitant expense attached to living jn america, or having a child here.
He has reduced recognition to only specific religions, which is an effective end to freedom of religion in this country.

Oh, phooey, thats off the top of my head and I could keep going forever I'm afraid..

But WTF? Defense of marriage act? It's not the presidents constitutional mandate to pass or enforce some law, especially not this one, which is unconstitutional, or restricts american freedoms.

Newt, if you want to impeach Obama, pick from any of the large number of things he's actually guilty of...

Or might be like complicity in the BP oil spill, granting them more oil,
mountaintop removal,
fracking,
the commercialization of water,
the restriction of the Internet through his great firewall, AND his internet kill switch.
The attacks on Julian assange and Bradley manning for the release of damaging but not classified information to the press

I guess when I think about it, Obama really is a dictator.

But this marriage thing is moronic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:43 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
He's gone over the edge, pity that.

Obama should be impeached of course:

He runs an assasination program
He outsources torture, y'all would've impeached the last guy for it, and they should've, this guy doesn't get an exemption for precedence
He unconstitutionally invaded Kandhar and a number of other places, and broke a treaty to invade Pakistan.
He sold top secret technology to countries suspected of acts of terrorism against the USA
He spies on americans
He encourages spying on Americans
He has made laws to gaterape Americans at the air point
He has sent troops to shoot Americans at the border. And also mexicans.
He handed trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to the worst criminals in the country and didn't even ask for accountability.
He's raising everyone's taxes to pay for it, making it impossible for American businesses to compete
He is forcing Americans to buy a commercial insurance product for the first time putting an exhorbitant expense attached to living jn america, or having a child here.
He has reduced recognition to only specific religions, which is an effective end to freedom of religion in this country.

Oh, phooey, thats off the top of my head and I could keep going forever I'm afraid..

But WTF? Defense of marriage act? It's not the presidents constitutional mandate to pass or enforce some law, especially not this one, which is unconstitutional, or restricts american freedoms.

Newt, if you want to impeach Obama, pick from any of the large number of things he's actually guilty of...

Or might be like complicity in the BP oil spill, granting them more oil,
mountaintop removal,
fracking,
the commercialization of water,
the restriction of the Internet through his great firewall, AND his internet kill switch.
The attacks on Julian assange and Bradley manning for the release of damaging but not classified information to the press

I guess when I think about it, Obama really is a dictator.

But this marriage thing is moronic.

What DT said.....

Kwicko, I formally condemn your mother for not aborting you. Yeah, I'm sure her brother was happy to have a son, but you are inexcusable....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 12:13 PM

CANTTAKESKY

What DT said.

But if he is impeached, all presidents who did this type of stuff before him should be accountable as well somehow.

Cancel secret service protection or something. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 12:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
What DT said.

But if he is impeached, all presidents who did this type of stuff before him should be accountable as well somehow.

Cancel secret service protection or something. ;)

Love it. Yep, got my vote.

Of course, really we have to be more concerned with what *future* presidents are allowed to get away with, and we don't get any say in that if we don't get any accountability now.

ETA: I went over in my head and I could come up with perhaps one or two for Reagan or Bush Sr., and none for Carter or Ford, policy disagreements, sure, but not impeachable offenses. For the last three I can easily come up with a laundry list. I mean, consider if we go back before that, *watergate* was enough. The number of offenses worse than watergate?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 12:20 PM

STORYMARK

It was an entirely legal move, as a Federal judge had declared that section of DOMA unconstitutional. Newt is a moron with no case.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 1:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Dang DT... look at your bad self go.

I voted for Newt, when he was my congressman.

I think Barry's wrong on the whole DOMA issue.

Not convinced it's an impeachable matter, though. Might be, just not sure yet.

I think Newt's grand standing, and trying to woo Right wingers for when he runs for office.

Not sold on Newt for President, however. Seems he's too John McCain/ Bob Dole for my likes. He's not on my top 3 list for President.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 1:26 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Gingrich says if Obama won't enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, he should be impeached.

Funny how the most strident anti-gays turn out to be faggots...

Log Cabin Bohemian Clubber Newt Gingrinch
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=45546

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 4:25 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I am anti gay marriage, maybe the only person on here who is, but hey.

I don't think impeaching Obama would really go anywhere, Clinton got impeached and he was still the president, so impeachment doesn't mean they're out. No matter what you impeach him for I still think it wouldn't acomplish what you're aiming for.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:08 PM

DREAMTROVE

Rap

I concur. Newt for president is a doomed proposition, but that's what he's doing, he's been after it for a while. He's been spouting nonsense for at least a year, and by nonsense I mean political posturing that makes no rational sense but wins base points.

However, the result would be a disaster, Newt has the same appeal as Barry Goldwater, an understated mild mannered, and for the most part, common sense, conservative. This isn't what the voters are looking for.

As I get into this psych stuff I begin to suspect that this ha more to do with the tribal nature of humans and less to do with politics. Newt and AuH2o just don't have the Alpha male appeal, and same goes for Kucinnich or Dukakis on the left. They're not alphas, and so the other monkeys in the tribe are not going to rally behind them as leaders.

I suspect it will be Mitt, but it might be Paul, but I also suspect there will be some third party conservative splitter from a fragmented tea party, and the result will be the re-election of Obama.

Riona a chara

I think impeachment would go nowhere, sure, but if done for the right reasons would register a discontent with the policy, and this would send a signal to future presidents that these policies are not a good idea if you want to avoid impeachment.

ETA: people here, either side, rare overwhelmingly libertarians because it's a libertarian show. The logical position is that gay marriage is about other people who are not us and what they want to do with their lives, which generally the libertarian position is that they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect us. Some people have said that they see no reason why the word civil union doesn't make sense. I don't think it matters personally, but whatever they want for themselves is their business. That's the general idea, it's not a judgment call. I would say the same or just did about the church of Scientology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:10 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I am anti gay marriage, maybe the only person on here who is, but hey.

I don't think impeaching Obama would really go anywhere, Clinton got impeached and he was still the president, so impeachment doesn't mean they're out. No matter what you impeach him for I still think it wouldn't acomplish what you're aiming for.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I'm for bi-gender marriages. Don't see how that makes me 'anti-gay', in the least. Those who try to offer that nonsense simply have no argument to stand on.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 8:05 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

For fear that this will get weird: Oh who cares. If you don't want to read the next few paragraphs you don't have to, I just figured I'd put out my argument since I've never done it on this forum before. Oh and before you choose to stop reading, I agree that Newt would not be very successful in a presidential election, I think the way the Repubs would succede is if they have newer blood, not Sarah Palin, but someone else who is a bit more informed etc. Anyways if you don't agree with my argument oh well,.

Marriage, since the concept originated, has meant a union between male(s) and female(s). Many tribes still believe in having more than one wife and I know of at least one tribe where a woman can have more than one husband. So just because people feel like it they should just be able to change what a concept is?

Okay, class, welcome to math 101, where we go over basic math concepts to help those whose maths skills have become rusty. this class should be fairly basic and I'm sure you'll all do quite well. Oh by the way, there have been some changes recently enacted. I know you've always known addition as when you put two numbers together, but we've decided to change the definition, it now includes both putting numbers together and taking a number away from another. Got it class, okay lets ... there's a question in the back? ... Yes ... I know addition has always been putting two numbers together but now we've decided it means taking from a number as well, ... you don't think that makes sense? Well a bunch of people got together and decided it should be this way, it doesn't matter that addition has never included subtraction before, we decided that it should just because we thought this would be fairer. Anyways here's your first assignment, good luck!

And don't give me stuff about negative numbers either, that isn't the point.

I think that for legal purposes people should be able to enter into a civil agreement which allows all the legal rights of marriage, we can call it a civil union if we like. I don't think it should be limited to people who rut with each other though, I think that if I want to I should be able to enter such a legal contract with a best friend or a sibling, whatever, without someone assuming that we have sex, ew. Then people could share health insurance, visit each other in the hospital etc. without incident. Then marriage could stay what it is and I wouldn't be having this problem.

By the way I don't believe in plural marriage, I included it in my historical definition of marriage though because just because I don't approve of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, so it had to be included in the definition.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 8:42 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Okay, class, welcome to Biology 121. We're going to talk about photosynthesis today, a process that was thought to have only one pathway since its discovery up until about a decade ago. This process involved the production of a stable 3-Carbon compound that was fixed into glucose with a special enzyme, the only enzyme involved in the process, and it all took place simultaneously within the same cell. Well, new discoveries have been made of special structures and special enzymes in plants that allow them to separate the process into different times or different places, making plants immune to photorespiration. These processes involve 4-Carbon compounds stored as an acid. Everything you knew about photosynthesis needs to be updated. If your thinking can't adjust or evolve, you're going to fail miserably. Good luck.

And for the record, subtraction is essentially adding a negative, so your metaphor fails.

One law. One law with a couple tweaks and all the legal imbalance is gone. Changing every single law on the books that talks about marriage to include civil unions is a pile of work that no one wants to do. It's just another damn blockade on the road, anyway. Insurance and pensions don't want to pay for more people, and they'll use any argument and any belief system they can to make sure they don't have to pay out. Obama earned my vote next election for refusing this ludicrous piece of legislation. Yeah, that's right. I've seen it said that he's 'pandering' to us, and maybe he is, but I don't care so long as he sticks to those guns. Maybe my lifetime will see me and mine getting some equality, after all.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 9:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Of course, really we have to be more concerned with what *future* presidents are allowed to get away with, and we don't get any say in that if we don't get any accountability now.

Quote:
I think Newt's grand standing, and trying to woo Right wingers for when he runs for office..

I agree with both, but believe Dumbya was the one who singly got away with doing impeachable things PUBLICLY, as opposed to under cover, and the cans of worms he opened up will haunt us for decades to come...maybe permanently.

As to gay marriage: Go Lili. I hope that day comes, too. DOMA makes about as much sense to me as the repeated anti-flag-burning legislation we see from time to time. I’m tickled the Obama administration has pointed out that it’s unconstitutional...to me his stance is wishy-washy, but I also realize that at this time in history, it would be harder for him to go further, realistically. Such is life. Hopefully, in time...

As to Newt, he's an ass, pure and simple. Yes, they need new blood, not the same old tired (and FAILED) candidates. As to getting rid of Obama...who really wants President Biden??

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 10:01 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Newts not the only one who wants to impeach Obama...

I mean, ObamaCare? That shit is NOT constitutional.

Neither is "gun control", the "BATFE", the "Patriot Act" or any of the other privacy, freedom, self-determination, killing plans put forward in the last 20 years.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 10:58 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Riona, I think I more or less understand where you are coming from, but it really is a lot easier to just legalize gay "marriage." Just because the government recognizes the marriage doesn't mean the religions have too. I just think of it as "legal marriage" and "religious marriage." I apologize if this offends someone, but when it comes down to personal beliefs, I just don't see gay marriage and traditional marriage as the same thing. I am strongly in favor of gay rights. They should have every legal right, responsibility and protection that every straight person has.

Also, y'all have never taught a real class before have you

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 11:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree, Trader...I think if religions don't want to recognize it, that's their right, but that every citizen should have the right to marry the person they love. Hell, hetero marriages haven't done so great, have they?

You certainly don't offend ME, especially given my attitude toward organized religion. We were married in a field up in the Sierras, the "service" performed by my best friend's sister, Universal Life "minister" (remember those?). It was perfect for us.

This is another of those issues we've debated time and again, the preferability of "civil unions" over "marriages" and the topic of gay marriage itself. Nobody changes anyone else's mind, but it keeps coming up, like abortion and global warming, and we argue it all over again.

I'm also in favor of gay adoption, by the way. There are so many out there needing love, and so many with only ONE parent to love them, it's stupid to keep gay couples from doing so.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 11:31 AM

DREAMTROVE

Niki

Yes, you weren't here when I daily called for the head of George W. Bush. That said, he is now in the past, and it's to our eternal shame that we did not chuck him out the window.

But we are where we are and have to move on. I think the only alternative really is to promote the extreme abuses of power and hope that the weight of corruption causes the entire system to collapse

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 4:16 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I know my metaphore is a bit shotty and isn't the best, it would have worked better to use first graders and dried beans and say now addition means you can take away beans too, even though last year it meant putting them together. But even that doesn't work perfectly, so I need to come up with a new metaphore. I think people know what I'm trying to say though. I'm just stating my opinion and everyone else has the same right to state theirs.

As for changing laws, can't they just add "and civil union" to all of them, then people could share insurance etc. no matter what their connection was, friends, lovers, siblings, cousins, whatever. I just think marriage includes certain elements and should be different.

That sounds like a nice wedding Niki.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 4:46 PM

HARDWARE

There may be a good reason, but DOMA isn't it.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 4:51 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
As for changing laws, can't they just add "and civil union" to all of them

I addressed that. Much longer, much more arduous process than simply tweaking the law on marriage, itself. One law as opposed to hundreds. I wouldn't want to face that sort of paperwork. Who would? It's an extremely effective tactic of delay. And I don't know about insurance coverage, but siblings already have the rights of family when someone's in the hospital, etc. I actually doubt that insurance covers siblings because they hate paying out so much. However, if you have a dependent younger sibling there might be an exception.

Religion can keep whatever definition they want. I don't really want to be married in a church, I want the legal rights. I want a wife, a family, a health plan, and the assurance that they can be taken care of if something happens to me. I want assurance that if something happens to people I love, I can go to the hospital and see them, stay and sit with them until they're okay. It's hardly unusual and I don't think it's unreasonable. Anyone who wants it should be able to have it.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE