Impeach Obama

Originally posted by Metal Brain
As long as the corporate news media manufactures consent you and others will always feel that way. Israel can break international law and you will be just fine with it and think it is normal. Double standards mean nothing to you as they are.

If Iran were to break international law the news media would be all over it, but Israel and the USA always get ...[text shortened]... less you agree with it. So goes the status quo in the USA. Double standards rule, logic suffers.

You didn't mention the word "treason" in your answer.

Originally posted by whodey
Oh please. Everyone on the left wanted to impeach Bush for the war.

Whoever is elected in 2016 will suffer the same fate because they don't have the big "D" or "R" by their name.

As for whether these people are impeachable, I would just say that once you attain this level of power you are free to do pretty much anything, assuming you are not too stupid ...[text shortened]... der the law is enough reason to impeach the man, but who the hell cares what Whodey thinks?

Yeah. There's a big difference between waging an illegal war which killed thousands of children... And banning assault rifles.
Only right-wing trailer trash can't see the difference.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
International law means nothing to you unless you agree with it.

And you just figured that out? Since when has "international law" meant anything to anyone except when someone else is holding them to it at gunpoint? Countries look out for their own best interests. Good morning.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by international law. If you mean UN resolutions, well, individuals in countries did not democratically elect the UN and invest it with authority over their own lives. If you mean treaties they've signed, then those should be followed to the extent the treaties are binding as domestic law. Neither the US nor Israel nor Iran is ever going to sacrifice its own self-interest at the demand of some international body unless the consequences of refusing are greater than the consequences of complying.

I will never cite "international law" as a reason to to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I will argue that allowing them to obtain such is too risky and so we should stop them. I don't give a damn whether they've actually violated some obscure provision of some treaty or some UN resolution.

Originally posted by sh76
Failing to enforce a law is not an impeachable offense. If in fact a President has a responsibility to actively enforce every law on the books (a dubious proposition, but at least a debatable one), the remedy is to get a court order compelling the President to do so.

Whodey...Listen to sh76. He knows the law!😏

Originally posted by sh76
And you just figured that out? Since when has "international law" meant anything to anyone except when someone else is holding them to it at gunpoint? Countries look out for their own best interests. Good morning.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by international law. If you mean UN resolutions, well, individuals in countries did not democratically elect t ...[text shortened]... r they've actually violated some obscure provision of some treaty or some UN resolution.

The Iranians signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. They had a civilian nuclear power program with assistance from the West - on the basis that the west needed oil and more reserves would be available to international markets if Iran could generate it's electricity from nuclear power. This all changed in 1979, after the revolution the west stopped cooperating. As far as international law goes they did sign the treaty but from the point of view of Iran's current regime the ruler at the time was illegitimate - so why should they be bound by it?

The problem, of course, is that if Iran and North Korea do it then there's no reason for every wannabe regional power to gain them. With only five legitimate nuclear states, the UK has the smallest arsenal with about 300 warheads - enough to totally destroy most countries - the chances of anyone "risking it" are quite low. With everyone with the bomb the chances of two countries with small arsenals thinking they can "win" a nuclear war increases - after which the behaviour of the superpowers becomes unpredictable and doomsday scenarios become realistic.

Originally posted by bill718
Not exactly a big suprise. Republicans want to impeach anyone who does not march in lock step with their agenda. 😴

Not exactly a one party trend. Scott Walker had to fight off a recall in Wisconsin, at the hands of rabid union thugs.

Originally posted by whodey
Oh please. Everyone on the left wanted to impeach Bush for the war.

Whoever is elected in 2016 will suffer the same fate because they don't have the big "D" or "R" by their name.

As for whether these people are impeachable, I would just say that once you attain this level of power you are free to do pretty much anything, assuming you are not too stupid ...[text shortened]... der the law is enough reason to impeach the man, but who the hell cares what Whodey thinks?

Nixon could have beat the rap, if he had the brass ones Clinton had, and was willing to put the country through that.

Originally posted by sh76
You may have wanted that but that's not what the Constitution calls for. Impeachment is allowed for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" not for "continuing the status quo you consider wrong headed" or for "imperialism."

"treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors"

That is a legal mouthful. I wonder how they came up with anything quite as mealy mouthed as that? Or are there in the debates at the convention ways of understanding what that line really means?

Originally posted by DeepThought
The Iranians signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. They had a civilian nuclear power program with assistance from the West - on the basis that the west needed oil and more reserves would be available to international markets if Iran could generate it's electricity from nuclear power. This all changed in 1979, after the revolution the west stoppe ...[text shortened]... haviour of the superpowers becomes unpredictable and doomsday scenarios become realistic.

" With only five legitimate nuclear states"

Perhaps I don't understand "legitimate". US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, Isreal, and S.Africa which has disassembled its arsenal.

Originally posted by sh76
Since when has "international law" meant anything to anyone except when someone else is holding them to it at gunpoint?

That is exactly my point. The USA holds countries at gunpoint and cites international law in blatant hypocrisy. Of course I didn't just figure this out and you know that.

There is nothing wrong with Iran having a nuclear program, even if it was a nuclear weapons program (which there is no evidence of) it would only stabilize the region by keeping imperialists from meddling with Iran as it has since Operation Ajax in 1953.

Israel is just a puppet nation of the USA just as many countries are. The recent suicide bombing in Turkey is to bring attention to Turkey being a puppet nation of imperialism. This is what the USA does and when some people strap on suicide bombs and sacrifice themselves to protest it guys like you simply dismiss them as crazies that are brainwashed. As long as guys like you ignore the true reality, these deadly incidents will increase. All of the counter terrorism efforts possible will never stop it until people of your stubborn denial look at the true root cause you cannot yet accept.

Iran and North Korea and other nations keep saying the USA is an imperialist power with puppet nations threatening them. This is not because they are crazies that lie. This is the truth you are not supposed to accept so you don't. Keep paying your taxes for military bases all over the world. You are exactly what the imperialists like an American to be. You promote policies that create terrorism and terrorism is the excuse they use to invade countries. Perpetual military intervention is what you stand for. You are part of the problem and are too blind to see it.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

When they ruin our economy another military power will take over the same imperialist agenda. This form of imperialism is not limited to one nation. They don't care about us. We are just tools to them.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't see any of this as remotely surprising.

If you didn't vote for him and don't like him, it stands to reason that there's an excellent chance you "would like to see President Barack Obama impeached and removed from office." Of course there are no legitimate grounds for impeachment, but since when has something like that ever worried partisan voters?

would be well served to realize this and not take these calls personally or seriously.

The problem is the Republican window lickers aren't just Texas Republicans, but many Republican elected officials who have called for impeachment, secession, are staunch birthers, etc.

It doesn't bother me that there are people who are that epically stupid on this forum. It bothers me that those types of dumb s***'s are actually in government.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The problem is the Republican window lickers aren't just Texas Republicans, but many Republican elected officials who have called for impeachment, secession, are staunch birthers, etc.

It doesn't bother me that there are people who are that epically stupid on this forum. It bothers me that those types of dumb s***'s are actually in government.

Well-said.

Originally posted by sh76
And you just figured that out? Since when has "international law" meant anything to anyone except when someone else is holding them to it at gunpoint? Countries look out for their own best interests. Good morning.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by international law. If you mean UN resolutions, well, individuals in countries did not democratically elect t ...[text shortened]... r they've actually violated some obscure provision of some treaty or some UN resolution.

True. I think the key is "the consequences of refusing are greater than the consequences of complying." This goes for all including the US, Iran, China, EU, etc. And it is not just the stick but also the carrot.

Take China, for instance, in a very narrow example. Historically, patent enforcement was a joke in China. Now, with China desiring to be accepted and respected in the world intelletual property community (and they are a signtaure to the Patent Cooperation Treaty as are the vast majority of countries in the world), China is now enforcing both domestic and international patents. While they are a massive country and still behind in remedies for copyright/trademark infringement, the Chinese government is now nailing their own companies as well as international companies that infringe Chinese or international patents (e.g., US, EP, etc.) in China.

Originally posted by sh76
Failing to enforce a law is not an impeachable offense. If in fact a President has a responsibility to actively enforce every law on the books (a dubious proposition, but at least a debatable one), the remedy is to get a court order compelling the President to do so.

So basically whatever law Obama does not like all he has to do is pass an EO not to enforce the law? YOu are OK with this?