So, when will the calls for Impeachment start.....from our side?

[brooklynite]

Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

From what I've read here recently, the President:

- used his DHS to break up the Occupy protests for his frinds on Wall Street
- is using his appointed DNC Chair and Party leaders to prevent real Progressive candidates from running for office
- granted complete Amnesty to the Bush Administration for Iraq War Crimes
- Wants to get us engaged in a war in Syria for the sake of the Arms Industry and is lying about Chemical Weapons use to do so

I don't know how you put up with him... /sarc/

( edit to add one additional point: anyone who doesn't agree with these interpretations of events is apparantly a "lackey" and "apologist".)

[SidDithers]

1. I wish all the dumbasses would call for Obama's impeachment...

do it openly and loudly.

Then they'd get their well-deserved pizzas, and DU would be a better place.

The amnesty threads have really opened my eyes. The willful ignorance on display in those threads is astounding.

Sid

[cali]

9. I don't believe more than a couple of people here want him impeached

so you're going to have to suffer your wish remaining unfulfilled.

tough.

[SidDithers]

12. Those couple, or few, won't come out and say what they believe, tho...

they'll parse words, and nudge-nudge-wink-wink their way around the issue.

If they had the courage of their convictions, they'd clearly say what they think. But they don't. For them, it's posting privileges before principles.

Sid

[pnwmom]

18. This is apparently the tactic of the OP.

"I don't know how you put up with him."

[SidDithers]

20. The OP is one of the good guys...

and their OP is sarcasm.

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. In other words, only the "good guys" are talking impeachment.

Good luck finding your patsy.

[SidDithers]

33. No, the "good guys" are the ones ridiculing the ones talking impeachement...

ridiculing the ones who think Obama is evil incarnate.

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. You and the OP are the "good guys", yes? You're the ones talking impeachment.

We bad guys are angry with the President, but no one that I know of is calling for impeachment.

[SidDithers]

42. ...

Let me say this very clearly, and I'll type slowly, so you won't have any trouble understanding.



I don't believe Obama should be impeached.

I think the "good guys" are the ones that don't think Obama should be impeached.

If you believe Obama should be impeached, you're not one of the "good guys".

If you believe Obama should be impeached, you don't belong at DU.




Clear enough?

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

44. There was nothing unclear before, save your understanding of a simple sentence

I'll try to speak clearly too, so that this can propagate through to your thinkin' spot. YOU are talking about impeachment. The OP is talking about impeachment. The people you call the "bad guys" are not talking about impeachment. YOU are talking about impeachment. YOU are wanting to find others talking impeachment so that you can follow your hobby and work on getting them banned.

I have been at DU longer than you have, and don't need your advice as to whether I belong here or not. And once again, good luck finding your patsy.

[SidDithers]

47. Talking about impeachment is not the same as talking impeachment...

IMO, and based on history here, anyone calling for the impeachment of Obama should be banned from DU in a New York minute. It's been my experience, tho, that those who believe Obama should be impeached won't say so in clear language. They parse, and dance around it, without actually saying what they believe.

If you don't believe Obama should be impeached, then I'm not talking about you, so I don't know why you're worried about whether you belong or not.

Love the "I have been at DU longer than you" though.

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. I'm not worried about whether I belong. I'm concerned with your exclusionary and bullying behavior

So again, you're talking about impeachment. No one else is, but you're parsing language to see what you can find, see who you can get banned for not actually saying what you really, really wish they would say. You're looking to cause trouble, looking to get someone banned. It's what you do here.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

55. I never said that. You should retract that statement.

[Progressive dog]

46. You nailed it nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. Yes, another purge would benefit the true believers.

[SidDithers]

19. Yup...

A purge of those that believe Obama should be impeached?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

But that wouldn't include you, right?

Sid

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. Why would anybody want to impeach a president for donning his comfortable shoes,

thoughtfully walking over to see the kindly folks at the Pentagon and giving the green light for a well-deserved bombing campaign against a country we are not at war with?

Show me that person, and by god as you and I are red-blooded Americans I will show them what for.

What DU needs are more purges of the unfaithful, ungrateful durty LibRul lefties that always believe that questioning things is somehow America.

[SidDithers]

31. See post 12...nt

Sid

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. I'm not one to cheer for *impeachment or for purges.

But cheer the later on if you will.

And while you're at it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/22/1233110/-DOJ-Asks-Court-to-Grant-Immunity-to-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-for-Iraq-War

Curious. Very Curious indeed.

*Impeachment should only be used when high crimes or misdemeanours have been committed by those in high-office. But this little nugget, and Nancy Pelosi removing impeachment from the table way back when, should make one stop and think about the timing and why an administration that has been quoted as "only wanting to look forward" is now looking back at the obviously criminal Bush Administration with an idea that they should be protected from prosecution for war crimes?

And on purges. Purges should only be used by those that wish to subvert true Democracy, to kill dissent, to quell open debate and intimidate others into silence. It is very Russian and Republican thing to do.

Perhaps you don't understand fully either of these two points, but understandably it may take a completely American perspective to appreciate their gravity.

[SidDithers]

48. Immunity in a civil suit...

because the proper target for the suit is the US Government, not the individuals within the US Government.

But nice attempt to change the subject.

Sid

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. Nobody changed the subject Sid. You're just being disingenuous now.

That's also not an American ideal. Where your ideals are coming from...?

Here's the beginning of my post: which was in context all along to you previous post.

45. I'm not one to cheer for *impeachment or for purges.

Now it appears that you are on the Pro side for purges at DU. Perhaps I am wrong on this and you only want a few minor purges., but you did say you are for them.

Understandably, there can be the casual disruptor with low post count, or if they wait long enough high post count, that muddy the Democratic waters with distraction or dissemination of false information. They should be removed by MIRT.


Now onto the dailykos snippit. Yes, I know that dailykos angers some on the right right and left right, but I hope they will keep an open mind.

In court papers filed today, the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

Plaintiff Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, filed a complaint in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court alleging that the planning and waging of the war constituted a “crime of aggression” against Iraq, a legal theory that was used by the Nuremberg Tribunal to convict Nazi war criminals after World War II.

The proper target appears to be George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz since they are the ones potentially being shielded by the DoJ and to an extent the Obama Administration.

So you can keep on banging your icon against the wall if you like. Perhaps in time it will have some sense knocked into it.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. If we had the votes in the Senate

I would.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Shouldn't Biden Then Be Impeached Too?

Since he agrees with him.

Last time I checked the standard for impeachment was high crimes and misdemeanors. I don't think the Constitution mentioned the tender sensibilities of the denizens of this board.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. Republicans in Congress, as the majority party, can impeach him. So you have a majority...

amenable to your desire to impeach.

[Pab Sungenis]

26. But he would not be convicted in the Senate

so there's no point. It would be an empty gesture.

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. If the charges were valid and real? Why wouldn't he be removed from office?

Calling impeachment on the internet is easy. It is the equivalent of saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take t his anymore" and then getting another beer out if the refrigerator and changing the channel. I've yet to see evidence that the President or his administration have acted outside the law. Some of those laws are Crap and will, hopefully, be shown to be unconstitutional and removed (I won't hold my breath), but they are still within the law.

[MNBrewer]

3. Are those claims untrue?

Especially item #3?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I'm adamantly opposed to war in Syria but I', interested to know how you are so certain

Obama is lying about the chemical weapon use. It is possible to oppose the war without calling the President a liar.

[leftstreet]

5. Your list is too short

But no one is going to call for his impeachment

Good grief

[Dawgs]

41. ^^THIS^^

All that needs to be said in response to this OP.

[one_voice]

49. Good grief...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023542625#post2

[JoePhilly]

6. But then who would they gripe about?

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Never

As much as I dislike the betrayal that has been Obama's presidency, he has not yet done anything to warrant impeachment. If he unilaterally decides to cluster-bomb Syria, my views will change on that. But, it would be silly to hold him accountable and not the prior regime for their illegal war. I do believe we will wait for a UN resolution prior to any action. As much as I disdain violence, if we wait for the resolution, the action will be legal by international law.

edit-Drone killings of us citizens without trial should be impeachable. The law allowing this should be found to be unconstitutional.

[cali]

8. I put up with him because there's really no other option

I support him when I can which is sadly less and less. I do not support impeachment.

I do think that it's extremely troubling that he is usurping Congress with another military strike. Although it benefits the military/industrial complex, I don't believe that's the reason for his likely strike in Syria. I think he boxed himself in with this clear red line rhetoric.

[kiawah]

11. The Who - Won't get fooled again - Never been more appropriate....

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[SidDithers]

14. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[FSogol]

16. I am due beer and travel money and many experiences....

[snooper2]

21. Look, a new one!

2013 is a unique summer for DU. It's like the cicada shells I've got stuck to trees in the backyard

[SidDithers]

23. Holy crap!...

I knew it was cicada summer, but we don't get them this far north.

That's a lot of big bugs.

Sid

[snooper2]

27. That's a stock picture but I've got 10 times that many over the past couple months

the shells confuse my cat LOL,

why don't it movey when I slap it?

[kiawah]

39. Thanks!

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. Charges 2 and 3 are not crimes let alone "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

The Democratic Party has the right to set the rules and policies as to who is a candidate under the First Amendment implied right of Freedom of Association.
The President has the right to Pardon any crime at the Federal level, up to and including War Crimes. (That Pardon means nothing to the International Court.) And reading this article shows that the President and the Justice department appear (unless the court decides differently) to be acting within the law to grant immunity. http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war
As to the third item, as long as the President is acting within the War Powers Act and the Constitution, he is not acting outside the law, so number 3 would require a great deal of investigation and would be easily defeated since there is evidence of the use of Chemical Weapons against civilians and Obama (under his power to run foreign diplomacy) has publicly made that his policy (which he is allowed to do.)
As to number 1? I've yet to see any evidence that the President personally ordered and oversaw Police actions against civilians. That would need to be investigated by the Republicans in Congress.

These things piss people off, but I see no real proof of impeachable acts. They are fully within their rights to refuse to vote for President Obama if he runs again for President, which he is Constitutionally forbidden to do.

The two possible impeachable offenses require Republicans in Congress to investigate and impeach. Perhaps people should request the Republicans in Congress impeach the President for those crimes. Congressman Issa seems to be their natural ally as he has a hard on to impeach and, so far, has resorted to making shit up.

[MineralMan]

22. I think you maybe just got the ball rolling, eh...

"I don't know how you put up with him..."

You? What "you" are you talking about? DUers? Are you not a DUer?

[Zorra]

24. If we invade Syria like Bush invaded Iraq, expect them loud and clear soon after the invasion

begins and the first babies are murdered.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. I've been expecting calls to start coming over NSA/Snowden/Greenwald/Manning any day now

considering the tone of most of the discussions here.

[railsback]

32. If they really believed and were committed to that 'cause', they would have been calling for

IMPEACHMENT!

Tyranny and such..

but its all just faux outrage.

[dionysus]

34. they'd love to, but they don't want to get tombstoned

[SidDithers]

37. Posting privileges before principles!!...

the new rallying cry of DU's fringe.

Sid

[Drale]

28. People "On our side", or at least claim to be "on our side" have been calling for

Obama's impeachment from almost week one when he didn't fix everything instantly. People are dumb panicky animals when in groups or on the internet.

[iloveObama12]

35. yeah let's give Obama & Biden their walking papers and bring in John Boehner

[SidDithers]

36. Sadly, your sarcasm seems to have gone right over the head of many here...nt

Sid

[PowerToThePeople]

43. The issue is, we can not let it go as sarcasm

Because sarcasm infers some level of absurdity. I am not willing to let these types of thoughts (impeachment) reach that level. All options should remain on the table.

**This post in no way supports impeaching the President at the current time.**

[Autumn]

51. No one from our side will call for the impeachment of Obama.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. I'd love to see the Congress vote to impeach Obama, for tactical reasons.

Without the senate, a vote in Congress doesn't actually do anything, and it would cost the Republicans a lot of popular support.

[KamaAina]

56. This week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023564650#post4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023555026