@Sebe. I can see that you have returned with a vengeance; this and multiple postings!! I forgot when I was pleading for your return the old adage 'be careful what you wish for cause you might just get it.' Looks like I got it!
Your tsunami of information sometimes takes me a while to digest. Best as I can tell at the moment is the Impeach Obama drum,(s?) is\are acting up...to some.
I think that given the time, perseverance, and intellect one could make a case regarding impeachment against the MAJORITY of our Presidents during their terms of office. Of course, tricky dick WUZ a crook and his pal Kissenger was a war criminal, but to my mind W., the Boy King, still holds the title belt for Worst of ALL Time. The trials, tribulations, initiation of massive debt, loss of life and limb(s), EXCEEDS whatever can be drummed up against BHO.
But, it being SUPER BOWL WEEK and all, I will bet you a dime to a nickel that no impeachment initiatives will be brought to the floor of the House during Obama's final term. We may well hear some impeachment NOISE, but that's all it will amount to. Just a little 'rackit'(southern term for noise.) As in: "you boys stop that rackit before your daddy gets his belt."
Sorry, Jimmy - this one got posted WAY before I was finished with it. The "real" version is now up above.
I didn't realize an earlier version was up until I tried to post the "almost final" version and saw that an incomplete part of it was already here. You may want to reconsider your rating - but I'm not sure how to change it. I can't vote one way or another. Perhaps the system will let you change yours if you want to. I never tried to do that.
As to any movement toward actual impeachment, I don't see it happening - at least not until after the November elections IF the Republicans hold the House and take the Senate. Then all bets might be off - especially if Mr. Obama continues to do business "with a pen and a phone." That will give the Republicans the reason and the argument to move on it. The fact that they would be holding both houses of Congress could further embolden them to proceed.
This country doesn't need that. What it needs is a functioning government where laws are enacted the way the Constitution specifies and our leaders WORK TOGETHER to get things done. Executive fiat is not the way - even if you think the opposition is being "obstructionist." The solution to that dilemma is to LEAD - to make them stop being "obstructionist" by forging legislative coalitions and compromising. Mr. Obama would do well to start forging those compromises and coalitions IN HIS OWN PARTY. This article does a pretty good job of telling the tale:
Sporty, Funk, Sebe, JimmyMack, Up2, sheran, and ....drum roll....Tot!!!!
Eyes, gacpl, lholmes, dare I say it: MURELLET; IKY,PN, of course, bring back TANDSHICKEY, WHAT HOT LIPS,......
AND WE will all end up in jail...
Yes - as Agent Smith so famously said in The Matrix Reloaded: we need MORE....
How about the female sky ???????????
I don't remember her full handle but way back she was here often.
She was a big supporter of the local animal shelter.
I just read something interesting in Leonard Pitt's column this morning.
He quotes Dr King
"OUR LIVES BEGIN TO END" said King, "THE DAY WE BECOME SILENT ABOUT THINGS THAT MATTER."
We have reached that point when we don't voice our opinions about the current abuse of Executive orders by Obama.
Seems to me it fits right in with Hentoff's thoughts above.
I read it too, Tot. But Pitt's column had nothing to do with the impeachment of Obama. It dealt with race and Conservatives and was titled: 'ON RACE, CONSERVATIVES ARE SILENT.' To quote Pitt's observation regarding Conservatives and what Martin Luther King had to say 'They can't quote what he said about injustice: "America has given the Negro people a bad check, which has come back marked, 'insufficient funds.'
But, continued Pitt regarding Conservatives: "They always quote the "content of character" passage from King's I HAVE A DREAM speech. They see it as supportive of their ideal of a so-called 'color-blind' society wherein RACE and racial problems are acknowledged NEVER."
We can acknowledge racial problems, but to bait and profit from their proliferation and continuation is the Democratic party's stock-in-trade. Once again we are comparing the lesser of two evils. Perhaps that's all we can hope for. The past five years of "hope and change" haven't gotten us much closer to "racial harmony." By all accounts this country is more racially polarized than it has ever been.
Well I Timeontarget believe that "OUR LIVES BEGIN TO END THE DAY WE BECOME SILENT ABOUT THINGS THAT MATTER"
What is the benefit of continuing to lament the effects of slavery???????????
None of us here at this time had anything to do with it.
None of us now have any responsibility for what happened.
Why can't we all just simply move on.
Don't stir foul matter if it is not necessary.
My folks were written a bad check too, in my opinion, but that is not anything that I ever expect my government to afford me any compensation or benefit for.
Tot: Amazing to have both of us read the very same article and come away with different reasons of what the article was really about!!! Pitts emphasis was Conservatives, of which he named and gave examples, regarding their belated embrace of Martin Luther King, and if they realize THEY are what he struggled against all his life!
Your comments above Tot were addressed by Dr. King. Though the term 'playing the race card' did not exist in his lifetime, King was familiar with the argument. His focus on racial injustice, said his critics, 'fanned the flames of racial tension.'
To which Dr. King said this: "We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the CREATORS of the tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be dealt with."
This quote above was 'another quote most conservatives will not know. Too bad, says Pitts. If they (Conservatives) understood it, they might better understand the man they purport to embrace. "Our lives begin to end," said King, "the day we become silent about things that matter."
You see Tot, you as many Conservatives do, cherry pick Dr. King's words to fit your own exclusionary agenda.
Here's one for you: THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR JUST A FEW GOOD MEN TO REMAIN SILENT.
That and a few other reasons is why I speak up regarding your narrow world perspective which you unashamedly post here on these pages.
Thank God for the Democratic Party.
I fear that Obama was elected President because for one thing McCain was a terrible choice for the republican ticket.
Another reason and a formidable one too,
Was that many voters did not judge Obama for the content of his character, they simply judged him by the color of his skin.
@Tot: "Reverse discrimination." So, Tot, for someone that likes to cherry pick MLK's views regarding the ABSENSE of discrimination, you now wish to make the point that discrimination does in fact exist. But it exists in those who voted for Obama based on his color?
I will say again: inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Say hello to Honey Boo and Phil Robertson for me. At least they get paid to be stupid.
"Thank God for the Democratic Party."
The ones who should first be thanking God ARE the Democratic party. Now even the RUSSIANS say that we are more "godless" than they are:
One way the Obama administration has fed the Russians ammunition with this claim is by striking God from their party platform at the last Democratic National Convention. Another way is to STOP SCREWING WITH THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR. As pointed out by Kirsten Powers in her USATODAY.com article yesterday:
"Friday, the Supreme Court gave the Colorado-based Little Sisters of the Poor a reprieve in their battle over the Obamacare contraception mandate. While the Sisters' case is on appeal, the government must cease demanding that the nuns sign a form they say violates their religious beliefs.
The Sisters had been facing hefty fines.
This is a very strange case. The government has argued that signing the form is meaningless because the nuns' insurer, the Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust, is exempt from the mandate. Yet it has fought the Sisters all the way to the Supreme Court to make them sign it. What's going on?
The government's brief to the Colorado court provides a clue. It drips with contempt. The Obama administration finds the nuns' complaint "implausible" and alleges that the Sisters are "fighting an invisible dragon." Oh, you silly, simple-minded nuns! Just stop imagining things and do what the government tells you.
The Sisters reject the government's contention that the form does nothing, as did all six lower courts to consider the claim in other church plan cases. They are wise to be leery of Uncle Sam's intentions.
The dismissive tone of the administration's brief is consistent with its overall attitude toward religious liberty issues throughout the implementation of the contraception mandate. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius never bothered to consult the Justice Department to determine whether the mandate was consistent with the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, despite requests from Congress.
When asked whether she consulted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over their complaints about an effort to find an "accommodation," Sebelius said she didn't. Considering it was the primary group complaining, why not?
The administration's indifference to religious liberty complaints is not limited to issues arising from Obamacare. In 2011, the government made the argument in Hosanna-Tabor v. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that churches do not have special rights under the First Amendment but merely association rights, like unions. Justice Antonin Scalia called this "extraordinary," and Justice Elena Kagan said it was an "amazing" claim. Another word that comes to mind is "disturbing." A unanimous court rejected the administration's claim."
So - "thank God" for the Democratic Party? I see absolutely nothing about the Democratic Party to thank God for - other than providing a greater of two evils for Americans voters to choose between each time we go to the ballot box. In fact - if the Democratic Party was a river, I'd suggest that they be dammed.
@Sebe. You being a self-admitted Center-Right Independent, I can well see how you would view the two party system as a choice between two Evils. And coming from Chicago, where you have seen the 'hands on' machinations of politics, and it being a predominantly Democrat enclave, your revulsion is understandable. The same is so for watching how sausage is made. A thoroughly revolting thing to see up close and personal. Not that it is perfect, by any means, but the two party system is what we got. Two differing political philosophies locked in a battle for the middle ground. Each one has their own methods to get out the vote. I view the Republican voter roundup strategies as abhorrent as you do the Democrats.
Abortion is a polarizing issue. One either is against it or not. You know how I see it as I have stated my position on these pages and in the Courier.
We will never see eye to eye on this one, Sebe. But, it will all come down to either the Republican or Democrat way of doing things in the forth coming elections.
You know how I will vote. I think I know how you will vote. One of us will "win" the battle between 'the two evil choices.'