Why I'll Never Support Interventionist Warmonger Obama

[Eldritch]

because the fact of the matter is they HAVE NO POWER to do shit.

Really?

How "amazing" that when the Republicans had a similar "slim majority," they managed so much more.

But then, of course, they tried.

they also had 24x7 media support millions of lobotomized drones listening to rush limpdick all day long and a filibuster threat that they knew they could sustain. We can't sustain most any filibuster because the party is so infiltrated with liebermans and such.

As the majority party, the Democrats have the power of investigation—and there is so much to investigate! If they WANTED TO, they could shine a bright light on acres and acres of corruption.

They don't.

And what few investigations they do conduct rarely go anywhere. Do you ever notice that?

And, of course, "Impeachment is off the table," said the newly appointed Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi—right after the 2006 "election."

They don't even try.

[marmot]

I forget which philosopher said it (I hate philosophers) but it's something like, "act as you would want everyone else to act in the same situation."

You may be thinking of the categorical imperative central to Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy. The ethic echoes the Golden Rule of Jesus: "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise" Luke 6:31.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

[Eldritch]

Here you go, JustDrew:

Pelosi Says She Would Impeach Bush If Somebody Knew of a Crime He'd Committed

Nancy Pelosi made an appearance on ABC's The View. Some people really should get out more; Nancy Pelosi is not one of them.

JOY BEHAR: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. And now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you, why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?

[applause]

PELOSI: Well, I think that it- I think it was important- When I became speaker- and by the way, a very important position, president, vice president, speaker of the House- I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country. In terms of what we wanted to set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in 77 year history, the veteran- pass research in stem cell- the stem cell research, all of that. This week we’re going to pass equal pay for equal work. It has been a long time in coming [applause], pay equity. We’re going to pass legislation for product safety, for toys that children put in them. There’s an agenda that you have to get done, that you have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The president has to sign it. If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.

BEHAR: Can they still do it after he is out?

BARBARA WALTERS: When, when we first- when I interviewed you last year, you had just begun, and you were going to clean up the mess, remember?

PELOSI: We did.

WALTERS: You, you look around this country, 75 percent of the country, forget George Bush, thinks that Congress is doing a lousy job.

HASSELBECK: I think it’s 91 percent now.

PELOSI: Well, I don’t disagree with that because largely it’s predicated on ending the war in Iraq. That’s the main question, and we were not successful. In our House of Representatives, I’m very proud of our members because they voted overwhelmingly over and over again to bring the war to an end, to bring the troops home safely and soon, send it to the Senate, and it hits a dead end. But in terms of that particular standard, I would say I disapprove as well. But we do, we passed some of the things I just mentioned, the energy bill. We worked in a bipartisan way, and ovation, agenda, we have to create jobs, expand health care, protect the American people, and educate our children. And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the president at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.

BEHAR: They did it to Clinton.

PELOSI: But they didn’t have the goods and it was wrong, and it was wrong, and it was wrong when they did that. Not that I- I have total disagreement with president on the war, the reason why we went in, which was based on a false premise. But that’s a different story than saying "can we try to get something accomplished for people," have concerns about the economy and the rest.

Nancy Pelosi can't think of a crime Bush committed?!!!?

I think Nancy Pelosi should be committed.

LOL

[justdrew]

I said the party was infiltrated didn't I? Do you really think that bitch is actually a democrat, she's just another worthless rich bitch who's never done a damn thing for anyone. Getting scumbags like that out of the party is essential. getting them to loose primaries is the way to do it. she can cover for bush for only a little bit longer. he can be impeached after the next congress is sworn in as well as by this one.

or - maybe she's not so bad and has some reason that WE are not allowed to know why it is vitally important to not go through the show of failing to impeach him. I don't know. it's fucked up.

[Eldritch]

I said the party was infiltrated didn't I?

Yeah. You did.

Curiously, you didn't include Obama—despite his pro-empire record.

(But I forgot, because of his "background" you don't care about his record—just that of the other "party infiltrators," like Pelosi.)

[justdrew]

I said the party was infiltrated didn't I?

Yeah. You did.
Curiously, you didn't include Obama—despite his pro-empire record.
(But I forgot, because of his "background" you don't care about his record—just that of the other "party infiltrators," like Pelosi.)

Obama is the last chance for a change in direction, if he fails, we're all as good as dead. really. Is he perfect? no. his "record" who the hell knows what any of it means, why he chose to vote one way or another, who knows. I JUST DON'T CARE. mccain can not be permitted to win at ANY cost. If that means voting for a guy who's record I don't like, as opposed to one who's record I loath, so be it. whatever. They are not playing for the same team, I can't believe that, because if I did - there would be no point in caring about anything, because we'd be DOOMED.

[IanEye]

How many presidents in your lifetime have pretended to be worse—in order to get elected—and then behaved much, much better once in office?

well, i don't know how old you are, or whether this was in your lifetime. but you might want to research JFK's campaign rhetoric in '60 which was pretty hawkish and then realize that during the Cuban missile crisis JFK was pretty much the only thing keeping a bunch of war crazy fucks at bay.

I'm not saying JFK was a dove, and plenty of people here can point out times when JFK was a hawk during his time in the Oval Office. The point is, JFK wasn't being as hawkish as a lot of people thought he had promised them he would be. And boy, they sure showed their displeasure didn't they?

[Eldritch]

If that means voting for a guy who's record I don't like, as opposed to one who's record I loath, so be it. whatever.

I loathe the record of both men—for both continue to lend their Senate votes to funding not just one, but two wars that have resulted in the needless ruin of millions of lives, even as the powerful voices of both men perpetuate the September lies that prompted it all.

Both men have also voted to limit freedom and liberty here at home—not just once, but repeatedly.

[Eldritch]

How many presidents in your lifetime have pretended to be worse—in order to get elected—and then behaved much, much better once in office?

well, i don't know how old you are, or whether this was in your lifetime. but you might want to research JFK's campaign rhetoric in '60 which was pretty hawkish and then realize that during the Cuban missile crisis JFK was pretty much the only thing keeping a bunch of war crazy fucks at bay.

I'm not saying JFK was a dove, and plenty of people here can point out times when JFK was a hawk during his time in the Oval Office. The point is, JFK wasn't being as hawkish as a lot of people thought he had promised them he would be. And boy, they sure showed their displeasure didn't they?

Those are fair points, in my opinion.

[justdrew]

How many presidents in your lifetime have pretended to be worse—in order to get elected—and then behaved much, much better once in office?

well, i don't know how old you are, or whether this was in your lifetime. but you might want to research JFK's campaign rhetoric in '60 which was pretty hawkish and then realize that during the Cuban missile crisis JFK was pretty much the only thing keeping a bunch of war crazy fucks at bay.

I'm not saying JFK was a dove, and plenty of people here can point out times when JFK was a hawk during his time in the Oval Office. The point is, JFK wasn't being as hawkish as a lot of people thought he had promised them he would be. And boy, they sure showed their displeasure didn't they?

Same thing with Truman and Eisenhower. They kept the hawks at bay. If it hadn't been for them we'd have had a nuke war long ago and wouldn't be here to talk about. Do I like those two presidents? not much. but I recognize that they are playing on a different team than the psychopathic crazed war freaks.

[Eldritch]

Same thing with Truman and Eisenhower. They kept the hawks at bay. If it hadn't been for them we'd have had a nuke war long ago and wouldn't be here to talk about. Do I like those two presidents? not much. but I recognize that they are playing on a different team than the psychopathic crazed war freaks.

I'd say that dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of civilians was pretty "psychopathic." "Freaky," too.

[justdrew]

Same thing with Truman and Eisenhower. They kept the hawks at bay. If it hadn't been for them we'd have had a nuke war long ago and wouldn't be here to talk about. Do I like those two presidents? not much. but I recognize that they are playing on a different team than the psychopathic crazed war freaks.

I'd say that dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of civilians was pretty "psychopathic." "Freaky," too.

but at least we didn't launch thousands of nukes at USSR and China though huh? It's a fucking ugly bloody world. no shit. At least someone stopped them from going to global thermonuclear war, which they SO wanted to do. Who's going to do that this time?

[Eldritch]

If global thermonuclear war was really wanted nowadays, George W. Bush would probably already have provided it.

[professorpan]

I hope those of you who live in states with potential McCain victories will be able to sleep at night if the bloodthirsty motherfucker wins. I'll hold you accountable, and I won't let you forget you had a chance to stop him and didn't.

Well, I'm sure THAT will scare the bejeesus out of people.

Funny how you threaten to hold other posters here accountable, but aren't pressing nearly so hard for Obama himself to be held accountable—for his own words and deeds—which threaten his candidacy far more than anyone here possibly could.

Say what? What gave you any indication that I wouldn't be the first to march in the streets if Obama threatened another war? What makes you think I wouldn't hold him accountable, just like I'd hold any other politician accountable?

(shakes head in wonderment)

[slimmouse]

I hope those of you who live in states with potential McCain victories will be able to sleep at night if the bloodthirsty motherfucker wins. I'll hold you accountable, and I won't let you forget you had a chance to stop him and didn't.

Well, I'm sure THAT will scare the bejeesus out of people.

Funny how you threaten to hold other posters here accountable, but aren't pressing nearly so hard for Obama himself to be held accountable—for his own words and deeds—which threaten his candidacy far more than anyone here possibly could.

Say what? What gave you any indication that I wouldn't be the first to march in the streets if Obama threatened another war? What makes you think I wouldn't hold him accountable, just like I'd hold any other politician accountable?

(shakes head in wonderment)

Well thank heavens that your out there making a difference proffy.

I hope you got the sarcasm in that.

This whole election thing is a big pile of stage managed dog shit. And anyone who falls for it shouldnt really be wasting their time on a forum like this AFAIC.