After yesterday...Impeachment should absolutely be on the table

[blueghost]

Hope your investments don't turn out to be fool's gold. I'm all for wealth creation, and Obama and crew are all for wealth redistribution.
Reading up a little on socialism/communism might help you sleep a little better at night or keep you up with nightmares wondering if your personal wealth is gonna be safe in your bank or safer in your backyard. But really how safe is personal and private property rights under socialism/communism. Reading history books reminds us that history has a tendency to repeat itself. Hope you sleep well tonight.

I've done my fair share of reading on the aforementioned subjects to be well prepared. Thanks for mentioning it though.

The bottom line is that I'm not (nor should anyone) going to allow myself or the ones I care about to become paralyzed or handcuffed about issues that I cannot ultimately control. I have to admit that it makes for great conversation. However, I know too many people who are obsessed about issues in the political world and their health is paying the price. Strange thing is that they have trouble sleeping at night worrying incessantly. This world is too big and life is too short to not enjoy.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Calling Obama a commie doesn't go very far in gaining support against bad policy.

Maybe we should just call him the diabolical charmer.

[tnguy]

I certainly understand your perspective. Applied history definitely has its place but my own economy trumps that right now. My goal is to simply amass wealth for my family and knowing "history" doesn't pay the mortgage or put food on the table. At this point in my life, I'm going to mimic what the rich and wealthy do than sit on the sidelines and read those history books. Besides, I read enough in school anyway. Time to cash in.

From my GSIII using TPR

The rich and the wealthy are helping themselves to your money.

OK, that sounds kinda anti-capitalist. I'm not. But there's a cadre of people and companies that grow fat through no other reason than that they have their snouts in the right trough. That's a club that the likes of you and I won't be able to obtain membership to. TNS is absolutely correct about the currency debasement.

[Links2k]

Maybe we should just call him the diabolical charmer.

Diabolical Charmer In Chief

[blueghost]

The rich and the wealthy are helping themselves to your money.

OK, that sounds kinda anti-capitalist. I'm not. But there's a cadre of people and companies that grow fat through no other reason than that they have their snouts in the right trough. That's a club that the likes of you and I won't be able to obtain membership to. TNS is absolutely correct about the currency debasement.

Kinda sounds anti-capitalist...? lol. Sounds like it a lot, lol. :lol::lol:

Are they (rich/wealthy/banks) making money on my money, absolutely. Heck, the same can be said about anything they touch i. e., money, labor, etc. Money makes the world go round and I'm fine with that. If I take $100k, invest it and make $50k profit. I can then continue to play with house money or invest in land, Aurum, other stocks, diversify my investments or just take the money and run. The $50k is more than I had to begin with debased or not. Right now I'm loving my fiat currency because it goes hand in hand with Aurum.

From my GSIII using TPR

[tnguy]

If they were just making money on your (or my) money, I have no problem with that. It's when they print money and give it to the banks to lend out, both debasing the currency and also damaging savings by forcing interest rates to be artificially low that I have issues. All this money floating around causes bubbles also which ultimately pop (c.f. dotcom boom, housing bubble and others), further taking value from the pockets of the general populous. The population of the US (and other countries) are being robbed blind.

Good for you that you are doing well. I'm not doing so bad myself. But whereas a rising tide lifts all boats, a lowered tide just stinks. End the fed, slash regulations and let's see real free markets.
 

Edited November 16, 2013 by tnguy

[Guest TankerHC]

The dollar isn't going to last much longer anyway. China has been slowly backing off the dollar for the last three years. The OPEC Countries have been promoting a different International currency and have been doing the same thing. Putin made a speech just 3 days ago that it is time for the rest of the world to come off the dollar before it collapses from this out of control money printing and spending and takes everyone else with it.

 

And it will. The collapse of the US economy has taken Europe with it twice. In case anyone missed it, consumer spending fell in Q2 and Q3 and nearly every single retailer in the US took a hit. The reason wasn't because Americans wanted to spend less, it is because Americans have lost nearly 40% of their wealth since Obama took office. With the ACA, every single adult working American will lose an additional 10-15% of their annual income, that is 10-15% less of disposable income. That will filter down.

 

Getting about tired of hearing how we shouldn't call it like we see it. If someone doesn't think it's bad, Howard Dean, the former Chair of the DNC had to ask "Is this really legal what Obama is doing". Krauthammer, one of the most informed minds when it comes to the Constitution stated clearly that this President has been Committing crimes since he implemented the Dream Act by ordering ICE not to execute the law, Mark Levin, another Constitutionalist has called Obama what he is, a tyrant, and that is exactly what he is. 

 

The Constitution has already been gutted, the economy has already been gutted, the military is well on its way to being gutted, and the transformation of the United States is nearly complete. Just as soon as the President can give the 11 or 20 or 30 million or whatever the number is this week, of illegal aliens, legal status, it will BE complete. 

 

This pussy footin around with words when the entire nation is in peril makes me want to vomit. And the fact that people are still complaining about a President who hasn't been in office for 5 years is even more disgusting. That President, who hasn't been in office for over 5 years, is not Responsible for the ACA, that President also committed no crimes by Constantly violating the Constitution. That President signed the Patriot Act at the request of Congress, our representatives. 

 

Five years down the road and there is a tyrant right in front of our face, Socializing the Country, taking Americans wealth and redistributing it, costing millions their health insurance, costing more millions to pay a LOT more, making law from the Oval Office, ignoring Congress, destroying the economy, making enemies of friends and friends of enemies, and 100 other things, and the big discussion is on someone who has had no responsibility for over 5 years.

 

How about now, how about today, how about not 5 years ago?

 

I am beginning to believe that it is true that Obama will go down in history as the most successful President this Country has ever had, completely accomplishing every single thing in his Presidential agenda, while everyone else talks about George Bush.

 

The citizens of this Country have lost focus and because of that they have lost their Country, for all of us. 

 

It's going to take someone stepping up to the plate who isnt afraid to tell it like it is, and it isnt Christie, thats who the left wants, just like they wanted both McCain and Romney. They are easy prey. 

 

I said I didn't agree with Cruz possibly being the nominee because of his citizenship status, but that I would vote for him if he won the nomination. Forget it, I want him. And so do a lot of other people. I listened to him the other night, and he didn't sound at all like I thought he would sound. When I listened to him I was thinking "This man sounds like Kennedy".. Literally, Cruz sounds and speaks the words of Kennedy. And yes, that is a good thing, because I am tired of hearing the words of Saul Alynsky, Karl Marx and every other leader of a failed Socialist or Communist State in the last 100 years. 

 

And when (From the looks of it not is) that minimum wage is raised t 10.10, we wont stand a chance of winning the Senate, and may not keep the House. But then we can blame it on Bush.

Edited November 16, 2013 by TankerHC

[blueghost]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1064401" timestamp="1384594878"] ... Americans have lost nearly 40% of their wealth since Obama took office...[/quote] Great post Tanker. What exactly does this nearly 40% of wealth lost mean, realized or potential?? I don't anybody who has lost that much. In fact, most of the people I know have been doing quite well when it comes to investments, etc. Now, they complain all day long about Obama this, that, or another thing but their lifestyle does not reflect someone who has been adversely affected by the economy. Perhaps those people who have lost wealth suffer with spendingtoomuchitis, which is usually the case when it comes to wealth building. Edited November 16, 2013 by blueghost

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Great post Tanker. What exactly does this nearly 40% of wealth lost mean, realized or potential?? I don't anybody who has lost that much. In fact, most of the people I know have been doing quite well when it comes to investments, etc. Now, they complain all day long about Obama this, that, or another thing but their lifestyle does not reflect someone who has been adversely affected by the economy. Perhaps those people who have lost wealth suffer with spendingtoomuchitis, which is usually the case when it comes to wealth building.

BG - You seem to be sincerely seeking answers to your questions.  There's a wealth of 'contrarian' information out there that you need to get ahold of - some of  is a bit too conspiratorial to my taste - but that shouldn't turn you away from true-truth.  Not sure where you live but sometimes we have to leave our neighborhood & travel outside of our circle of peers to understand the cultural impacts of this horrendous POTUS, and the horrendous monetary policy of the last few decades.  A lot of people are receiving gov't largesse & subsidies right now, and a bit of this trickles down to the masses to keep us fat, dumb & stupid - bread & circuses.  After all, when the Fed is pumping over $80B of digital money into the economy, without accompanying wealth creation, then it's going to deflate the currency - it's pure logic & uncomplicated math.  Whatever Keynesian 'progress' we're seeing is a fool's paradise.  So take the dollars you're getting & plow them into stuff that will serve you & your family when tough times come.  

 

Not sure about the 40% number in loss of wealth.  But when the combined income/sales/property tax rate approaches 50% & upwards of our take-home pay, that's confiscation - it's plunder, pure & simple.  So wealth is being plundered on the taxation side of the house, and our accumulated wealth (in dollars) is being inflated away.  The beauty of this for the power-brokers is that the plunder is incremental, and obfuscated by the illusion of short-term gains.

 

I'd spend more time listening to the chicken-little folks if I were you.  ;)

[Guest TankerHC]

Great post Tanker. What exactly does this nearly 40% of wealth lost mean, realized or potential?? I don't anybody who has lost that much. In fact, most of the people I know have been doing quite well when it comes to investments, etc. Now, they complain all day long about Obama this, that, or another thing but their lifestyle does not reflect someone who has been adversely affected by the economy. Perhaps those people who have lost wealth suffer with spendingtoomuchitis, which is usually the case when it comes to wealth building.

 

It is measured in the cost of lost wages due to increases in taxes, that is no myth, it is measured in the loss of home values, that is no myth, it is measured in the devaluation of people's personal property, like their cars, it's measured in the devaluation of the dollar, its measured in the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index and the drop in the Consumer Consumption Index, its measured in the cost of gas at the pump. Its measured in everything that takes a dollar from a citizen and it was OBAMA's very own money printers, the Federal Reserve Bank who reported it. Over the first 3 years of Obama' reign the wealthiest wealth rose 1.73% (Really showing those Capitalists aren't they) and has barely budged since. 

 

This morning I hear that the Economist called Conservative members of the Republican Party "The Taliban Wing", that was repeated four times on CNN who also threw in the word "Extremists" a couple of times, I saw last night where President Obama called Conservative Members of the Tea Party "Tea Baggers", (Ironic isnt it, considering), demonetization, an Alinsky tactic that definitely works in he long run.

 

The argument was the Conservatives are Taliban because they believe the path forward is through education, apparently "The Economist" doesn't believe that and either does Christine Amanpour and several (MILLION) other leftists, the path forward is not through Education, it is through redistribution of wealth. 

 

So I have to ask? What exactly is the problem with wealthy people in America getting more wealthy? And the only reason the poor are doing even MORE poorly has everything to do with the Socialist economics of give to the poor take from the rich, pretty good now considering the middle class are considered the rich and at the same time "middle class" income was lowered to $25,000.

 

The Government (We will call it the Government since people thing the Government is a living breathing thing, not a bunch of people) will only be satisfied when you work for them, no matter who you work for, as long as they get every penny, or as much as possible through taxes then give you back what you deserve after giving to those who have no need to work. 40 million Americans are already there.

Edited November 16, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest TankerHC]

BG - You seem to be sincerely seeking answers to your questions.  There's a wealth of 'contrarian' information out there that you need to get ahold of - some of  is a bit too conspiratorial to my taste - but that shouldn't turn you away from true-truth.  Not sure where you live but sometimes we have to leave our neighborhood & travel outside of our circle of peers to understand the cultural impacts of this horrendous POTUS, and the horrendous monetary policy of the last few decades.  A lot of people are receiving gov't largesse & subsidies right now, and a bit of this trickles down to the masses to keep us fat, dumb & stupid - bread & circuses.  After all, when the Fed is pumping over $80B of digital money into the economy, without accompanying wealth creation, then it's going to deflate the currency - it's pure logic & uncomplicated math.  Whatever Keynesian 'progress' we're seeing is a fool's paradise.  So take the dollars you're getting & plow them into stuff that will serve you & your family when tough times come.  

 

Not sure about the 40% number in loss of wealth.  But when the combined income/sales/property tax rate approaches 50% & upwards of our take-home pay, that's confiscation - it's plunder, pure & simple.  So wealth is being plundered on the taxation side of the house, and our accumulated wealth (in dollars) is being inflated away.  The beauty of this for the power-brokers is that the plunder is incremental, and obfuscated by the illusion of short-term gains.

 

I'd spend more time listening to the chicken-little folks if I were you.  ;)

 

 

Not sure where you get your information but I get mine from reading the writings of the people who work the economy, who cause growth every time their policies are implemented and who are real Scholars of the Constitution..

 

If I were you rather than suggesting I listen to more :Chicken Little" Folks as you call Constitutional Scholars, I would suggest you spend more time reading your Communist Manifesto.

 

ANd BTW, I have been all over the world, including to many Communist and Socialist Countries, I have something to compare it to, where have YOU been?

 

The arrogance of Socialists know no bounds. 

Edited November 16, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest TankerHC]

It's interesting that when you make a logical consideration towards the halt of the destruction of this Country, (That is logical isn't it?), when you quote Obama's own people and how bad the Economy is doing, when you raise the idea that maybe the Congress should begin exercising their DUTIES rather than their opinions, when you point out that clearly the Left has been lying their 4th point of contact off, the Socialist ideas and opinions come out in droves. 

 

Direct the argument towards Bush. That worked for several years, it will no longer work. Direct the argument towards "other problems". That worked for years and will no longer work. Dispute facts from the White House bean counters. Worked for years, will no longer work. Ignore the fact of what a Dictator is. Will no longer work.

 

The focus needs to be exactly where the problem lies, sitting in the Oval Office, TODAY and NOW.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, in the probability zero case of obama being impeached or resigning. It would be interesting to consider a president biden. Maybe bad, but hopefully we could survive it. President crazy old uncle joe.

But if biden was also gone, president boehner wouldn't be a big improvement. Boehner would start pushing for immigration amnesty on his first day in office.

Work down thru the succession chain, eventually get to president kerry. Hardly anybody in the gubment is worth a flying flip. Edited November 16, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest TankerHC]

One note, I owed and presented TNsoveriengity an apology, reading with emotion rather than logic I caught the parts without catching the icon. I forward no apologies to Progressive Liberals. If you are one, you only stand in one position in my eyes and the eyes of a LOT of people I know. People who do not want to be slaves to the Government, people who do not want to see the destruction of the United States and for people who are getting fed up with THE Representative of the People calling its own citizens extremists, Tea Baggers, Taliban, and 10,000 other names.

 

So, my apologies to TNsoverienity and to anyone who is a Progressive, you know what I and many others think. 

[MacGyver]

This morning I hear that the Economist called Conservative members of the Republican Party "The Taliban Wing", that was repeated four times on CNN who also threw in the word "Extremists" a couple of times, I saw last night where President Obama called Conservative Members of the Tea Party "Tea Baggers", (Ironic isnt it, considering), demonetization, an Alinsky tactic that definitely works in he long run.

The argument was the Conservatives are Taliban because they believe the path forward is through education, apparently "The Economist" doesn't believe that and either does Christine Amanpour and several (MILLION) other leftists, the path forward is not through Education, it is through redistribution of wealth.

Tanker, don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I'm not. But we have to bring better rhetoric.

I read the Economist. It's a pretty good source for judging how our politics are seen outside of our borders. They don't really give either side much of a free pass. I'd love to see a source on them calling anyone "the Taliban wing." Likewise I'd love to see a source on Obama calling the Tea Party, Tea Baggers. This has been recognized as a practically obscene term for a while. I just can't see him using it in public.

Equating conservatives with the Taliban because they promote education is fraught with problems on so many levels. But, at the most basic the Taliban has been blowing up schools and killing educators for a couple of decades. Somehow making them promoters of education is simply ludicrous. If you've got a source saying that - you need a new source.

Hate Obama if you like. But let's be intellectually honest in our arguments. There's plenty of material to make a case against him without needing to embellish the facts. Let's call him on his failures - not because he's some kind of boogeyman.

Until we can do that, we look like fools - and make it a lot easier for the liberals. We're not going to win any national elections that way.

[Guest TankerHC]

Tanker, don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I'm not. But we have to bring better rhetoric.

I read the Economist. It's a pretty good source for judging how our politics are seen outside of our borders. They don't really give either side much of a free pass. I'd love to see a source on them calling anyone "the Taliban wing." Likewise I'd love to see a source on Obama calling the Tea Party, Tea Baggers. This has been recognized as a practically obscene term for a while. I just can't see him using it in public.

Equating conservatives with the Taliban because they promote education is fraught with problems on so many levels. But, at the most basic the Taliban has been blowing up schools and killing educators for a couple of decades. Somehow making them promoters of education is simply ludicrous. If you've got a source saying that - you need a new source.

Hate Obama if you like. But let's be intellectually honest in our arguments. There's plenty of material to make a case against him without needing to embellish the facts. Let's call him on his failures - not because he's some kind of boogeyman.

Until we can do that, we look like fools - and make it a lot easier for the liberals. We're not going to win any national elections that way.

The source for that Taliban comment is Chritine Amanpour quoting the Economist on CNN radio this morning while simultaneously commenting how conservative the economist is. I also read the economist, Bloomberg, money and several others.

What these people are saying and what is going on is not rhetoric. They are facts. Are we not seeing these politicians getting up and bold face lying on a daily basis. They don't even try to hide it any longer.



Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest TNSovereignty]

One note, I owed and presented TNsoveriengity an apology, reading with emotion rather than logic I caught the parts without catching the icon. I forward no apologies to Progressive Liberals. If you are one, you only stand in one position in my eyes and the eyes of a LOT of people I know. People who do not want to be slaves to the Government, people who do not want to see the destruction of the United States and for people who are getting fed up with THE Representative of the People calling its own citizens extremists, Tea Baggers, Taliban, and 10,000 other names.

 

So, my apologies to TNsoverienity and to anyone who is a Progressive, you know what I and many others think. 

We're on the same page TankerHC ... maybe I need to write more clearly, or maybe you've taken too many incoming rounds from others.  Apology accepted.  

[East_TN_Patriot]

MacGyver has my basic argument covered, but I'll ask this simple question: impeachment for what?

Impeach him for trying to implement a policy he supports, that was lawfully passed by Congress, and ruled on as constitutional by the SCOTUS at least as far as the particular legal questions they were asked to decide?

Impeach him for a very poorly written and extremely poorly implemented law? Where does the law say that qualifies as an impeachable offense under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause of the Constitution?

Impeach him for lying about the policy? Again, show us where that is considered an impeachable offense?

Impeach him for implementing a policy that is harming people? If that were an impeachable offense, then Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush should have been impeached as well for their support of the drug war and other costly and harmful policies.

Simple fact of the matter is that this impeachment talk is pure nonsense. If people want real change, then they need to stop voting for candidates in the two statist major parties. If you are one who votes "the lesser of two evils", you are still voting for evil. If you believe you have to vote Republican to keep a Democrat out of office, you can see how that worked out for you these past elections.

Also, in a hypothetical race between the Republican Hitler, the Democrat Stalin, and the Libertarian Gary Johnson, you'd vote for Hitler because he's the "conservative" Republican and you can't let Stalin win because he's more of a Marxist. Think about that for a minute. Edited November 16, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[GoneBallistic]

MacGyver has my basic argument covered, but I'll ask this simple question: impeachment for what?

Benghazi, maybe? I agree that it will never happen and it's a waste of time, but I feel very strongly that heads should roll for this. Besides the heads of those he and Hillary left to die. :2cents:

[Patrick Henry]

As I discussed with an Admiral, Congress does not have the courage to deal with the public and media outcry and probably worse for an impeachment trial against the first black President, regardless of how viable the charges. 

[GoneBallistic]

As I discussed with an Admiral, Congress does not have the courage to deal with the public and media outcry and probably worse for an impeachment trial against the first black President, regardless of how viable the charges. 

I don't think it's as much the race of the president as it is the lack of intestinal fortitude of those who would have to see it through.