AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

This is not the only issue in which ican is delusional; I doubt very much he even understands US laws or the Constitution.

What Debra said, Itry. Only big D delusional.

You slept thru Civics classes, didn't you, you ole legal genius?

Debra, from your link:


What, my dear Debra, is your indisputable evidence? Consensus?

Exhibit A for your being delusional ican.



You do realize there are 3 definitions, don't you ican? It is delusional to think that the third definition is the one the other person most likely meant. However, it is a nice catch 22. By pointing only to the third definition you are essentially making it true by giving indisputable evidence of your psychotic beliefs.

I think the chances are not much better than zero. But I do agree with you that the guy needs to be impeached. Which issue do you hang your hat on, in terms of the grounds for impeachment, ican? You need one solid one that gains traction.

Maybe the Americorps corruption could be a good one, Obama is clearly abusing his power, and corruption may be linked to Obama. Also, I think he is trying to expand this organization tremendously to try to use it for more influence peddling into elections, etc. It really boils down to an abuse of power, and this organization is a terrible one, a total and absolute needless bureaucracy subject to abuse and misuse, especially for Obama.

And remember that it is not sufficient that the President simply broke the law or is in bed with corruption or is involved in payola, influence peddling, and pandering. The crime has to rise to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' as recognized by current application of the law in order to be an impeachable or convictable offense.

In Bill Clinton's case, he misued the power of his office in an attempt to deny a citizen her Constitutional rights and committed perjury under oath related to that crime. The House impeached him along strict party lines, the crime was upheld by a Superior Court and was recognized by th Supreme Court and the Arkansas State Bar. Even with all that, the Senate, while acknowledging that crimes were committed, did not believe his crime rose to 'high crimes and misdemeanor' status and they did not convict him.

So what has Obama done that would rise to 'high crimes and misdemeanor status' as would be recognized by a Court of Law and would hold up in the face of public opinion? At least yet? To proceed with even a futile attempt at impeachment, without having such a 'high crime' as a charge would certainly not help the GOP and a resulting sympathy vote could strengthen Obama's hand. We don't want that.

Obama is abusing his power? How so? Your imagination is a dangerous thing, okie; not for the president, but for you and your family.

Please describe for us a) Obama's abuse of power, and b) who will make the charge?

I agree with your opinion. In the current climate of most of the press in the tank for Obama, and his high approval ratings so far, the political climate just is not favorable at this point. Specific crimes, I think there is plenty to investigate, but so far the evidence is not developed to the point of taking it to the next step, far from it. And chances are the mainstream press will not spend any energy investigating Obama. Any investigations by conservatives or conservative groups will be marginalized. Politically, there are enough politicians and administration appointees of his to block any serious examination of his abuse of power and corruption.

Even in the case of Nixon, the people out to get him had to drum on it for a very long time, and the hearings on tv went on forever, to drum him out of office. I just don't see any significant possibility that Obama can be forced out of office ever, even if the evidence of corruption was overwhelming I think it would be largely ignored and swept under the rug. The forces that be - decided they wanted Obama as president, and that is the way it will remain for now.

That still doesn't mean that there are not justifications already to impeach him, it just has no support due to the political climate. I think our best hope is the next election, to have a Congress to oppose him and prevent the worst damage by his policies, then go from there.

okie, Just in case you missed my previous post, I repeat here - until you answer my question.

I think I am wasting my time on you, ci. I believe Obama is abusing power when he bullies and inserts himself into how businesses are being run, or how bankruptcies are conducted, etc. That should be none of his business as president.

He uses the stimulus money to intimidate people into doing his bidding, including state and local governments, businesses, whoever is in his way. One of his pet practices is intimidating with our money that he is giving away to insure entities reward his union friends and punish businesses, which is an abuse of power.

We have heard stories of banks being arm twisted to take stimulus money, or else. That is an abuse of power.

I believe he is abusing power in bringing the work of the Census Bureau under his power instead of Commerce, plus we learn ACORN volunteers will do Census work, that is a huge abuse of power.

Creation of all manner of czars that are not under congressional oversight is an abuse of power. Just one example of this is dictating the pay of people working in the private sector, that is a clear abuse of power that should not belong to him, not without congressional oversight.

He is now in process of overhauling the financial world and changing how things are done by the Federal Reserve, and probably giving more power to the Treasury Department. Among the new ideas is a consumer protection agency, another huge boondoggle of a bureaucracy that in my opinion is an abuse of power, to exercise powers the administration should not have.

We learn that he is firing with likely little or no justification an investigator into Americorp corruption, that happens to involve friends of his. That is an abuse of power.

These are only a few of probably a longer list that could be compiled. We clearly have a man out of control, a man that thinks he is smarter than he is, and thinks he should have control over far more than what rightfully belongs to a president.

Heres a woman that knows what she is talking about:

I think that such happens, always, when you just have (more or less) only two alternatives as political parties. And they aren't alterbatives either - at least according to Glenn Beck.

On the other hand: that's what you, the Americans want and wanted, it seems, ...

Good Point Walter,

YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE.

54% of the voters selected Mr. Obama. Some voted for him as a result of Republican fatigue and mistrust. Some voted for him because they bought into his campaign promise of "change".

Nothing has changed as Mr. Obama, being a clever politician, sold himself to these 54% in order to get elected.

I will correct 1 thing. What has changed since Mr. Obama was elected is the Federal deficit is much larger now than ever and if he gets his way regarding health care, the deficit will get even larger.

I expect interest rates to rise to historic levels, inflation to rise to historic levels and a continuation of the so called "financial crisis".

Many will say Obama inherited this mess.

That is a cowards excuse.

Every newly elected President "inherits" EVERYTHING from their predecessor. Each new President must be judged on how he handles what he is given.

So far, I can not be impressd with Mr. Obamas performance both domestically as well as internationally.

I understand North Korea is making noise again. Who will the Democrats blame for that?

One thing current Democrats are good at is blaming someone else for their inability to get things done.

Really? Explain.

I am curious how familiar you are with history Yankee.

Do you know what the historic inflation and interest rate levels were just since WW2?

That's funny Yankee since you are judging him before he has had a chance to handle it. Obama has been in office for less than 6 months yet you are already passing judgement and predicting what will happen. Shouldn't you judge him on what he does and the result rather than on your predictions?

Since I have been around for most of history, I can speak from experience. The signals from Washington are pointing towards a rise in interest rates and inflation similiar to those in the mid to late 70's (which were the highest since the lat 1940's).

6 months is enough time to gauge Obamas directions and long enough to form an initial impression of his performance.

Which signals from Washington are pointing to such a rapid rise in rates?

Sure, you can form an impression. You can also just impose your own viewpoint on reality and claim that is your "impression".

There is nothing that I see pointing to interest rates or inflation in the double digit range. I have seen no credible economist predict that. Please provide your source for your "impression."

Maybe this person does not qualify as an economic expert.....

" May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=abXWfVxx_e8w&pid=20603037

Maybe these people are more expert?

WASHINGTON (AP) " Consumer prices rose less than expected in May and posted the steepest annual drop in 59 years, according to government data released Wednesday, fresh evidence that the recession is keeping inflation in check.

Low prices will make it easier for the Federal Reserve at its meeting next week to keep a key short-term interest rate near zero, where it has been since December. Bond yields ticked up earlier this month on concerns that signs of an improving economy would force the Fed to raise rates later this year.

But most economists consider a rate increase unlikely until next year.

Still, as higher government spending pushes this year's deficit toward a record of nearly $1.85 trillion, many economists warn that inflation could be a threat in two to three years.

"Inflation may be coming, but it's not here yet and likely won't be for some time," Richard Moody, chief economist at Forward Capital, wrote in a note to clients.

The Labor Department reported that the consumer price index rose a seasonally adjusted 0.1 percent last month, below analysts' expectations of a 0.3 percent rise.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNiyJ905Ho0Ur96V2TQhsBX19lGwD98SL0P80

Do you really think the Fed will keep rates at zero forever???

No, I don't think they will keep them at zero nor do I expect them to if inflation starts to creep up.

A threat of inflation is NOT a threat of 17% inflation. It is a threat of 3-4% inflation.

Talk about letting your viewpoint color your impressions. There is nothing there in what you posted that leads me to think we will see even 5% inflation or a Fed rate of 8% let alone the double digit ones you predicted.

Now.. what signals from Washington have you seen that points to 17% inflation? Raising the Fed rate from zero is NOT a signal that hints at that.