Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: If Obama is impeached
Nope, didn't see it, vlagrl. I wasn't that interested in that thread. I was just pointing out that you like to use your talking points, but generally don't bring any facts to the table. Good for you if you did this time.
As for citing resources, obviously that's up to you. It's just hard to have a discussion with someone that has no factual evidence to back the ridiculous stuff they claim. Why would people just believe you know your stuff, when you have shown them otherwise?
I have no issue citing my sources if it adds legitimacy. I can spend 5 seconds googling and copying if it helps back my point and impart knowledge.
In fact, if I am making a statement of fact I usually double check anyway (like when replying to Cat's impeach post.) I would hate to start passionately arguing a topic only to do a quick search and realize I was wrong about something simple.
I guess I would be more inclined to take you seriously if you had ever said anything to cats over the MONTHS that she has been calling everyone who disagrees with her a brainwashed lazy moocher.
I guarantee there would have been a lot less snark in this thread if cats had not flown off the handle and insulted people so many times in the past.
1. Why is this thread turning into, once again, an giant argument? I do not understand! I asked a question and everyone is flying off the handle.
2. Yes. I have said some things at times that were not so nice but you people do it in almost every thread for years so I blew up. You guys act like you are innocent. Noone is for that matter.
3. I repeat - I asked this question because I did not know if there were exceptions in a case like this. Some of you are poli science majors and I did not find anything when I Googled this specific situation.
President Boehner.
Oh god, that's scary!
But yeah, there's no way the 54 seat Democratic Senate majority would ever impeach Obama.
Maybe they'll compromise- impeach Obama when the Republicans agree to hand Bush over to the Hague to face war crimes charges?
(and no, I have no idea how that would actually work, beyond the fact that the US does not recognize the authority of the ICC and it is thus a completely moot point)
Though I do love the idea of suspending the order of succession just because it's an election year. Someone should write their Congressman.
I just thought it was common sense the main taxes that were taking affect after the first of the year. you never cite sources at all, you just like to name call and be-little.
Yeah, no. You thought it would be common sense that people would know what you were talking about when you randomly threw out an "all these taxes"? You could have been talking about some made-up robot tax for all I knew. I hope you read Geraldo's rebuttal to you in that thread though.
Also, I don't enjoy belittling. I do enjoy challenging. You should not be on a political message board if you can't take the heat.
As for sources, the reason I don't tend to cite sources is because it would be redundant. Plenty of people with the same viewpoint as me cite sources for the same argument. If someone asks me where I am getting my info, of course I will cite a freaking source. Give me a break.
Also, good ol' nonpartisan Snopes is here to help:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp
Really, you can't see the difference? Really??
Now THAT was funny!!!!
Which was exactly what I was thinking when I replied. I didn't have a tude at all. I just couldn't believe this was even a question or that she was already getting fixated on impeaching the president because Romney lost the election. SMH again.
The Bush administration had information that AQ was going to attack the US well before 9/11. It was ignored. I have never blamed the Bush administration for this because the information was one of many memos received in August 2001 regarding possible terrorist attacks.
From what I understand, there is nothing in the Benghazi situation that would make me think that the actions of the Obama administration was worse than that.
My point with this is that all administrations receive intelligence of possible terrorist attacks. They get them every damn day. Are they supposed to take decisive action on every single one of them? We, the American public, do not know what goes on behind the scenes. We cannot presume to think that we do.
So the entire Benghazi "scandal" is ridiculous, to say the least. And Romney saying what he would've done in that situation is worthless, considering he didn't know what actually happened anymore than the rest of us do.
Haven't you been playing it since Tuesday? You know, in accompaniment to that sad and bitter tune you've been singing.