PDA

View Full Version : Progressives Want Obama Impeached



fes_fsa
12th January 09, 06:13 PM
Thursday, January 08, 2009

Hawai`i progressives dump Obama: “How soon can he be impeached?”

by Andrew Walden
Big 2004 Kucinich supporters who switched to Obama in 2008, some Hawai`i Progressive Democrats are already calling for Barack Obama’s impeachment. The call is in response to hints that Obama would cut Social Security and Medicare spending—both of which are critical to the funding of the Hawai`i ‘progressive’ lifestyle.
Writing at Disappearednews.com (http://disappearednews.com/2009/01/how-soon-can-he-be-impeached.html#comment-form), Larry Geller of Kaua`i asks: “How soon can he be impeached?” The self-styled Progressive Geller links to an article titled “Obama hints at entitlements changes” which suggests that Obama might raise the retirement age a couple years, index payments to inflation, cut benefits or allow benefits based on need.
Geller is closely tied to Kaua`i anti-Superferry protesters who blocked ferry service to the island in 2007--making Kaua`i an international laughingstock.
Geller contrasts Obama’s post-election policy ideas to a Obama campaign website pledge to “protect social security” and “protect and strengthen Medicare.” Pushing impeachment, Geller argues:
Let's start the process before he gets in office.
His Cabinet makes him look like he's going to govern like a smart "Bush" with some color. This prospective Blair frickin' appointment is outrageous. I submit to you right now, Obama is a FAKE.
And I'm getting tired of him talking too slow. That was nice during the campaign, but given his record already, I don't have patience for that s*** anymore. He needs to frickin' kick it up a notch and speak a little faster, instead of forming a bunch of slow weasel words.
If this guy thinks he can deceive the American public, he's got another thing comin'. We've had enough of this s*** with Bush.
Remember: Hawai`i Progressive Democrats aren’t just “progressive” -- they are also “enlightened” and “conscious”. So they naturally get "tired of him talking too slow." It also means that when they say Obama is “Bush with some color” there is nothing racist about it.
Really.



link (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/299/Hawaii-progressives-dump-Obama-ldquoHow-soon-can-he-be-impeachedrdquo.aspx)

LOL


he's not even in office yet.

Wounded Ronin
12th January 09, 07:53 PM
From my experiences back in college, a person is probably okay if they call themselves "liberal". But if they call themselves "progressive" it really means "extremist who apparently lives in a different world than the rest of us."

MrGalt
12th January 09, 09:36 PM
"Social Security and Medicare spending—both of which are critical to the funding of the Hawai`i ‘progressive’ lifestyle."

The progressive lifestyle isn't really big on self-reliance or any of that type of garbage is it?

SFGOON
12th January 09, 09:41 PM
You can gauge the effectiveness of a president by how badly he pisses off the extremists in his political wing. The latter Bush was the sweetheart of the radical right. Obama is pissing off the radical left before he even takes oath.

Well done, I say.

WarPhalange
12th January 09, 09:44 PM
It's cuz he's black. Democrats are huge racists. Just look at Obama's vacant Senate seat. Dems wanted to stop Burris from getting the seat because they hate black people.

MrGalt
12th January 09, 09:44 PM
I don't think there's anything a candidate could do that he would actually have the power to do that would please the radical left.

Dark Helmet
12th January 09, 10:26 PM
For a half second I thought a whole new party had taken root in America."Progressive" sounds almost hip.Too bad they're full of sandy vaginas.

Lohff
12th January 09, 10:30 PM
It's cuz he's black. Democrats are huge racists. Just look at Obama's vacant Senate seat. Dems wanted to stop Burris from getting the seat because they hate black people.
One idiot on CNN actually equated NOT supporting Burris' seating as a senator to supporting lynching.

fes_fsa
12th January 09, 10:33 PM
For a half second I thought a whole new party had taken root in America."Progressive" sounds almost hip.Too bad they're full of sandy vaginas.

well Hawaii pretty much IS one big beach....

WarPhalange
12th January 09, 11:04 PM
One idiot on CNN actually equated NOT supporting Burris' seating as a senator to supporting lynching.

Wow, only one?

SFGOON
12th January 09, 11:37 PM
I don't think there's anything a candidate could do that he would actually have the power to do that would please the radical left.

Not having the power didn't stop GWB. One day the lefties will get theirs.

HappyOldGuy
13th January 09, 12:07 AM
One day the lefties will get theirs.
That would be 8 more days. Some folks are gonna be surprised when the big O strips off his shirt at his inauguration and shows off the Che and Mao tats.

"4 years bitches"

jnp
13th January 09, 12:16 AM
Who cares what a bunch of beach bums think anyway?

WarPhalange
13th January 09, 12:37 AM
That would be 8 more days. Some folks are gonna be surprised when the big O strips off his shirt at his inauguration and shows off the Che and Mao tats.

"4 years bitches"

It would be equally funny if he took the Bible he swore on and took off the book cover to reveal that it is in fact the Qur'an. Then, in the instant everybody's eyes were off of him, he grew a foot-long beard.

Aphid Jones
13th January 09, 01:11 AM
It would be equally funny if he took the Bible he swore on and took off the book cover to reveal that it is in fact the Qur'an. Then, in the instant everybody's eyes were off of him, he grew a foot-long beard.
You're not going far enough.

He's actually a Genie.

jnp
13th January 09, 01:15 AM
No seriously, these guys are upset because Obama is threatening their ability to live on the dole?

Pardon me while I cry them a river.

Robot Jesus
13th January 09, 02:36 AM
You're not going far enough.

He's actually a Genie.
an otherwise rational Muslim i know believes that the Djinn prefer rock to rap. I'm to scarred of the answer to ask how he thinks he knows this.

Cullion
13th January 09, 06:44 AM
It's OK, Obama believes in business and government working together, so he'll make it illegal for them to be poor, and then borrow money to have a community surfing cooperative built for them to work in.

That's how these Blairites tend to work.

Aphid Jones
13th January 09, 09:34 AM
an otherwise rational Muslim i know believes that the Djinn prefer rock to rap. I'm to scarred of the answer to ask how he thinks he knows this.
I really have no response to this.

Shawarma
13th January 09, 11:02 AM
Simple. Rap artists frequently talk about good family values like they baby mommaz and the importance of having a stable home (tha hood) to grow up in, both good wholesome Christian values. Rock musicians talk about Satan, death and destruction a lot.

Satan = Allah. QED.

jkdbuck76
13th January 09, 12:39 PM
I don't think there's anything a candidate could do that he would actually have the power to do that would please the radical left.

Geller sounds like he's the kinda guy that would complain if he got a handjob with his morning coffee.

You can't please everybody. Bush found that out. A lot of conservatives don't like him. Clinton didn't please everybody...though he wanted to please every woman.

If Obama does well, he'll be loved by many people.

Feryk
13th January 09, 12:42 PM
Pissing off the radical left is probably the best thing he could do right now. It will make the moderates more comfortable with him, and allow him to pass his socialist agenda.

TM
13th January 09, 12:52 PM
From my experiences back in college, a person is probably okay if they call themselves "liberal". But if they call themselves "progressive" it really means "extremist who apparently lives in a different world than the rest of us."
Have to agree with this.
And like fes fsa said. He's not even in office yet.

EuropIan
13th January 09, 12:54 PM
What the fuck is a progressive?

Cullion
13th January 09, 01:23 PM
It's what american socialists call themselves so they won't be called, uh, socialists.

EuropIan
13th January 09, 01:28 PM
Socialists? or "socialists"?

EuropIan
13th January 09, 01:30 PM
In regards to having me deny that they possess "th3 Re4L socialism"

Shawarma
13th January 09, 01:37 PM
American socialists want Obama impeached? Really? All five of them?

Cullion
13th January 09, 01:39 PM
no doubt, they just have some form of illegitimate socialism that doesn't work.

not real socialism.

Shawarma
13th January 09, 01:43 PM
No, what they have is a faggotised form of social democracy. Try talking to these people about state control of factories, hugely boosted taxes and global revolution and they'd recoil in horror, reach for their bibles and start screaming SIEG HEIL in unison. Pure bloody and hard socialism got pretty much eradicated in the US ages ago.

Cullion
13th January 09, 01:44 PM
Unless you're a bank.

Shawarma
13th January 09, 01:46 PM
Bank Socialism. Now that's an oxymoron for you.

Cullion
13th January 09, 01:58 PM
It's called 'corporatism' when it's for the rich.

EuropIan
13th January 09, 02:00 PM
Praise Mccarthy!

Aphid Jones
13th January 09, 03:03 PM
Rock =/= Metal

EuropIan
13th January 09, 03:06 PM
Yeah, the devil switched to electric guitars because he got all sore over losing that violin duel

TM
13th January 09, 03:09 PM
American socialists want Obama impeached? Really? All five of them?
Now that's funny.

In the late sixties and early seventies an american communist party meeting in NY would consist of four undercover FBI agents and two kids coming to check it out.

TM
13th January 09, 03:11 PM
Yeah, the devil switched to electric guitars because he got all sore over losing that violin duel


.....and Yngwe still sucks.

EuropIan
13th January 09, 03:16 PM
And would lose the inevitable duel

Gezere
13th January 09, 04:45 PM
It's cuz he's black. Democrats are huge racists. Just look at Obama's vacant Senate seat. Dems wanted to stop Burris from getting the seat because they hate black people.
Democrats wanted to keep slavery!!!!

Fucking Dems!!!!

Cullion
13th January 09, 05:22 PM
Well look at what's happened to african-american unemployment since. You can't say they weren't trying to look out for your best interests.

TM
13th January 09, 05:31 PM
Democrats wanted to keep slavery!!!!

Fucking Dems!!!!

Have you noticed that since the 1860's the democrats and republicans have reversed themselves on just about every issue? Having two choices really sucks. The democratic and republican gangsters have stopped most independants up to this point.

HappyOldGuy
13th January 09, 05:43 PM
Have you noticed that since the 1860's the democrats and republicans have reversed themselves on just about every issue? Having two choices really sucks. The democratic and republican gangsters have stopped most independants up to this point.

The concept you are looking for is coalition. Read up on it. It'll blow your mind. Apparently when you can only have one winner and lots of different interests are in competition, they will form alliances and make deals to try and build a big enough group to win. And if one group gets cut out of the picture for too long, they will actually cut deals to try and take an interest group from the bigger group. It's amazing how clever those hairless earth monkeys really are.

Feryk
14th January 09, 04:17 PM
The concept you are looking for is coalition. Read up on it. It'll blow your mind. Apparently when you can only have one winner and lots of different interests are in competition, they will form alliances and make deals to try and build a big enough group to win. And if one group gets cut out of the picture for too long, they will actually cut deals to try and take an interest group from the bigger group. It's amazing how clever those hairless earth monkeys really are.

You have to be kidding me. We are facing a 'coalition' here in Canada. If by 'clever' you mean 'gigantic powergrabbing clusterfuck that will erode the nation' then by all means, continue.

Shawarma
14th January 09, 04:29 PM
And yet it is still preferable to voting for Party A or Party B, no other valid choices.

Feryk
14th January 09, 04:32 PM
Don't you guys have independents and libertarians that run?

Shawarma
14th January 09, 04:33 PM
LOL! ROFL! LMAO!

....sorry, what was the question again?

Feryk
14th January 09, 04:36 PM
The question was: why does it matter how many political parties you have when the Illuminati control everything anyways?

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 04:37 PM
Yes, let's split the electorate so that 1/3 or 1/4 is a winning margin. That's will resolve all of our issues!!!!

Zendetta
14th January 09, 04:37 PM
Don't you guys have independents and libertarians that run?

Sure. They run their mouths, run into walls and objects, run into obstacles, everything.

But if you mean "make convincing runs at higher office" .... er, well, not so much.

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 04:38 PM
Sure. They run their mouths, run into walls and objects, run into obstacles, everything.

But if you mean "make convincing runs at higher office" .... er, well, not so much.

Teddy Roosevelt is going to ippon you into osaekomi and let Ross Perot curb stomp you.

Shawarma
14th January 09, 04:39 PM
And I still wish more people would vote for them, put the fear of God into the two major parties.

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 04:41 PM
And I still wish more people would vote for them, put the fear of God into the two major parties.

People who believe in libertarianism should always vote libertarian.

Christian conservatives should form their own party and stop voting republican.

See what I'm doing there

Zendetta
14th January 09, 04:41 PM
Teddy Roosevelt

Oh, I'm all about Bull Moose Party! I'm also grateful to Perot for getting Clinton elected.

But Teddy still got his ass handed to him as an independent.

Shawarma
14th January 09, 04:43 PM
People who believe in libertarianism should always vote libertarian.

Christian conservatives should form their own party and stop voting republican.

See what I'm doing there
Oh yeah, that should be an easy sell to the GOP. "Hey, why don't we fragment into two so the Democrats can stay in power forever and ever and ever and ever?!"

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 04:44 PM
Oh, I'm all about Bull Moose Party! I'm also grateful to Perot for getting Clinton elected.

But Teddy still got his ass handed to him as an independent.
He beat the republicans and came in second. 27% is not an ass kicking in a three person race.

Cullion
14th January 09, 04:44 PM
People who believe in libertarianism should always vote libertarian.

Christian conservatives should form their own party and stop voting republican.

See what I'm doing there

Just as long as the democrats split down into greens, socialists, american communist party and politically-correct yuppie.

I saw what you did without having to use the highlighter.

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 04:47 PM
Just as long as the democrats split down into greens, socialists, american communist party and politically-correct yuppie.

I saw what you did without having to use the highlighter.

So we're at what, 6 or 7 parties now? Meaning that the winning candidate is going to represent less than 20% of those who vote. How do people not understand why that is a really bad idea. Not to mention almost impossible from a game theory perspective.

Cullion
14th January 09, 04:50 PM
Why should the winning candidate have to represent more than 50% of the population?

It would be fine as long as the power of the executive was properly restrained.

Shawarma
14th January 09, 04:52 PM
The winning candidate would have to BECOME the kind of candidate who caters to the other 80% of voters in his block if he wanted to have a hope in hell of any of his legislation being passed. It's not a case of "Ok, thanks for supporting me for presidency, now fuck off."

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 04:52 PM
Why should the winning candidate have to represent more than 50% of the population?
Because otherwise the losers outnumber the winners. That is not the makings of a stable system.


It would be fine as long as the power of the executive was properly restrained.
So is picking names out of a hat.

Cullion
14th January 09, 04:55 PM
Do you really believe that a president doesn't just act according to his own subset of the beliefs within his party's tent anyway?

Are you really saying that the primaries are meaningless because the democractic candidates all believe in the same things and the republican candidates all believe in the same things?

As it is under your 2 party system, you got a choice between two people who believed in:-

1) The Patriot Act

2) Vast banking bailouts

3) Further military adventurism in the middle east

It's kind of meaningless when the choice of actual ideas is so limited.
Your system is too stable.

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 04:57 PM
Do you really believe that a president doesn't just act according to his own subset of the beliefs within his party's tent anyway?

Are you really saying that the primaries are meaningless because the democractic candidates all believe in the same things and the republican candidates all believe in the same things?

As it is under your 2 party system, you got a choice between two people who believed in:-

1) The Patriot Act

2) Vast banking bailouts

3) Further military adventurism in the middle east

It's kind of meaningless when the choice of actual ideas is so limited.
1 really isn't true, but those are all positions supported by ridiculously huge margins of the american people. That seems to be democracy to me.

Same problem as those ferrin people talking about our guns. They just don't get that it's the american people themselves who are the problem.

Cullion
14th January 09, 05:01 PM
As far as I know, both Obama and McCain supported the patriot act. The only people in the primaries I remember not supporting it were Kucinich and Paul.

I honestly haven't seen a poll supporting the banking bailouts or further military adventures in the middle east.

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 05:04 PM
As far as I know, both Obama and McCain supported the patriot act. The only people in the primaries I remember not supporting it were Kucinich and Paul.

I honestly haven't seen a poll supporting the banking bailouts or further military adventures in the middle east.

Well, I'm translating the Cullionspeak where "We should try to keep Iran from having a bomb and Israel should be allowed to exist"=further military adventures in the middle east.

Cullion
14th January 09, 05:34 PM
I'll translate the HogSpeak

"We should sanction and materially support Israel's massacre in Gaza and plan on invading another country that hasn't threatened us and doesn't have the means"

HappyOldGuy
14th January 09, 05:38 PM
I'll translate the HogSpeak

"We should sanction and materially support Israel's massacre in Gaza and plan on invading another country that hasn't threatened us and doesn't have the means"

You are a programmer. You should know the dangers of freely mixing and matching a= and a!=.

Cullion
14th January 09, 06:25 PM
I do. I just don't think you've parsed what he said correctly.

The Twitcher
19th January 09, 10:35 PM
From my experiences back in college, a person is probably okay if they call themselves "liberal". But if they call themselves "progressive" it really means "extremist who apparently lives in a different world than the rest of us."

Or someone that likes to sterlize the blacks and indians.