Is this thinking grounds for an Obama Impeachment?
.
“The Founders were aiming to minimize the damage that could be wrought by people so convinced of their own positions that they will override the liberties of others and inflate and misuse the power of government.”
.
Or for that matter, impeachment of most of the Presidents in the last 100 years? Having said that,
.
.
I didn’t see the debate, I think it’s just too damned early for serious debates. And I really don’t see where Rubin is coming from. It seems that she dislikes Santorum because he doesn’t see the separation of morality and state that she clearly sees in the Constitution? And if she’s pro-Mitch Dainels, I don’t like her from here on out.
I read it twice, and I still don’t get her beyond that simple point.
From the first paragraph or two it was clear that Rubin has no idea what she is talking about. The entire Declaration of Independence is an argument about morality (to be specific, the immorality of King George’s actions) – without morality, there is nothing wrong with the way England treated America in the mid-1700s, indeed no right or wrong at all.
Yeah, because the Left’s social program has brought us all so much peace and prospertiy… right?
Isn’t following any law related to morality? If one lacks morality- if you are immoral, couldn’t one find ways to disregard such things as the US constitution?
Can we agree that Hitler or Stalin are examples of immoral persons?
Is any quality that defines them better than the lack of morality?
Something else? Is it something to do with their hair cuts or perhaps they were mere victims of the events?
And though perhaps either of these individuals would be somewhat restrained by American system of governance. If either was president or many of such types were part of Congress- and they are not excessively reckless could they seek and find opportunities which essentially nullify the constitution?
So for some people [perhaps most] morality might be limited to such issues as abortion and gay marriage, but for some others it relates to broad issues, such as honesty, rationality, holding to certain principals, etc, etc in which issues of abortion and gay marriage are but a part.
Let’s go back in time in American history when slavery was considered one of the moral issues of the day [obviously it wasn’t considered by many to be a issue related to economics or the US constitution]:
Politically, it may or may not be wise not to address the issue of slavery- and a politician may give a “suggestion that there be a social truce” and this might seem reasonable, but politicians who are strongly opposed to slavery, may counter with a statement as, “Anybody that would suggest we call a truce on moral issues doesn’t understand what America is all about”. And this might also have some justification.
Now, perhaps Obama desires this country to be plunged into the greatest depression this country as ever known.
A fair number of Leftists actually say they desire such economic ruin- without which we doomed because of CO2 levels [and some might even think CO2 levels are actually important- or simply see it wonderful tool to gain enough power for their utopia state- and/or a more practical near term goal of empowering themselves].
Faced with such a threat, some politicians may think it was more than somewhat important to beat Obama in the next election.
Perhaps others don’t see this as much of a threat, and/or think having any one person [such as a US president] with the granted power to actually cause national economic ruin as more of problem.
The winner of the GOP nomination will be–
–the one with the balls to attack Obama over the Gunwalker scandal.
This is the real issue that no one’s talking about: Obama and Holder tricked gun store owners into selling guns to Mexican drug lords, with the intent of then having the guns traced back into the US. They did this specifically to get even more draconian gun control laws than we already have.
Der Schtumpy Says:
“I didn’t see the debate, I think it’s just too damned early for serious debates.”
QFT
Ken:
I think you’re stretching a bit here. You claim: “Obama and Holder tricked gun store owners into selling guns to Mexican drug lords . . . ” NO, the ATF agency went out of control – as so often before – and are very likely lying to AG Holder right now about it.
By your account, “Obama and Holder” were running around Arizona talking to those gun shop owners. Was that during the President’s visit to ASU in 2009, or his visit to Tucson after the Giffords shooting?
The President has stated, many times, that passing more gun laws is a zero priority with his Administration. He’s never done one dang thing contrary to that stated policy. Not once.
Rand: now back to the main issue. Rick Santorum has long advocated using the power of government to impose his religious views upon the rest of us. Yes, I agree with you, this is very un-Constitutional and un-American.
He must be resisted.
Great that we agree on something besides space policy!
Yes, Kevin. The power of government must only be used to force antirelious thought on all Americans. Only then will we be safe.
After all, that’s what the Founding Fathers (and American citizens from the Pilgrims to the 1950’s) must have intended, right?
Jennifer Rubin could have made her case that Santorum lacks a certain understanding of “what America is all about” with far fewer words: neither the Founders nor their successors ever made the leap to perfect liberty, therefore progress toward liberty always involved setting aside some priorities to pursue others.
At demonstrating that Santorum doesn’t understand the Constitution, and that she does, she flops worse than Gilbert Gottfried singing “The Music of the Night” from Phantom of the Opera. She doesn’t tell the reader a freakin’ thing about Santorum’s constitutional beliefs. And hers that the Constitution is not about issues, moral or otherwise (there is no otherwise, really), is bong bilge. It’s all about issues – what each branch of the Federal government may or may not do.
wodun,
QFT?
HUH?
I know what it means, but how does it play here?
That it’s too early, or I have no opinion because I skipped the debate?
Anyone got a texting / web shorthand for “I’m effing confused”?
“Isn’t following any law related to morality?”
NO -and that is sort of the point. The law of a free country which holds individual liberty as it’s primary purpose cannot be used to impose someone’s moral or aesthetic vision, or dictate the shape of society in any way.
The *only* legitimate use of the law in a free society is the prevention of force and fraud in public affairs.
(Of course, one could make the argument that anything with does not violate the will of free and responsible adults shouldn’t be considered evil either, but that’s another issue).
The problem is that once you’ve decided that the role of government is to force society into this or that shape to satisfy a moral goal, then there is nothing left of politics but totalitarian power grabs by different tribal interests.
The left already obviously believes this. If the right starts to use the government that way also, America will only be left with a choice between two tyrannies.
The law of a free country which holds individual liberty as it’s primary purpose…
I think the point of the comment to which you’re responding is that holding individual liberty as its primary purpose is a question of morality.
Think about it.
Der Schtumpy Says:
“I think it’s just too damned early for serious debates.”
QFT
Fixed.
I don’t find this at all surprising. The fact that the political “right” has been mostly in a reactive mode the past three years may have allowed us to (blessedly) forget their moral agenda. But they have one, just as the Left has its. Rick “Inner” Santorum is not an outlier, but an example of the mainstream right.
NOW I gotcha wodun.
It’s a year too soon IMHO. I shudder to think what could / will happen in the world in the 12 months upcoming. Everything could happen from nothing to WWIII, and everything is open to possibility. And discussing the here and now seems stupid and childish.
Just the death of bin Laden changes the War on Terror.
I know plenty of people like Mitch Daniels, but there’s something ‘behind his eyes’ that creeps me out. He looks like a guy in a Grade B movie who sells OUR souls to the Devil for HIS immortality. It’s just something I can’t quite put my finger on.
Except that he’s (supposed to be) 180 degrees out from Obama politically, it’s the same feeling for me. A complete lack of trust.
Is this thinking grounds for an Obama Impeachment?
.
“The Founders were aiming to minimize the damage that could be wrought by people so convinced of their own positions that they will override the liberties of others and inflate and misuse the power of government.”
.
Or for that matter, impeachment of most of the Presidents in the last 100 years? Having said that,
.
.
I didn’t see the debate, I think it’s just too damned early for serious debates. And I really don’t see where Rubin is coming from. It seems that she dislikes Santorum because he doesn’t see the separation of morality and state that she clearly sees in the Constitution? And if she’s pro-Mitch Dainels, I don’t like her from here on out.
I read it twice, and I still don’t get her beyond that simple point.
From the first paragraph or two it was clear that Rubin has no idea what she is talking about. The entire Declaration of Independence is an argument about morality (to be specific, the immorality of King George’s actions) – without morality, there is nothing wrong with the way England treated America in the mid-1700s, indeed no right or wrong at all.
Yeah, because the Left’s social program has brought us all so much peace and prospertiy… right?
Isn’t following any law related to morality? If one lacks morality- if you are immoral, couldn’t one find ways to disregard such things as the US constitution?
Can we agree that Hitler or Stalin are examples of immoral persons?
Is any quality that defines them better than the lack of morality?
Something else? Is it something to do with their hair cuts or perhaps they were mere victims of the events?
And though perhaps either of these individuals would be somewhat restrained by American system of governance. If either was president or many of such types were part of Congress- and they are not excessively reckless could they seek and find opportunities which essentially nullify the constitution?
So for some people [perhaps most] morality might be limited to such issues as abortion and gay marriage, but for some others it relates to broad issues, such as honesty, rationality, holding to certain principals, etc, etc in which issues of abortion and gay marriage are but a part.
Let’s go back in time in American history when slavery was considered one of the moral issues of the day [obviously it wasn’t considered by many to be a issue related to economics or the US constitution]:
Politically, it may or may not be wise not to address the issue of slavery- and a politician may give a “suggestion that there be a social truce” and this might seem reasonable, but politicians who are strongly opposed to slavery, may counter with a statement as, “Anybody that would suggest we call a truce on moral issues doesn’t understand what America is all about”. And this might also have some justification.
Now, perhaps Obama desires this country to be plunged into the greatest depression this country as ever known.
A fair number of Leftists actually say they desire such economic ruin- without which we doomed because of CO2 levels [and some might even think CO2 levels are actually important- or simply see it wonderful tool to gain enough power for their utopia state- and/or a more practical near term goal of empowering themselves].
Faced with such a threat, some politicians may think it was more than somewhat important to beat Obama in the next election.
Perhaps others don’t see this as much of a threat, and/or think having any one person [such as a US president] with the granted power to actually cause national economic ruin as more of problem.
The winner of the GOP nomination will be–
–the one with the balls to attack Obama over the Gunwalker scandal.
This is the real issue that no one’s talking about: Obama and Holder tricked gun store owners into selling guns to Mexican drug lords, with the intent of then having the guns traced back into the US. They did this specifically to get even more draconian gun control laws than we already have.
Der Schtumpy Says:
“I didn’t see the debate, I think it’s just too damned early for serious debates.”
QFT
Ken:
I think you’re stretching a bit here. You claim: “Obama and Holder tricked gun store owners into selling guns to Mexican drug lords . . . ” NO, the ATF agency went out of control – as so often before – and are very likely lying to AG Holder right now about it.
By your account, “Obama and Holder” were running around Arizona talking to those gun shop owners. Was that during the President’s visit to ASU in 2009, or his visit to Tucson after the Giffords shooting?
The President has stated, many times, that passing more gun laws is a zero priority with his Administration. He’s never done one dang thing contrary to that stated policy. Not once.
Rand: now back to the main issue. Rick Santorum has long advocated using the power of government to impose his religious views upon the rest of us. Yes, I agree with you, this is very un-Constitutional and un-American.
He must be resisted.
Great that we agree on something besides space policy!
Yes, Kevin. The power of government must only be used to force antirelious thought on all Americans. Only then will we be safe.
After all, that’s what the Founding Fathers (and American citizens from the Pilgrims to the 1950’s) must have intended, right?
Jennifer Rubin could have made her case that Santorum lacks a certain understanding of “what America is all about” with far fewer words: neither the Founders nor their successors ever made the leap to perfect liberty, therefore progress toward liberty always involved setting aside some priorities to pursue others.
At demonstrating that Santorum doesn’t understand the Constitution, and that she does, she flops worse than Gilbert Gottfried singing “The Music of the Night” from Phantom of the Opera. She doesn’t tell the reader a freakin’ thing about Santorum’s constitutional beliefs. And hers that the Constitution is not about issues, moral or otherwise (there is no otherwise, really), is bong bilge. It’s all about issues – what each branch of the Federal government may or may not do.
wodun,
QFT?
HUH?
I know what it means, but how does it play here?
That it’s too early, or I have no opinion because I skipped the debate?
Anyone got a texting / web shorthand for “I’m effing confused”?
“Isn’t following any law related to morality?”
NO -and that is sort of the point. The law of a free country which holds individual liberty as it’s primary purpose cannot be used to impose someone’s moral or aesthetic vision, or dictate the shape of society in any way.
The *only* legitimate use of the law in a free society is the prevention of force and fraud in public affairs.
(Of course, one could make the argument that anything with does not violate the will of free and responsible adults shouldn’t be considered evil either, but that’s another issue).
The problem is that once you’ve decided that the role of government is to force society into this or that shape to satisfy a moral goal, then there is nothing left of politics but totalitarian power grabs by different tribal interests.
The left already obviously believes this. If the right starts to use the government that way also, America will only be left with a choice between two tyrannies.
I think the point of the comment to which you’re responding is that holding individual liberty as its primary purpose is a question of morality.
Think about it.
Der Schtumpy Says:
“I think it’s just too damned early for serious debates.”
QFT
Fixed.
I don’t find this at all surprising. The fact that the political “right” has been mostly in a reactive mode the past three years may have allowed us to (blessedly) forget their moral agenda. But they have one, just as the Left has its. Rick “Inner” Santorum is not an outlier, but an example of the mainstream right.
NOW I gotcha wodun.
It’s a year too soon IMHO. I shudder to think what could / will happen in the world in the 12 months upcoming. Everything could happen from nothing to WWIII, and everything is open to possibility. And discussing the here and now seems stupid and childish.
Just the death of bin Laden changes the War on Terror.
I know plenty of people like Mitch Daniels, but there’s something ‘behind his eyes’ that creeps me out. He looks like a guy in a Grade B movie who sells OUR souls to the Devil for HIS immortality. It’s just something I can’t quite put my finger on.
Except that he’s (supposed to be) 180 degrees out from Obama politically, it’s the same feeling for me. A complete lack of trust.