What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[petros]

when Republicans control the Congress, anything is ground for impeachment (like having sex with an intern).

Ha! He never had sex with Lewinski. The entire impeachment process was about giving China nuclear technology in lieu of some serious Reaganomics and Bush militarization debt.

Where did you get the idea it was about the hummer? The media? What a fantastic diversion.

Scum will take anything on the chin to hide the truth.

 

[JLM]

Here is a simplistic answer to your question: Depends when he fails, if he fails now we will still recover. (he would be replaced and life would go on under the Democrats) If he fails in 3-4 years, it would be catastrophic for the world, because there is no one who could pull the economy out of the major depression that would result. Republicans have no one yet, and it looks like they won't be ready by 2010.

You're getting ahead of yourself- there is VIRTUALLY nothing the U.S. President can do that on his own that will sink the whole world into an unrecoverable depression. I say "virtually" because I suppose if he was an "Idi Amin" or "Miomar Kadaffy" he may try to bomb China or do something else just as stupid.

 

[ironsides]

How will he be replaced, ironsides? He has been elected for four years, and there is no mechanism to remove him except impeachment. And poor, bungling economic performance is not a valid ground for impeachment. At least not when Democrats control the Congress, when Republicans control the Congress, anything is ground for impeachment (like having sex with an intern).

So the earliest impeachment proceedings can begin is in 2011, assuming Republicans get control of both the House and the Senate (unlikely as of now).

There is really no mechanism to replace Obama until 2012.

Impeaching him would be hard, but if he were to be noticeably destroying the country, there are enough patriotic Democrats who would eat him alive. Most of the Democrats as well as Republicans put their country first. If they would impeach Clinton over his minor infraction Obama would be removed very fast for doing something major wrong. If they didn't, the people would, we have a history of removing politicians who get out of line.

 

[JLM]

Impeaching him would be hard, but if he were to be noticeably destroying the country, there are enough patriotic Democrats who would eat him alive. Most of the Democrats as well as Republicans put their country first. If they would impeach Clinton over his minor infraction Obama would be removed very fast for doing something major wrong. If they didn't, the people would, we have a history of removing politicians who get out of line.

I hate to say it or even think it but apparently the chance of assassination is very real & I have the feeling Obama runs a bigger risk than most (even G.W. methinks)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I hate to say it or even think it but apparently the chance of assassination is very real & I have the feeling Obama runs a bigger risk than most (even G.W. methinks)

I agree JLM, assassination is a bigger possibility than impeachment (I don’t see impeachment happening in a Democratic Congress).

But even possibility of assassination is remote. The extreme right (if anybody assassinates Obama, it would be extreme right) is if anything, even more scared of Biden that they are of Obama. I don’t think they want Biden to become the president.

 

[JLM]

I agree JLM, assassination is a bigger possibility than impeachment (I don’t see impeachment happening in a Democratic Congress).

But even possibility of assassination is remote. The extreme right (if anybody assassinates Obama, it would be extreme right) is if anything, even more scared of Biden that they are of Obama. I don’t think they want Biden to become the president.

Yep, I think it's more likely to be committed by someone who is racist moreso than right wing.

 

[Extrafire]

No they aren't OK with that, they're PO'd about it. The only reason we held our noses and voted for Campbell is because we know how much worse an NDP government would be.

That is your take on BC elections, Extrafire. No doubt some people voted for Liberals as the lesser of the two evils. However it is a safe bet that most of them voted for Liberals because they liked Liberal policies (whatever they are, I don’t know much about BC Liberals) and the way they are running the province.

It is very difficult to win an election on a purely negative basis; people would not have reelected Liberals just because they are not as bad as NDP.

I must admit I don't know everyone who voted Liberal in the BC election, but everyone that I do know held their noses while doing so. As far as I can tell, the only reason the Libs got re=elected is because the alternative was worse.

Actually they don't think that at all. Just more of your imaginings in order to demonize your opponents.

Nothing of the sort. Religious right (and some extreme Catholics) find support for their anti-environmentalism in the Bible (but then one can find support for practically anything in the Bible).

Your last statement is correct. You can make the bible say anything you want it to. And lots of people do. But most of the religious right are big on personal responsibility, and that includes being good stewards of the "gifts of God" which includes the earth. They believe they have god given rights and authority over the earth, but those come with responsibility (answerable to god) as well. So while they aren't anti-environment and they don't believe they have the right to destroy the earth or the environment, they are very much anti-environut.

But when it comes to "global warming" and CO2 emissions, keep in mind that CO2 isn't pollution, it's the staff of life.

In small amounts, yes. In large enough amount, it can kill you.

So can oxygen, nitrogen, water, hydrogen, ketchup, pea soup, dust, grass, grape juice, anthing else you can think of. That doesn't make it pollution.

 

[L Gilbert]

Unfortunately, the Bible told people that they had dominion over everytthing else on the planet, and we ASSumed that we could do anything we wanted with it as a result. Still are.

Um, JLM, it's "Muamar Khadafy"

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is good to hear from you again, Extrafire.

I must admit I don't know everyone who voted Liberal in the BC election, but everyone that I do know held their noses while doing so. As far as I can tell, the only reason the Libs got re=elected is because the alternative was worse.

I don’t know much about BC electorate, Extrafire, I am only guessing. But my experience is that people will rarely vote for a party just because they don’t like the other party. Usually they will vote for party only if they like at least a few of its policies.

And you must agree that cap and trade was not a deal breaker for BC voters, by voting for Liberals they have indicated that they can live with it. Considering the fact that NDP actually promised to get rid of cap and trade and still lost, tells me that BC people are not violently opposed to cap and trade.

So while they aren't anti-environment and they don't believe they have the right to destroy the earth or the environment, they are very much anti-environut.

That may be true in your personal case (we haven’t discussed whether you are religious or not). However, religious right in general tends to be strongly anti-environmentalists. They have opposed each and every environmental initiative proposed so far, GHG reduction, CAFÉ mileage requirements etc. They oppose any attempt to preserve forests by declaring them national parks. They are opposed to measures taken to preserve endangered species.

Indeed, show me even one instance where religious right supported any environmental initiative. Didn’t happen.

So can oxygen, nitrogen, water, hydrogen, ketchup, pea soup, dust, grass, grape juice, anything else you can think of. That doesn't make it pollution.

True, but we are not spewing pea soup or grape juice into the atmosphere. If we started doing that in large quantities these things will be considered pollutants as well.

 

[Extrafire]

JLM, when I say that nobody ever has caught me in a lie and somebody challenges it, he must be able to produce at least one example where I have been caught in a lie. Otherwise that poster is exposed as no more than a clown, who laughs for no reason at all, who does not know how to argue substantive points, who does not know how to carry out rational argument, but who is only out for empty laughter.

So how about it, Extrafire? Can you produce even one example where I have been caught in a lie?

Oh how noble you make yourself sound! Such high standards you set for all of us!

I'll give you a quick one:

You said the Republicans chose Rush as their leader. You also said it was a big news story.

That's two lies right there for the price of one.

Now, I expect that you hold yourself to the same standards as you hold the rest of us. In that light, I expect you to substantiat your claim that Republicans can get kicked out of the party for criticizing Rush.

 

[Cannuck]

Indeed, show me even one instance where religious right supported any environmental initiative. Didn’t happen.

The Greening of Evangelicals (washingtonpost.com)

Somebody needs to quote this so the silly twit can see how wrong he is.

 

[L Gilbert]

Calling CO a pollutant is a bit of a stretch. Might as well say freshwater is polluting the seawater.

.........Thus, it is more informative to define anthropogenic inputs of carbon dioxide as a climate forcing, as was done in the 2005 National Research Council Report. This provides the recognition that carbon dioxide does not have direct health effects as implied by the news article that carbon dioxide “fouls” the air, but it does significantly affect our climate. Of course, carbon monoxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide are also climate forcings. When these other atmospheric constituents are referred to in news articles and elsewhere, we would benefit by a distinction between an “air pollutant” and a “climate forcing” depending on the context.

- Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Is CO2 a Pollutant?

 

[L Gilbert]

The Greening of Evangelicals (washingtonpost.com)

Somebody needs to quote this so the silly twit can see how wrong he is.

You know that all he'd do is say that's only an opinion and that support is relative or some such escapism.

 

[Extrafire]

I don’t know much about BC electorate, Extrafire, I am only guessing. But my experience is that people will rarely vote for a party just because they don’t like the other party. Usually they will vote for party only if they like at least a few of its policies.

And you must agree that cap and trade was not a deal breaker for BC voters, by voting for Liberals they have indicated that they can live with it. Considering the fact that NDP actually promised to get rid of cap and trade and still lost, tells me that BC people are not violently opposed to cap and trade.

Actually, it was the Liberal carbon tax that everyone's so ticked off about. The NDP promised to repeal the carbon tax and replace it with cap and trade, a much worse plan. The carbon tax was annoying, but not all that costly. Cap and trade could be devestating, especially when combined with NDP policies. When your choice is between poor and terrible, you vote poor.

That may be true in your personal case (we haven’t discussed whether you are religious or not). However, religious right in general tends to be strongly anti-environmentalists. They have opposed each and every environmental initiative proposed so far, GHG reduction, CAFÉ mileage requirements etc. They oppose any attempt to preserve forests by declaring them national parks. They are opposed to measures taken to preserve endangered species.

Indeed, show me even one instance where religious right supported any environmental initiative. Didn’t happen.

I've known quite a few fundies in my time, and they've all stressed personal responsibilities. And, yes they (as well as I) tend to be strongly anti-environmentalist But not anti-environment. There's a huge difference.

True, but we are not spewing pea soup or grape juice into the atmosphere. If we started doing that in large quantities these things will be considered pollutants as well.

But the amount of CO2 we spew is infinitessimal, and the effect is beneficial. The only reason anyone calls it pollution is political.

 

[L Gilbert]

Yup.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'll give you a quick one:

You said the Republicans chose Rush as their leader. You also said it was a big news story.

That's two lies right there for the price of one.

We have already been through this, Extrafire. I have explained it before; I don’t see any point in going over the same ground again and again. Republican base elected Limbaugh the de facto leader by acclaim. And it was a big news story. It became a big story when James Carville declared that Limbaugh is now the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

You will have to do better than that.

I expect you to substantiate your claim that Republicans can get kicked out of the party for criticizing Rush.

I never said that Republicans get kicked out of the Party, show me where I said that. What I said was that any leader with political aspirations, if he criticized Limbaugh, immediately has to grovel at his feet and beg for forgiveness. If he didn’t do that, who knows what would happen? He may not get kicked out of Repulbican party, but he can kiss his political aspirations goodbye, chances are very high that the hard right Republican base would defeat him in the primaries.

 

[ironsides]

This is the biggest consequence of Obama failing.

The Greatest Depression 31 May 2009

YouTube - Gerald Celente on Fox and Friends The Greatest Depression 31 May 2009

 

[L Gilbert]

I'd like more evidence and a second opinion from a reliable source that would back up what that guy was saying.

 

[Extrafire]

I'll give you a quick one:

You said the Republicans chose Rush as their leader. You also said it was a big news story.

That's two lies right there for the price of one.

We have already been through this, Extrafire. I have explained it before; I don’t see any point in going over the same ground again and again. Republican base elected Limbaugh the de facto leader by acclaim. And it was a big news story. It became a big story when James Carville declared that Limbaugh is now the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

You will have to do better than that.

Oh indeed we have been through this. You were caught it two lies. Here they are, quoting you:

The Republican base elected him a leader long time ago, Extrafire. They never accepted McCain as one of them (they did accept Joan of Arc, however). And yes, it was a big story in the press.

Now, I can accept that you didn't make the first one up yourself, since that's what the Dems have been trying to foist on us for some time now, you might have taken them at their word. But you were corrected and you still keep repeating it, which makes it into a lie. The second one is a lie of your own invention.

I expect you to substantiate your claim that Republicans can get kicked out of the party for criticizing Rush.

I never said that Republicans get kicked out of the Party, show me where I said that. What I said was that any leader with political aspirations, if he criticized Limbaugh, immediately has to grovel at his feet and beg for forgiveness. If he didn’t do that, who knows what would happen? He may not get kicked out of Repulbican party, but he can kiss his political aspirations goodbye, chances are very high that the hard right Republican base would defeat him in the primaries.

This is your quote:

When anybody who says anything even remotely contradictory to Limbaugh has to profusely apologize to the Republican base the very next day, when supposed leader of the Republican Party, Steele, has to grovel before Limbaugh and beg for forgiveness, offers his abject apology for saying something contradictory to the great guru, it is clear that Limbaugh is the real, de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Back that up.

 

[Extrafire]

I'd like more evidence and a second opinion from a reliable source that would back up what that guy was saying.

Well, he's predicting the future, and it's rather impossible to back up something that hasn't happened yet. He may be right though, in fact that's kinda what I'm expecting.