Can Obama be impeached for sheer incompetence?

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by maybereal11

 

I see Obama doing the same as Bush in politicizing science. He is promoting the secular view over all others in regards to research.

For example, evolution vs creationism. I happen to believe in both. Science has many examples of evolutionary progress, however, I do not believe that evolution is responsible for the creation of the elements necessary to create life. I believe the Hand of a Creator created that first carbon element, etc.

Well I ask you JSO whats the problem with the promotion of science?
I cannot think of a case where science has interfered with a persons ability to worship, gather and celebrate in accordance with religious beliefs.

However, in the case of stem cell research, I have witnessed Religion actively try to
interfere and "BAN" the pursuit of scientific knowledge based upon RELIGIOUS beliefs.

I just don't understand why science ( or its funding ) has to be beholden to religious interests...

When you distill it down, GOD judges each man individually . If someone has moral reservations with any aspect of science, that person can chose to abstain.

In regards to research... What methodology can be applied to "non secular" research?

In fact what examples of non secular research can you cite?


science -
1. the study of the nature and behavior of the physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement
2. the knowledge obtained by these methods
3. any particular branch of this knowledge:

reply to post by mental modulator


Nothing is wrong with the promotion of science, mm.

My main concern is in the field of medical ethics. Should those who believe that life begins at conception be ignored? What science can answer the question as to when life begins?

Another concern is that our education system will be changed to exclude any discussion of Creationism. Again, what scientist can answer the question of the origins of the universe?

Science should not be beholden to or limited by religion. But I can discuss the above two issues all day long without injecting religion, or citing any religious tome such as the Bible.

I am afraid of exclusion of certain points of view.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by jsobecky]

reply to post by skeptic_al


People are concerned about Obama's past, his present, and the future of our country if he continues his dangerous policies. He makes pledges and then breaks them with impunity. He is very inexperienced and not very intelligent, imo. He is dangerous.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

People are concerned about Obama's past, his present, and the future of our country if he continues his dangerous policies. He makes pledges and then breaks them with impunity. He is very inexperienced and not very intelligent, imo. He is dangerous.

If he's not intelligent then...Bush would be what ?
And why did Bush get voted in not once but twice !
And you reckon Obama is Dangerous, compared to who ?

reply to post by mental modulator


To answer your question - true conservatism believes that government should keep it's nose the hell out of private business. Or at least be as hands off as is possible.

What I wonder though, is if that should include businesses that have the capacity to create "bubbles" in the economy like we saw with the housing bubble. We know what happens if those bubbles burst - and this one was one hell of a bubble. If there is no regulation of private business and corruption runs amuk, like we saw with predatory lenders, then what is to stop them from creating another disaster bubble? What they did wasn't necessarily illegal but boy did it hurt the economy!

Personally I think the answer lies somewhere between de-regulation and regulation - somewhere in the shades of gray. Obviously we need some kind of checks and balanaces for businesses. Our founding fathers knew we needed a system of checks and balances for our government and many believe that a government is like a business.

reply to post by skeptic_al


This thread is not about Bush. It is not about who I might compare Obama to.

It is about Obama.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by mental modulator

 

To answer your question - true conservatism believes that government should keep it's nose the hell out of private business. Or at least be as hands off as is possible.

What I wonder though, is if that should include businesses that have the capacity to create "bubbles" in the economy like we saw with the housing bubble. We know what happens if those bubbles burst - and this one was one hell of a bubble. If there is no regulation of private business and corruption runs amuk, like we saw with predatory lenders, then what is to stop them from creating another disaster bubble? What they did wasn't necessarily illegal but boy did it hurt the economy!

Personally I think the answer lies somewhere between de-regulation and regulation - somewhere in the shades of gray. Obviously we need some kind of checks and balanaces for businesses. Our founding fathers knew we needed a system of checks and balances for our government and many believe that a government is like a business.

SOS in a rare instance, I agree 100%...

I'll shut up now, I want to appreciate the moment

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

This thread is not about Bush. It is not about who I might compare Obama to.

It is about Obama.

How can you judge or compare without another to compare to.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Can a president be impeached for sheer incompetence? If so, Obama should be impeached at the end of his 100 day 'honeymoon'.

He has proposed sitting down with the Taliban.

I may sound like a coward and even unpatriotic, but I agree with his proposal. There are many wars that go on being fought for many years without anything being resolved. This would be one of those wars, we both believe in our causes so deeply that we are determined to keep fighting regardless of how many lives are lost. Violence wont mend the differences between the two. Eventually an action of diplomacy will be the best option. We have been raised believing that war is the only way to solve conflicts, society has accepted this and we live with it. Just as long as we get to live our lives as usual we can forget about the people who are in the real danger. Our troops and in a lot of cases innocent civilians. Holding out your hand and offering it as a sign of peace is not a weakness but possibly sign that compassion and forgiving still exists. Until this happens we will not be able to heal from the trauma that war causes nation. Let the process of diplomacy begin!

[edit on 14-3-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by mental modulator]

reply to post by TheHunted

Originally posted by TheHunted

Originally posted by jsobecky
Can a president be impeached for sheer incompetence? If so, Obama should be impeached at the end of his 100 day 'honeymoon'.

He has proposed sitting down with the Taliban.

I may sound like a coward and even unpatriotic, but I agree with his proposal.

I would never judge you like that for considering diplomacy.

The problem is, Obama wants to sit down with 'moderate Taliban'. There is no such thing as 'moderate Taliban'.

The whole Afghan war is bound to be a disaster if Obama wants to use Iraq as a model.

Afghanistan has what, 2 roads? We cannot bring democracy to this country. We would bankrupt our grandchildren if we tried. And it is not worth it in the long run.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by TheHunted

 

Originally posted by TheHunted

Originally posted by jsobecky
Can a president be impeached for sheer incompetence? If so, Obama should be impeached at the end of his 100 day 'honeymoon'.

He has proposed sitting down with the Taliban.

I may sound like a coward and even unpatriotic, but I agree with his proposal.

I would never judge you like that for considering diplomacy.

The problem is, Obama wants to sit down with 'moderate Taliban'. There is no such thing as 'moderate Taliban'.

I need to ask, other then what the media portrays them, what else do you know of the Taliban. I don't like their radical beliefs, but they are human and I believe there are some that are fed up with war just as we are. If there is even the slightest chance that they will listen to us should we not attempt to talk to them. We must exhaust all possible options and attempt to put our differences aside.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

This thread is not about Bush. It is not about who I might compare Obama to.

It is about Obama.

And since your white man DESTROYED AMERICA! I think it might be a little relevent that the new guy is trying to repair what the last guy did. And of course its about race. You totally ignore that a white man DESTROYED AMERICA and call for the impeachment of a black man for... well he didn't destroy America, whitey did that, so the only reason you have is he's black.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The problem is, Obama wants to sit down with 'moderate Taliban'. There is no such thing as 'moderate Taliban'.

This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with jsobecky. The notion a collective called "moderate Taliban" exists is quite pathetic. We discuss with them, hand over power and I guarantee we're back in Afghanistan when the Taliban regains power.

Trojan house politics.

In order to prevent an escalation in the area, I'm sorry, but an occupation by international forces - including Russia - is justified.

Plus, diplomacy has failed in other areas. Examples;

Take Iran and North Korea, Obama promised dialogue and both nations have ignored the administration and continued to frustrate the international community. Congress relaxes certain sanctions on Cuba - their government considers to allow Russian bombers to be stationed on the Island.

And before members chant "you imperial conservative", jsobecky will point out I am certainly no conservative.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by infinite]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Can a president be impeached for sheer incompetence? If so, Obama should be impeached at the end of his 100 day 'honeymoon'.

Apparently not, jso. Bush proved you can pull off utter incompetence for 8 years straight and not get impeached for it.

reply to post by spinkyboo

you're kidding - right? all of the horrible destructive mess and bad choices that the last administration brought upon this world - And you can ask this question - at this time? Priceless.

Actually it has been going on for years but it was Clinton's Admin who really sold us down the river when the WTO was signed in 1995. THAT transfered power from the Nations to an international body run by corporations. WTO has all the governments of the world by the short hairs. Impose the "international standards" or we will impose TRADE SANCTIONS. Since 2000 WTO has moved 25% of US manufacturing overseas. the WTO wants us dependent on trade from other nations so their TRADE SANCTIONS have big teeth. They control 90% of the international trade through trade treaties.

Obama is a puppet just like Clinton and Bush. The only change is we are near the end. Next comes gun control and food control (HR875), since they already control energy.
www.publiceyeonscience.ch... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">click

Have a nice day

Oh and I am working with Liberals AND Conservatives to kill the food control bills but I doubt we will have much luck. Hope you like "Frankenfood" seasoned with nanotech computers... Gag Barf

reply to post by crimvelvet


Thanks for bringing the most important subject that define the economic mess that our nation find itself in right now, you are right, selling Americas to the WTO and the Freed trade is what have deteriorated the nations wealth building since the 90s.

Still we can blame Bush as incompetence and rightly so and the already outrageous spending of Obama in two months but the bases of the problem starting with the signing of the WTO.

American corporate entities trying to find wealth while "propping" under develop countries found loopholes that now have rendered our nation nothing more than a bankrupt superpower, while America became a nation of spenders on credit and loans, expected to be the consumers of the developing countries goods.

I always said even before the economic crisis and the 2007 bubble crash that a nation can not survive on consumption alone without its industrial base.

Darn I was right.

Well said my friend.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by marg6043]