FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: CaseAgainstFaith on January 31, 2012, 10:20:36 am
-
Though liberals are scoffing, that's the threat from Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has essentially been setting the GOP's tax policy
Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, raised plenty of eyebrows on Saturday with an interview he gave to National Journal, in which he said that if President Obama is foolish enough to let all the "Bush tax cuts" expire at the end of the year, "Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach." The anti-tax activist holds a lot of sway over the GOP, with almost all House Republicans and every GOP presidential candidate signing his no-tax pledge, but impeachment is reserved for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors," notes Tanya Somanader in Think Progress. So "suggesting Republicans impeach the president over tax cuts is wildly outlandish." Right?
There's no way the GOP's that crazy: Norquist is just plain "nuts," says Nicole Belle in Crooks and Liars. And even with "idiots and clowns" running the Grand Old Party these days, "there's no way that the Republicans will go down this route." Impeaching over tax policy stretches the Constitution to the breaking point, and won't win any favors with voters, either. "You may think you rule Washington," Grover, but this idea is "just delusional."
source - http://news.yahoo.com/could-gop-impeach-obama-ending-bush-tax-cuts-134500609.html (http://news.yahoo.com/could-gop-impeach-obama-ending-bush-tax-cuts-134500609.html)
Can we officially call in the "men in white" with those jackets that let you hug yourself on this guy yet? I mean I know the right wing has their nuts (see Palin) but this is I think even more nuttier than even Palin's rantings.
-
It seems like the people quickest to scream for impeachment usually have an IQ under 50.
-
So changing the tax code is a High Crime, now?
I was under the impression that Congress had more sway over the tax code to begin with.
-
Norquist has a lot of clout with in the GOP, but no where near enough for impeachment. First, the House would never go for it. If the impeachment fails, they look like assholes and it could hurt their re-election chances come 2014/2016. Second, the House would remember what happened last time they brought impeachment charges against the President; they failed and Clinton's approval rating went up considerably. Third, Congress looks at polls, and they know that the majority of Americans want the Bush tax cuts repealed, so they would avoid such a politically risky fight. Finally, even if all the prior swing Norquist's way, he could never get 67 Senators to agree to impeachment, let alone anything >:(.
-
Blowing smoke and fucking around, as usual. Can we teach these old dogs a few new tricks already?
-
"You don't agree with how I want things done!? TREASON!" /tyrant
-
SIC SIMPLETON TYRANNIS
-
SIC SIMPLETON TYRANNIS
Sigg'd for that!
-
On what grounds would this guy call the impeachment for?
-
On what grounds would this guy call the impeachment for?
On the grounds of Obama being a doo-doo head who did something the GOP didn't like, and for being a brown person with a weird brown people name.
-
On what grounds would this guy call the impeachment for?
Because Grover is a greedy prick who doesn't want to pay his fair share in taxes.
-
How the fuck is letting a scheduled tax change happen treason, high crime, or a misdemeanor? Fucking hell, Norquist is disgusting.
-
How the fuck is letting a scheduled tax change happen treason, high crime, or a misdemeanor? Fucking hell, Norquist is disgusting.
Apparently it's a high crime to ask him to pay fairer taxes. ::) I mean if you listen to this people, they make even a 2% increase sound like bloody murder.
-
On what grounds would this guy call the impeachment for?
On the grounds of Obama being a doo-doo head who did something the GOP didn't like, and for being a brown person with a weird brown people name.
Liberals, after all, are the real poo-poo heads.
-
Wow that's some straight up ego right there. Call for impeachment over a tax cut? Boy you need to read up on what constitutes actual impeachment charges. And it ain't a blowjob in the Oval Office either. It was the perjury that got Clinton snagged.
Ironbite-far as we know..OBama ain't done nothin'/southern gentlemen.
-
What an idiot. There's not much else to say.
-
Grover Norquist has caused more damage to this country than Obama has. If anyone's a traitor, he is.
-
Is it just me, or is "treason" one of those words that conservatives keep using that doesn't mean what they think it means?
-
Is it just me, or is "treason" one of those words that conservatives keep using that doesn't mean what they think it means?
We've used it a few times innappropriately. It has to be very direct harm like giving our nuke codes to Iran
-
Is it just me, or is "treason" one of those words that conservatives keep using that doesn't mean what they think it means?
It seems like a lot of conservatives are incapable of using most political terms appropriately.
-
Good luck with that. ::)
-
Is it just me, or is "treason" one of those words that conservatives keep using that doesn't mean what they think it means?
It's not just conservatives, pretty much everyone uses treason incorrectly. The current low level of political discourse has only increased it's improper usage.
-
Is it just me, or is "treason" one of those words that conservatives keep using that doesn't mean what they think it means?
It's not just conservatives, pretty much everyone uses treason incorrectly. The current low level of political discourse has only increased it's improper usage.
Technically, if the masses use a word one way consistently, doesn't that essentially add a definition to the word?
Or does that only apply to pronunciations of words, such as the case with often?
-
I honestly don't know. Words do have set definitions, but if enough people agree on an alternate meaning it can become a legit definition.
ETA: Regardless, I still think that the word is over used and used incorrectly.
-
Is it just me, or is "treason" one of those words that conservatives keep using that doesn't mean what they think it means?
It's not just conservatives, pretty much everyone uses treason incorrectly. The current low level of political discourse has only increased it's improper usage.
Technically, if the masses use a word one way consistently, doesn't that essentially add a definition to the word?
Or does that only apply to pronunciations of words, such as the case with often?
In general, yes. But it doesn't change what treason as a strictly defined legal term means.
-
Yeah, this is bound to fail, but it pisses me off nonetheless. A lot.
-
Is it just me, or is "treason" one of those words that conservatives keep using that doesn't mean what they think it means?
It's not just conservatives, pretty much everyone uses treason incorrectly. The current low level of political discourse has only increased it's improper usage.
Technically, if the masses use a word one way consistently, doesn't that essentially add a definition to the word?
Or does that only apply to pronunciations of words, such as the case with often?
Legal definitions are not subject to that sort of evolution. The legal definition for a crime requires the law defining that crime to changed to have any effect.
What constitutes treason does vary from state to state and from time period to time period. What some people call treason may in all truth qualify as treason under other jurisdictions. But unless that act consists “in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,†it is not treason against the United States. No matter how many people say otherwise, this definition can only change with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for without that, the above is the full legal weight of the term.