Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That's irrational. Not one person here has said he should be immune to impeachment because he's a Democrat. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. You'd like to impeach him... for what?
edited 19th Mar '13 4:34:20 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"No, I'd say the best person that we might've elected was Rocky Anderson. It's more appropriate to say that Obama was the best politician that we got, but he's almost entirely identical to Bush in terms of overall policy. Hence why I'd like for someone to impeach him over, say, the torture by proxy, or the extrajudicial killings, or the protection of those who committed large-scale fraudulence.
edited 19th Mar '13 4:40:17 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.![]()
![]()
Tough titties? I'd like John Beohner and all the Tea Party permanently thrown out of even being near congress. But guess what? I dont get to decide that.
Hint: if the republican party hasnt tried to impeach him , its because they know none of those things you're referring to have enough evidence to stand trial.
edited 19th Mar '13 4:39:41 PM by Midgetsnowman
![]()
Ah, so "disagrees with my political opinions" = "grounds for impeachment". I'm awfully glad you aren't in Congress, Serocco.
Here's a big issue for you all to discuss instead of impeachment city: Supreme Court rules that first sale doctrine extends to international sales.
The implications (especially for published fiction) are...staggering.
edited 19th Mar '13 4:45:45 PM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)I was going to respond to the stuff about Obama, but I'll push that aside and quote from the passage itself.
On a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court decreed that "foreign buyers of textbooks, movies and other products a right to resell them in the United States without the permission of the copyright owner."
edited 19th Mar '13 4:53:21 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.It sounds rather obvious, if you think about it. I can see all kinds of consequences, but it strikes me as a very straightforward principle.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They don't need permission to resell things. That's the doctrine of First Sale, and publishers were raising a stink because people were reselling stuff they bought overseas for lower prices.
It's bog standard legal precedent; it's the publishers who were trying to get special privileges.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm not sure what you main, Serocco. The First Sale doctrine says that once you legally buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you can then sell it to anyone you want without the approval of or payment to the copyright holder. This is well-established law; the only thing that's changed is that SCOTUS says that it applies even if the first sale happened outside the US–but a first sale is still happening, so it's not like the copyright owners are getting ripped off.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Its looking more and more likely that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons against the rebels. Given that this was one of Obama's supposed "red-lines" I'm not sure how this is going to develop in Washington. They are promising a response but what form will that take? More aid? Sanctions? Probably not indirect military aid and almost certainly not physical intervention.
edited 19th Mar '13 5:21:35 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
![]()
Well, technically they are ripping themselves off. If they sell a book in the U.S. for $20, but sell the same exact work in India for $2, they have only themselves to blame if someone buys it in India and then resells it in the U.S. for $10.
Edit: I wonder if regional DVD encoding is next...
edited 19th Mar '13 5:20:58 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Oh, I see. Not that much of a change, in that case.
![]()
China and Russia have made it so that America can't intervene directly.
Fighteer: "Ah, so disagrees with my political opinions = grounds for impeachment." Just a quick tidbit. Extrajudicial killings is outside the jurisdiction of the law. What, you believe operating outside the law isn't grounds for impeachment?
edited 19th Mar '13 5:22:49 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Yes. That's what a law is.
Furthermore, there's good precedent.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it.
I'm saying you're being hysterical, showing a poor knowledge of government, politics, legal systems, and reality, and are an incredible single-issue wonk. Can you post about anything other than what a terrible robosexual monster obama is?

How does impeaching Obama solve anything? We'd just have Biden as president and I doubt he'd do anything different from Obama. Impeachment is not a way of removing politicians that do things you don't like.