The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

[ghost]

I don't think the Tea party would like to have me around ghost. I am in favor of gay marriage and most other freedoms. Just not the freedom to kill babies. But that's a new one, I've never been called a teahadist before. You see, I don't have to be right or left wing. I prefer to be a thinking person,

There's a complex new civil code coming your way. That may impact some so called freedoms. Be aware.

 

[EricLovesBA]

All teabaggers, teahadists, tinfoil hat wearers, neocons, libertarians, and wingnuts please proceed to Galts Gulch Chile, do not pass Go, do not collect "free" healthcare, to not claim entitlements, do not pay taxes, bring gold not USD, do not engage trolls. Ayn Rand would smile upon us, but alas, she has no afterlife and will miss Atlas's final shrug. Plane now boarding!

 

[scotttswan]

All teabaggers, teahadists, tinfoil hat wearers, neocons, libertarians, and wingnuts please proceed to Galts Gulch Chile, do not pass Go, do not collect "free" healthcare, to not claim entitlements, do not pay taxes, bring gold not USD, do not engage trolls. Ayn Rand would smile upon us, but alas, she has no afterlife and will miss Atlas's final shrug. Plane now boarding!

They don't accept bitcoins? :lol:

 

[EricLovesBA]

They don't accept bitcoins? :lol:

Bitcoins, despite all the great characteristics, are essentially just another fiat currency. They are not sound money because like the dollar, they lack the keystone feature of intrinsic value. If that little problem could be resolved they would be perfect. I believe they will meet their doom as more competing crypto currencies come into the market, which, being functionally indistinguishable from bitcoins will eventually make it obvious that crypto currencies as a whole are just empty IOU's subject to infinite inflation.

 

[steveinbsas]

'He is also acting outside of the powers granted to him by the Constitution, therefore he is also a criminal".

Can you be specific and tell us which laws he's broken?

"He has contempt for the Constitution and would issue far more executive orders than he already has if he thought he could get away with it."

Can you enlighten us about this contempt, and evidence? I'm sure you'd agree that the main reason he's issued so many executive orders is the GOP using more filibusters against the President than have been used against all the previous presidents in US history? During the long downright refusal of the GOP to confirm important judicial appointments to important federal appeals courts I think he's been very patient with their obstructionism. The Teapartiers use that as a badge of honour. This isn't an opposition, its an attempt to wreck the government.

First of all, thank you, Steve for asking these questions and doing so in a polite and respectful way!
.
Here's is a list of "impeachable offenses" committed by Barack Obama. It's actually one of the shorter one's I found, but I like the name of the website:

http://www.redflagne...h.EKvlH7ye.dpbs,

This one has 13 offenses listed (out of 20 from the original article):

http://www.westernjo...hable-offenses/

It looks like the Democrats have put an end to filibusters for the nomination of Federal judges.

http://www.breitbart...ilibuster-52-48

Using the filibuster to stop a President from packing a court with Progressive ideologues by the minority party is hardly an attempt to wreck the government. It is Obama who is fundamentally transforming the United States and actually wrecking the government by acting beyond his Constitutional authority. He is wrecking the coal industry as well and destroying a health care system that, at its worst, worked far better than the one he and his cronies foisted on America. The "Afordable" Care Act was passed into law using "dirty" tricks" and since then has been selectively "implemented" by Presidential order. This power is not granted to the President by the Constitution.

Filibusters were legally used by minority parties until a couple days ago. They have been used by Democrats when they were in the minority as well. How many have been used by either party is completely irrelevant. Just because the President doesn't like something that has been filibuster does not give him the legal power to issue an executive order to bypass Congress. It is an impeachable offense. Whether or not the President is "patient" is meaningless. How he feels is irrelevant. What he does is, especially when he acts outside of the legal limits of the power granted to him by the Constitution, which he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

The Senate voted Thursday, 52-48, to end the filibuster rule for all executive and judicial appointments except for Supreme Court nominees, which would still need a 60-vote supermajority to end debate and move to a majority vote on confirmation. The move, dubbed the "nuclear option," represents a historic power grab and a blow to the procedural prerogatives of the minority party in the Senate. All but three Democrats voted in favor.

In 2005, when Democrats had inaugurated the practice of filibustering large numbers of nominees, then-Minority Leader Read railed against the GOP majority for threatening the "nuclear option." That crisis ended in an agreement, brokered by the bipartisan "Gang of 14," which stated that nominees would only be filibustered in "extraordinary circumstances," but that there would be no attempted rules changes in that Congress.

The reason for the strong Republican opposition to recent nominees by President Barack Obama has been the strong ideological bent of many nominees, plus the determination of the president to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by filling several vacancies. That court decides important regulatory cases and has an otherwise low caseload for its current roster of four Democrat- and four Republican-appointed judges.

Republicans have pointed out that the Democrats' proposed changes could be renewed--and perhaps extended-- when Democrats are once again in the minority, allowing the GOP to retaliate by nominating conservative candidates who might not otherwise survive a filibuster. In a political environment requiring both sides to work together to solve pressing issues, Reid and his party may come to regret the fallout."

Regarding Obama's contempt for the Constitution and whether or not he embraces Marxist principles:

"Obama told an NPR radio interviewer in 2001 that the Warren Court did not “break free from the essential constraints” found in the Constitution and therefore one of the “tragedies” of the civil rights movement was that “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth…

Upon hearing a tape of the interview, Ed Morrissey of CaptainsQuarters blog fame, “The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a `charter of negative liberties.’ That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-à-vis the states and the individual. Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that’s radical change you’d better believe in, or else.”

And if you want an opinion that he has contempt for the Constitution and should be impeached that is not from a right wing blog or website I suggest you click on this link:

http://www.silverdoc...r-constitution/

From Forbes.com on Friday, November 22, 2013:

"It is one thing when a fringe blog or right-wing news organization calls for the impeachment of a liberal President.
It is another thing entirely when Forbes.com prominently publishes a call for the impeachment of a liberal President, claiming his tyrannical disregard for the US Constitution has sent the US to the brink of a Banana Republic:

The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?...

"Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.

The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.

By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law.


The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again)…
If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe....

The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”

We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end."

Go here to read the full op-ed:

http://www.forbes.co...g-our-republic/

 

[StevePalermo]

Haven't got much time atm Steve to go through all of your points, its insane at work, but thanks for the reply.

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]The reason for the strong Republican opposition to recent nominees by President Barack Obama has been the strong ideological bent of many nominees, plus the determination of the president to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by filling several vacancies."[/background]


[font=lucida grande']Shouldn't any president be allowed to make these nominations unless they are really far outside the mainstream? All of the President's nominees to the Washington DC court are eminently qualified. Talking of political ideologues, how about Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito, all very conservative ideologues. Are you saying that they should all have been blocked too?[/font]


"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]That court decides important regulatory cases and has an otherwise low caseload for its current roster of four Democrat- and four Republican-appointed judges". [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I've read that the lack of judges is causing a backlog of cases. But the caseload is irrelevant, that's not the reason why Republicans are blocking the appointments. [/background]


[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]“the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth…"[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]You don't have to be a Marxist to be concerned about the inequality of wealth distribution in the USA. [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Currently the US is ranked around 93rd in the world in income equality, below India, China, and Iran, which is disgraceful. In my opinion of course, you may differ![/background]


[font=lucida grande']"[/font][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]and destroying a health care system that, at its worst, worked far better than the one he and his cronies foisted on America."[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I would say the opposite of what you say. It would be interesting to wait a year and see how things work out. I'm convinced the ACA's opponents are waging an all-out offensive against the Act to prevent its effective implementation, knowing full well that once its in full operation, people will see through the lies of the Fox News type propaganda and appreciate the benefits. Extending coverage for pre-existing conditions is surely an improvement, and many of the health plans that many people are complaining about losing have been shown to be junk health care plans that even the providers say should not be relied upon for all health coverage. [/background]


[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I checked out the redfagsnews website and far from the independent source of news it claims to be, the agenda is strictly anti Obama and liberals and very [/background]pro-guns with articles like "Top 5 Reasons Republicans should take us over the fiscal cliff", "How to survive thanksgiving at your liberal relatives", and lots of articles worshipping the gun culture. I just scanned the article you quoted and its full of controversial statements. I'm a stickler for good sources and I'm afraid I'm not impressed with this one.


[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]A random clip on filibuster reform.[/background]

http://www.occupydem...-minutes-video/

 

[camberiu]

Usually not a huge fan or rap or hip-hop, but this one turned out pretty good.


http://youtu.be/kodcKUkd2Rg

 

[EricLovesBA]

The reality of "surgical" drone strikes - another great reason to feel better about living in Argentina, especially if you read all the hateful comments in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk7fD5umakg

 

[camberiu]

This gets better every time I watch it.


http://youtu.be/37c6oqbD2l8

 

[EricLovesBA]

Edit: - in the above, by "comments" I mean the yt comment section, not any commentary in the video. In the comment section you can see all kinds of racist viewpoints and way too many Americans saying that the victims are getting what they deserve for whatever reason, showing they have bought all the propaganda wholesale.

As far as comments within the video, one of my favorite ones was they guy who asked the interviewer "What is a terrorist?". She couldn't say, and asked him for his definition. He replied that Bush and Obama fit the bill perfectly.