TPMDC
Tom Tancredo: Impeach Obama! Fox News: That's Ridiculous (VIDEO)
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R)
Share
Send to a friend!
Tom Tancredo sure does have a lot of demands these days.
First, the ex-Rep warned Colorado's scandal-stained Republican gubernatorial frontrunners that if they didn't drop out of the race after the August 10 primary so the party could appoint a better nominee, he'd enter the race himself.
And now Tancredo is calling for President Obama to be impeached.
Tancredo has an op-ed in the Washington Times calling President Obama "a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda" and suggesting that he ought to be impeached. He went on Fox News this afternoon to explain. And Fox News' Megyn Kelly seemed to think that Tancredo's proposal was, well, a little out there.
"Alright congressman, that's ridiculous," she said after explaining the outlines of his op-ed.
"Well you may think so," Tancredo said. "I don't."
The ex-congressman said Obama "wants to destroy the constitution" and is more dangerous than al Qaeda because he represents an internal threat.
"He is a committed idealogue, and when you have somebody like that in the White House, it is to me a scary proposition, and I think that we can muster our defenses much more easily to take care of al Qaeda than we can to take care of the president."
Kelly asked, "How is that helpful? How does that raise the level of debate?" She also told Tancredo that "it's tough to take you seriously." Ouch.
Watch:
Comments (222) | Join the Conversation!
TPM Top News
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
kash79
July 23, 2010 4:53 PM
In the article, you seem to suggest Fox News is saner than this nut bag. Naive. It is Fox News' natural progression and story building toward the Obama impeachment argument. In about six months, especially if Rs take the House- impeachment will become daily and natural fodder on Fox.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 23, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to kash79
Thank you.
Kelly says something sensible on one occasion but I haven't forgotten how she's has been out there helping push the Black People are soooo scary Fox meme.
As far as I'm concerned, she and Tancredo are two peas in a pod
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Commie Dearest
July 23, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to kash79
When there are people who perceive Obama to be a "committed ideologue", I'm staggered at how distorted their view of reality is without being clinically insane. I mean, there are committed ideologues on the left, but Obama? "Destroy the constitution"? And there seem to be a lot of people who believe this about him. Is the alternative rightwing nutjob media really that convincing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MoCrash
July 23, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to Commie Dearest
They are not "clinical insane" only because they haven't been subject to professional diagnosis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
big jonny
July 23, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to Commie Dearest
Where is the line between willful ignorance and just being a dumb ass?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lizskin
July 23, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to big jonny
There really is a purpose to this kind of extreme rhetoric. If you can move the goalposts so far to the right that someone as middle-of-the-road as Obama looks like a radical to the uncritical electorate and the media who feed them, then anyone left of him is essentially disenfranchised.
Progressive ideas like universal health care and climate legislation become dangerously extremist and politically toxic.
Those who control the terms of debate win. It's Rovian, it's real, and it's happening all around us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ZeraLee
July 24, 2010 11:40 PM in reply to Lizskin
Well said.
Facts and history are against them, so they play on fear, prejudice, ignorance, and respect for a party that is republican in name only.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to ZeraLee
You're right! Republicans need to stop leaning toward the liberal philosophy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ZeraLee
July 28, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to dwjoae
Thank you for proving my point. You really have embraced anti-intellectualism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 29, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to ZeraLee
If you think leftist, self-destructive, mental illness is intellectualism, then good for you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spamonwry
July 23, 2010 9:15 PM in reply to big jonny
To quote Wiley in the comic strip "Non Sequitur:" "Stupidity is a condition; ignorance is a choice." However, comedian Ron White (Blue Collar Comedy Tour), "You can't fix Stupid." The right-wing scream machine screams outrage at everything anyone to the left of Attila The Hun says or does. You'd think that middle-class & the working poor would vote their interests, but as Paul Krugman said today, the conservatives want the Bush days back.... However, as Dave Letterman said, "Like the 'Godfather' movies, two were enough....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ron Jeremy
July 24, 2010 3:54 AM in reply to big jonny
"Where is the line between willful ignorance and just being a dumb ass?"
McCain/Palin
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ginny in CO
July 24, 2010 4:07 AM in reply to Ron Jeremy
Ron, I cannot thank you enough for that laugh! A gem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 24, 2010 8:33 AM in reply to Ron Jeremy
I thank you too. That was funny and a nice break from this insanity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VAsouthernliberal
July 24, 2010 9:28 AM in reply to Ron Jeremy
It seems to me that every Republican ia either ignorant or a dumbass!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to VAsouthernliberal
Oh sure! I don't know any Republicans who voted for a Kenyan!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 24, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Ron Jeremy
LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Khaaannn
July 25, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to Ron Jeremy
Excellent.
The truely sad thing is, not ONE of the Reich-Wingers will even get the joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richard L. Adlof
July 26, 2010 10:42 AM in reply to Ron Jeremy
Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
beelzebubba
July 26, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Ron Jeremy
High five!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JBL1955
July 26, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to Ron Jeremy
Now I've got tea all over my monitor. Oh, well. It needed cleaning anyway.
Thank you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to big jonny
Ahhhh, in refusing to look at how many ways that Obama has violated the Constitution. He still, to this day, has not provided his birth certificate. All I've seen is a certification of live birth, which anyone can get with a statement. It contains no footprint, no signature from the doctor, and no signature from his mother with any mention of any hospital.
I can just imagine all the jackass Democrats screaming from the roof of the Capitol if a Republican president had NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Has Obama prosecuted any of the Bush administration for war crimes? Has he done ANYTHING he promised he's do? He's such a buffoon, he's suing Arizona after he failed to do his job.
What's really funny is watching the jack... Oops, in honor of the new party, I'd capitalize the "J" in Jackass Democrats, watching them circle their wagons around the burning Obama as he promotes the need for MORE Tea Party rallies.
He has more Czars than Russia ever had. He put Geithner, the head of the British Federal Reserve in charge of the Treasury. He's full force in Iraq. He's making sure that 90 percent of the world's opium crop is doing well in Afghanistan. He's bombing Pakistan to make sure Iran can't get their pipeline into India so they can sell their natural gas in the way they wish. He's ready to start in Africa because China gets 9 percent of their oil there.
The Republicans need to stop emphasizing his middle name as Hussein. His real middle name is BUSH!
Obama is destroying the Demo, oops, Jackass Democrat Party, and they're helping him. He's executing the same agenda as Bush. Esso, Enco, Exxon, "We changed our name, but we're still the same guys!"
To answer Ian's question, each and every day that Obama and the House leadership allow the Federal Reserve (Rothschild Bank of England) to control our currency, he's pissing all over the Constitution. "Only Congress Shall Coin Money" When I watch Benjamin Bernanke arrogantly refuse to cooperate, I think of cuffing his ass up at the Committee Hearings to let him know that he's going to talk, or he's going to sit in a cell until he does.
The Reason the Tea Party is getting huge is because the Republicans have lost their principles and the Jackass Democrats' masks have fallen.
We haven't had a president since Kennedy. The one we have now is stooge for the Trilateral Commission and a damned big one at that.
The people on this blog need to stop arguing about the surface propaganda, and start looking at how Barry Soetero is part of the same good old boy network as the last 7 presidents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lizskin
July 23, 2010 8:59 PM in reply to Commie Dearest
There really is a purpose to this kind of extreme rhetoric. If you can move the goalposts so far to the right that someone as middle-of-the-road as Obama looks like a radical to the uncritical electorate and the media who feed them, then anyone left of him is essentially disenfranchised.
Progressive ideas like universal health care and climate legislation become dangerously extremist and politically toxic.
Those who control the terms of debate win. It's Rovian, it's real, and it's happening all around us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Lizskin
Yes, control of terms is critical. Sort of like when the socialists keep changing their names from "progressive" to "liberal" and back to "progressive."
"Climate Control" or "Carbon Tax" is a really clever control of terms for all the huge corporate polluters to buy credits from the smaller, cleaner companies, so they can keep crapping all over the environment. It's really ridiculous when you consider that China and India won't be participating and YOU can foot the bill at the consumer. Obama should really "clean up" in the Chicago Carbon Exchange. Now there's a clever term for more extortion from the public!
It's hard to backpedal after the mask falls off!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Equal Opportunity Cynic
July 23, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to Commie Dearest
Without meaning to disrespect the President, I honestly think they'd say the same thing about a cardboard dummy occupying the Oval Office if it came with the party label.
Sometimes I worry that BHO and his political team don't really get this point viscerally. (Other times, I think they get it and just don't think it matters to winning elections.) It doesn't really matter to govern in a bipartisan fashion, because the far right (which is now where the entire GOP lives) will never give you credit. The center doesn't care either; we just want results.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
new10
July 24, 2010 8:29 AM in reply to Commie Dearest
Tancredo's "committed ideologue" description of Obama is what most caught my attention as well. My take on why Tancredo is pushing that so obviously incorrect meme is because ha has no better reason to offer for hating Obama so much. Well, at least, no reason he is willing to utter aloud in public - yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
July 23, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to kash79
I have to add to the comment, after watching the video.
Megan was like a girlfriend saying "NO!" while having sex. That doesn't mean she disagrees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SectarianSofa
July 23, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to kash79
Wow, not comfortable with that analogy.
This looks like a good cop/bad cop routine. Fox wants to present a view that is indefensibly inflammatory and absurd on its face, but with framing this as a two-sided debate, the false drama allows them to remain "responsible and objective." With our bad guy Tancredo, Fox still gets the insanity which drives ratings and anger, while Megyn offers faux shock, and a show of 'reasonableness'. Staged for effect, but both are trying to get the same thing. The audience is being played.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Angry McAngus
July 23, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to SectarianSofa
Aye, you know, "fair and balanced".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 23, 2010 9:32 PM in reply to Angry McAngus
"Fairly unbalanced." There, fixed it for you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maxdemon
July 23, 2010 10:50 PM in reply to Angry McAngus
Once again, Fox so-called News: "We distort, you deride."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 24, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to SectarianSofa
Well said and I agree 100%.
How do progressives and Democrats counter this strategy ?
I feel like the damage is done once their endless parade of false arguments hits the air waves and blogs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Christopher
Aaaahhhhhhhh, NO!
The Jackass Democrats are going down. Sorry!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AK Dude
July 23, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to kash79
Yeah. Not comfortable with that analogy. It's more like the lady on the infomercial saying, "That's ridiculous. How could the Slapchop cut tomatoes so perfectly and only cost $14.99? "
If Fox didn't want to start the discussion, they wouldn't cover it. They're trying to make it a subject of legitimate debate. She provided "balance."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seafarer
July 23, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to kash79
Correct. This is all scripted nonsense in the Fox News story bible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david hilton
July 23, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to Seafarer
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Seafarer
Fox is important spin and propaganda. They can't all be radical leftwing Jackass Democrats. MSNBC sucks. CNN tossed out Lou Dobbs. Now Fox is cleverly trying to fool the people who reject progressive, liberal, socialist, puke.
Everyone on this blog is watching Fox! I never do.
What do you guys do, watch Beck and O'Reilly propaganda to get your talking points?
They never talk about the CFR infiltration of the U.S. But then, neither do the other stations. Ya think it's because they've fooled all the idiots on this site?! All the top Democrats and Republicans and top media personnel are MEMBERS!!!!
Associated Press is owned by Reuters. Reuters is owned by Lord Evelyn de Rothschild of the British Banks. By the way, the Federal Reserve is owned mostly by Rothschild.
Watching the fools on this blog argue is like watching the Simpsons. Wake up!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to Seafarer
Fox is important spin and propaganda. They can't all be radical leftwing Jackass Democrats. MSNBC sucks. CNN tossed out Lou Dobbs. Now Fox is cleverly trying to fool the people who reject progressive, liberal, socialist, puke.
Everyone on this blog is watching Fox! I never do.
What do you guys do, watch Beck and O'Reilly propaganda to get your talking points?
They never talk about the CFR infiltration of the U.S. But then, neither do the other stations. Ya think it's because they've fooled all the idiots on this site?! All the top Democrats and Republicans and top media personnel are MEMBERS!!!!
Associated Press is owned by Reuters. Reuters is owned by Lord Evelyn de Rothschild of the British Banks. By the way, the Federal Reserve is owned mostly by Rothschild.
Watching the fools on this blog argue is like watching the Simpsons. Wake up!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 23, 2010 6:45 PM in reply to kash79
yep
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
July 24, 2010 12:31 AM in reply to kash79
That and trying to reinforce their Fair and Balanced cred by taking down some low hangig wingnut fruit. It's like blowhardbillowlielly has occasionally to dispute with Glennda the Beckerhead just to prove they're not all nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 23, 2010 4:54 PM
Apparently the TImes also ran an op-ed from someone named "Jeffery Kuhner" today alongside Tancredo's, with similar content:
I had not heard of Jeffery Kuhner before but Wikipedia says he is President of “a Washington D.C. think tank devoted to integrating minorities into the conservative movement”.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zuch
July 23, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to mcc
"Affirmative action" for psychotics now?!?!?
Cheers,
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
July 23, 2010 8:19 PM in reply to zuch
No, they're pretty much all psychotic at this point. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to zuch
No. The number of Blacks who see that Obama is towing the line for the western white oligarchy is growing. Obama doesn't give a damn about the Black population. He's worried more about suing Arizona for stopping ILLEGAL ALIENS than he is about generating work for U.S. citizens.
The Blacks, throughout history, have contributed tremendously toward the development of this nation, yet Obama is catering to the wolves of Wall Street.
He's nothing but a big, stupid liar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
July 23, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to mcc
Wow.
Obama -> Bush
Democratic -> Republican
socialist -> fascist
Then the quoted paragraph makes perfect sense!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
July 23, 2010 9:49 PM in reply to mcc
I think that trnslates to "political Hack"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PAvoter
July 23, 2010 4:56 PM
I suspect Fox News' Megyn Kelly may be looking for a job soon. How dare she get off message for Faux News.
Kelly asked, "How is that helpful? How does that raise the level of debate?"
Since when has raising the level of debate been a consideration for Faux News?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 23, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to PAvoter
Fox has an interest in advancing right wing talking points in a persuasive manner. Tancredo is not being persuasive right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
July 23, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to mcc
exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
July 23, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to mcc
Persuasive for whom, though? I bet for the regular FOX audience Tancredo is VERY persuasive already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 23, 2010 5:11 PM in reply to PAvoter
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 23, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to It's Pat
It's awesome that Fox has lowered our standards to the point where "you have to come up with some sort of legal reason before you impeach someone" is considered "being fair".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Commie Dearest
July 23, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to mcc
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 23, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to It's Pat
Having an open slot is probably how she got the job in the first place...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ron Jeremy
July 24, 2010 4:34 AM in reply to It's Pat
I'm sorry, you said something about pretty blondes and short skirts and open slots and I lost the whole thread of this conversation.
I'm going to google pictures of Megyn Kelly and get back to you in a few minutes. Maybe even less than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alaric
July 24, 2010 10:24 AM in reply to Ron Jeremy
Who's up for liberal mysogyny?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Blueline99
July 23, 2010 5:01 PM
It's just a way for Fox to appear to be moderate amidst all the recent criticism...
"You think we're nut bags??? I'll show you a nutbag!!"
Next to the Tea Party crazies, the GOP appears to be pretty rational.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to Blueline99
Ahhhh, the Tea Party is the brainchild of the Libertarians. They're mad at the Republicans for stealing their thunder. The Jackass Democrats totally missed that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to Blueline99
Ahhhh, the Tea Party is the brainchild of the Libertarians. They're mad at the Republicans for stealing their thunder. The Jackass Democrats totally missed that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
July 23, 2010 5:01 PM
This is just Fox neededing to find somebody crazier on the right to go after for going after Obama because of the recent press about Fox being the propaganda channel for the GOP.
So now they can point to this and say "See that can't possibly be true since Megyn Kelly defended him against that nut Tancredo". They're probably building up an attack on MSNBC and will say "They call us propaganda for the GOP, but when has any host on MSNBC other than Scarborough ever defended the Republicans?"
It's all kabuki with Fox. They are a propaganda outfit for the right, and they are trying to cover their tracks after the Sherrod occurrence exposed it too blatantly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 23, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Exactly. Unfortunately, too many in the media have short memories and will be back following Fox like dogs in heat. It's going to be up to us to remember and realize Fox is ALL propoganda, ALL the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
July 23, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to It's Pat
ditto
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
July 23, 2010 9:13 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
You know, I always think that's the only reason Shep Smith is still with FOX. Otherwise it just does not seem explainable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
July 23, 2010 5:30 PM
No, FOX is not trying to seem more fair than usual. They criticized some of Sherrod's other comments in her speech the very next day, after all of the apologies. I can't believe Kelly, of all people, told Tancredo he had no argument. They're up to something. I agree with Kash79. They're going to build up to an "impeach Obama" all the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sickofyoujerks
July 23, 2010 5:52 PM
Someone PLEASE put this draft dodging chickenhawk in a shipping container and leave him there
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texar
July 23, 2010 5:59 PM
Tom Tancredo and Ben Nelson --Separated At Birth?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
July 23, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to Texar
No, still together. Well, that's what I heard!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
myshadow
July 23, 2010 6:21 PM
What tancredo said is right in line with hannity/beck and morris. I think this is some kind of ropeadope.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SoSad69
July 23, 2010 6:34 PM
you know your crazy when you get bitch slapped by someone at faux news. Between her on this and Shepard Smiths actions on the Sharrod story I'm rethinking my idea of faux news. Maybe they're only partially whacko.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Angry McAngus
July 23, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to SoSad69
Now you're falling for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
July 23, 2010 6:35 PM
Obama favors teleprompters over note cards -- impeach him now!
When you get the bozos on FOX PAC scratching their heads, you know you've jumped off the deep end of the paranoia pool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stefsstuff
July 23, 2010 6:57 PM
"...we can muster our defenses much more easily to take care Al Quaeda than we can to take care of the President"? W_T_F?
Why don't you say what you really mean. He has enough nutjob followers that it will only take one to take him literally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
July 23, 2010 7:05 PM
Well, if the Republicans do take over one of the branches, then Obama's next 'first' step is to really begin investigating the torturers and their enablers in the Bush Cheney regime...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
July 23, 2010 7:08 PM
A coworker told me a few days ago that her mother-in-law blames Obama for the weather. Apparently Faux News told her that the White House has a weather machine in the basement and Obama is trying to "kill off all respectable Christian Americans" by making Arkansas really hot this summer.
I have been unable to confirm if Faux News ever claimed such, but A) I haven't tried too hard, B) It's still really funny and C) It gives you an idea of how whack the people who listen to Faux News are. (As if we needed another.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJF
July 23, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to Kuyleh
Apparently he also has a stupid machine in the basement that's making these people really stupid this summer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
July 24, 2010 1:42 AM in reply to TJF
Then I wish he'd turn it to 11 so that these people, like turkeys, would forget to pull their heads up when they're drinking, and drown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
July 23, 2010 7:11 PM
Tancredo is the embodiment of the stereotype of the angry short man. I met him at a presidential debate in NH in 2007, and he was furious at me because he needed directions, and I am 6' tall. He hated being towered over by a woman.
Ever notice how these guys love to bellow "impeachment for his many crimes" but they can't ever come up with a specific impeachworthy offense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
robcat2075
July 23, 2010 7:16 PM
All they gotta do is find five people who say Obama should be impeached and then they can start in with the "Many people say" stuff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DEACON54
July 23, 2010 7:21 PM
Unfortunely I live in Colorado with Mr. Crazy Pants and worked down the street from him when he was with the Independence Institute and I used to book his travel for him. I didn't like him then and what can I say he has not imptoved with age. He somehow thinks that we have an election and then he can tell half the country "Sorry I don't like who was elected, so I want someoneelse in, excet I get to pick". That's what's going on here, repubs are falling apart. So MR.Crazy Pants said if either repub wins the primary they must step down or else he'll run. Yes oh please run. Hickenlooper will be a great gov.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Angry McAngus
July 23, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to DEACON54
The problem with authoritarians is that they believe their own bullshit. Delusions of grandeur prompt Tancredo to portray himself as the only viable authority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Angry McAngus
July 23, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to Angry McAngus
Er, one of the problems, I should say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
July 23, 2010 7:25 PM
That was a fun video. One kook talking to another kook.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Destiny
July 23, 2010 7:28 PM
Fox 'trash can' News. It's always their fault.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Destiny
July 23, 2010 7:30 PM
Fox just want's to keep a low profile for a moment until the Sharrod thing blows over. They'll be back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pseudonymous in nc
July 23, 2010 7:31 PM
Tancredo's just jealous that Steve King has stolen the mantle of "racist middle-aged goblin-faced fuckhead" over the past couple of years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to pseudonymous in nc
Lol. Good one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zuch
July 23, 2010 7:33 PM
Yeah. You got a real job ahead of ya, Tom. Where's Osama?!?!?
Cheers,
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 23, 2010 10:08 PM in reply to zuch
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davemartin7777
July 23, 2010 7:39 PM
Faux is just testing the waters with an impeachment Obama meme.
Like the first poster kash79 said,in about six months impeachment will become daily and natural fodder on Fox.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barrelhse
July 23, 2010 7:56 PM
A fucking clown. Megyn[sic] Kelly neglected to call him a fucking clown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrightLightsBigCity
July 23, 2010 8:02 PM
What a bunch of bull ca-ca from Tancredo
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
July 23, 2010 8:12 PM
Dear FOX: what ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
July 23, 2010 8:16 PM
I'd like to see the House impeach him if the Republicans take over, and then the Senate still under Democratic control completely ignores it. No trial, no mention of it in any way shape or form. The deal is the three branches of government are separate but equal. The House or the Senate could legally ignore the president or the Supreme Court or the other branch, if separate but equal means anything it means that you do not have to do what your equal tells you to. Let the Republicans take it up with the Supremes, and the Senate could ignore them too. But that would require the Democrats to play hardball, something they have not done in a very long time, since LBJ at least.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
July 23, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to Hank
The Senate requires 60 votes before they can not do something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 8:18 PM
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo is absolutely correct about Obama, he is chiseling away at our Republic and Constitution replacing our 'republican form of government' with a socialistic one without going thru the Article V Amendment process and this definitely meets the criteria of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' set forth in our constitution.
Only a seditious progressive zealot our OR attractive blond beauty queen news women could not see the difference.
-Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
I Hate Democracy
Restore the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government
CHEERS...
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
p.s. Due to the volume of lying, emotional and hateful remarks by progressives directed at me, I will no longer reply to any post filled with personal attacks, vulgar language or obscenities.
If you expect a reply from me act nicely!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itheuser
July 23, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You make Alvin Greene look well nuanced.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
July 23, 2010 8:31 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You need to hop in your Delorean and get back to the 50s.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 8:38 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
correction: Only a seditious progressive zealot our OR attractive blond beauty queen news women could not see the difference.
should be: Only a seditious progressive zealot OR an attractive blond beauty queen news women could not see the difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
What part of the Constitution is Obama chiseling away at, in your estimation? Gimme chapter and verse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
I already gave it, if you knew the Constitution you would know!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Actually, no, you didn't. You say he's changing the form of our government without going through the Art. V amendment process. I assume he's doing this by chiseling away at some part of the Constitution other than Art. V. Or, if you mean he's chiseling away at Art. V, you haven't really said anything other than you're unhappy with him! And while I'm sure that's the case, it has nothing to do with damage to the Constitution.
So. Again. What part of the Constitution do you think Obama's chiseling away at?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 8:59 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
No, I did not say, "You say he's changing the form of our government without going through the Art. V amendment process."...your words, not mine.
I said, "he is chiseling away at our Republic and Constitution replacing our 'republican form of government' with a socialistic one without going thru the Article V Amendment process and this definitely meets the criteria of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' set forth in our constitution."
Your ignorance of our 'republican form of government' and where it is located in our Constitution is quite telling...and I'm not going to tell you where it is...find the cause of your own ignorance...then get back to me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
No no, you can't get off that easily. Tell me the portion(s) you think Obama is chiseling away at. Otherwise I shall have to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about. And, since I'm a lawyer, waving vaguely at the Constitution and claiming, in effect, he's chiseling away at the "republican form of government" section ain't gonna fly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
July 24, 2010 1:40 AM in reply to Lynn Dee
On top of that, unless you're working with a definition of "socialist" that makes it equivalent to "totalitarian communist," a country could perfectly well be both republican and socialist.
I wish they'd learn the basic terms.... too stupid, I suppose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 29, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
You mean that he's not letting you get off that easily. Now follow his simple 6th grade instructions and look up the article he mentioned.
GO READ the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AK Dude
July 24, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
That's like saying, "That ice cream truck is violating parking laws because it is selling hamburgers." It's a complete non-sequitor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 8:59 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Halloooo? DugFmJa? Are you there? Are you frantically googling the Constitution to come up with some portion you can claim Obama is "chiseling away at"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
No, I did not say, "You say he's changing the form of our government without going through the Art. V amendment process."...your words, not mine.
I said, "he is chiseling away at our Republic and Constitution replacing our 'republican form of government' with a socialistic one without going thru the Article V Amendment process and this definitely meets the criteria of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' set forth in our constitution."
Your ignorance of our 'republican form of government' and where it is located in our Constitution is quite telling...and I'm not going to tell you where it is...find the cause of your own ignorance...then get back to me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:05 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Posted twice, I see! Okay, me too:
No no, you can't get off that easily. Tell me the portion(s) you think Obama is chiseling away at. Otherwise I shall have to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about. And, since I'm a lawyer, waving vaguely at the Constitution and claiming, in effect, he's chiseling away at the "republican form of government" section ain't gonna fly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
Do you have a brick for a brain?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:10 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You don't know what you're talking about, do you? You're backing away from your claim that Obama's chiseling away at the Constitution. You're a rightwing moron, aren't you? You can't give specifics because you have no idea what specifics might even look like in this case.
What a maroon. A trolling maroon. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:15 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
Look I already explained my position to you, just because you don't understand it does not make me out to be 'backing away' from anything!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You made a claim you can't back up because you have no idea what you're talking about. And your "position" is tapioca.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
July 23, 2010 9:21 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
His position is taken right now. I just walked past that door and it is closed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:24 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
When you can tell me where 'republican form of government' is located in the Constitution, I might carry on with our debate.
So you better hurry up...I'm losing patience with you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You aren't sure if you're losing patience with me? Or do question marks confuse you?
Here's the problem, moron. I can't even tell what you mean by "republic." One suspects you don't really know what the word means and are using it incorrectly. That said, if you're referring to the fact that representatives are elected by the people, that's in Art. I, Sec. 2.
Now. What part of the Constitution is Obama chiseling away at? Because, fer as I know, is not chiseling away at Art. I, Sec. 2.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:39 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
I see your trying to make a effort, so...
Now for all the regulars at TPM, you see why I repeat myself so much, it's because of users like ....Lynn Dee who just don't get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:50 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Oh. My. God. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? This is the Guarantee Clause in Art. IV, and it has nothing to do with the government or the form of government at the national level. It's a guarantee to citizens of states of a republican form of government at the state level -- and nowhere is that form of government defined, although it may be assumed that it guarantees some form of representation.
Where are you getting this crap? Fox News? Or something even further out there?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 10:09 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
Wrong, State government is based on our ART IV Section 4, and our Constitution.
If your logic were sound States could be free to have a monarchy, dictatorship or a true democracy in each individual state, all of which our founders frown upon...you have been indoctrinated by seditious progressives who have lead you astray.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 10:19 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Uh, now that I've pointed out to you that Art. IV, Sec. 4 guarantees a republican form of government at the state level, you've decided to claim you disagree -- and then re-state what I just said? Brilliant.
In any case, I think it's clear to everyone here that you weren't talking about state governments. You were talking about the federal government. So. You wanna revisit your claim about what section or sections establish our federal government?
And don't help him, anyone. No hints!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 10:24 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
I originally never mention State or Federal Government, just 'republican form of government', you keep on twisting around what I say just to be obnoxious and argumentative and try to pawn off progressive conjecture for fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 10:28 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I haven't pawned off anything. I haven't even interpreted anything. I'm just pointing out sections of the Constitution. No conjecture about it.
You, meanwhile, are tap-dancing for your pathetic, trolling life. And I still haven't heard ANYTHING about how Obama is chiseling away at ANY portion of the Constitution, whether it has to with the federal government OR the state governments. You have said exactly JACK SHIT on that subject! And I don't expect that to change anytime soon!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 10:33 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
"You wanna revisit your claim about what section or sections establish our federal government?"
I never made any such claim, you keep making up scenarios in your head that have nothing to do with my original argument. I gave you a chance to be objective, you rolled snake eyes, twice.
So...I'm done with you...
I Hate Democracy
Restore the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government
CHEERS...
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
p.s. Due to the volume of lying, emotional and hateful remarks by progressives directed at me, I will no longer reply to any post filled with personal attacks, vulgar language or obscenities.
If you expect a reply from me act nicely!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 10:44 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Now that's sad. It appears DugFmJa has run off with his tail between his legs. Most unfortunate.
But, on the off chance he's still skulking about somewhere, peeking out from beneath a trash can lid or something, lemme say this:
DugFmJa, you say you never specified whether you were talking about our federal government or any of the state governments, but that really just demonstrates how ill-informed you are. You really need to specify. It makes a huge difference.
In any case, the U.S. Constitution establishes the federal government. It also guarantees, in Art. IV, Sec. 4, a republican form of government for the states. But, it does not establish any of the state governments. That is left for each individual state to define in its own state constitution.
And finally, whatever you were talking about or imagine you were talking about, you never quite got around to identifying how Obama was chiseling away at anything, at any part of our Constitution -- did you? You've been doing nothing but spouting ka-ka and all the while claiming everyone around you was spouting ka-ka. You are, quite simply, A FRAUD.
So, on that note, cheers and good night to you, as well. Nothing personal, you understand. I just play for keeps is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 24, 2010 8:41 AM in reply to Lynn Dee
You must be new to TPM and have never met Dougfrombunghole before. I did enjoy the back and forth however and your knowledge of the constitution is impressive. Most people ignore his rants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to chameleon
"Most people ignore his rants.", true...but so what?
"constitution is impressive.", correct...for a progressive, but that's not saying much considering how many progressives follow the false doctrine of the 'living constitution'.
Lynn Dee is just another progressive living under the influence of progressivism void of any real truth acknowledging abilities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AK Dude
July 24, 2010 2:54 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
I see what you're saying. It took me several read-throughs to get your argument because you don't understand what the words mean. "Republican form of government" means the people vote for representatives who make the laws. It's in opposition to a direct democracy (in which everyone votes on every bill) or, say, a monarchy.
Socialism is a policy choice, not a system of electing people.
That said, Obama is not a socialist. No offense, but I suspect you don't understand what the word "socialism" means, either. They misuse it pretty constantly on tv--the repetition wears away the word meanings. Anyway, good luck, and thanks for reaching out for a discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to AK Dude
'republican form of government', does not just mean 'representative republic' when referring to our system of government, it also defines our unique form of government based on 'republicanism' not democracy.
Our republican form of government is outlined in our Federal Constitution for States to base their State Constitutions on. The States cannot override what is expressly stated in the Federal Constitution but are free to experiment at the State Level without trampling on our 'republican form of government' which the Constitution outlines, do you understand? This should not be so hard to understand if Americans were not indoctrinated by progressivism, an ideology that wants to undermine our 'republican form of government' and replace it with a socialistic one without going thru the ART V Amendment process by using democracy and not republicanism. Properly going thru the ART V Amendment process would be following 'republicanism'...our Constitution...get it?
As far as of course he is...spinning away his record and his appointments no longer works, the American People have caught on and accepted the fact he is indeed a Socialist...get use to it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 23, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
If you can't muster an argument beyond generic ignoring-the-constitution stuff, you're going to have to explain how that same charge doesn't apply to Bush.
Actually...y'know what? Screw Bush, that charge could apply to every single president the U.S. has ever had in some respect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
What's a 'Bush'?
We don't need no stinking 'Bush', get over 'Bush' and get on with your bushless lives...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 23, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You nod off between sentences there, dude?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:13 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Yes...talking about 'Bush' bores me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 23, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Heh, I walked into that one...
But seriously, how does what you accuse #44 of doing -- ignoring the Constitution -- not indict 43, 42, 41, 40, etc...?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:20 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
'ignoring the constitution' is not the same thing as replacing our 'republican form of government' with a socialistic one without going thru the ART V Amendment process, do you understand the differences?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:23 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Why don't you explain it? This oughta be good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
You have homework to do, you better 'Get R Done'!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Lemme move this down here. Up the odds of you actually reading it:
Here's the problem, moron. I can't even tell what you mean by "republic." One suspects you don't really know what the word means and are using it incorrectly. That said, if you're referring to the fact that representatives are elected by the people, that's in Art. I, Sec. 2.
Now. What part of the Constitution is Obama chiseling away at? Because, fer as I know, he is not chiseling away at Art. I, Sec. 2.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 23, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
I don't think he knows, which is why he's avoiding your question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 11:58 PM in reply to It's Pat
Already answered the question, get in the ballgame and sit on the bench...but don't referee!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 24, 2010 5:09 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
I will respond as I choose here, it's called FREEDOM.
But if I were ref'ing, things aren't looking too good for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to It's Pat
"But if I were ref'ing, things aren't looking too good for you", yes I'm sure you are a model of objectivity and bipartisanship....NOT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 24, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Nope. But FCL and Lynne really had you dodging.
Nice try though(hope that's "bipartisan" enough for you).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
July 24, 2010 12:34 AM in reply to Lynn Dee
And he definitely doesn't knows what 'socialist' means. Tinfoil hat types have been proudly misusing that term for years. Kind of like pronouncing 'nucular.'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 2:07 AM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Obama Socialist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
July 25, 2010 1:36 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Thanks for proving my point. Your link is (yet another) non-sequitor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 25, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Factual data is not 'non secular', you are under the influence of progressivism and objectivity escapes you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
July 29, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Dude, 'non sequitor' is not the same as 'non secular.' Please please buy a dictionary and use it. You'll make a lot more sense, trust me, even if I still disagree with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 23, 2010 9:31 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
That depends on your definition of "republican form of government". Way I understand it, it doesn't mean much beyond not being a monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, or direct democracy.
A republican government can actually be openly socialist, long as it maintains a measure of representation falling short of direct democracy -- which, by the nature of the State, ALL governments fall short of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:34 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Where talking about our unique 'republican form of government' as outlined by our Constitution, so let's not be obtuse because I had enough of Lynn Dee.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 23, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
How is socialism incompatible with it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:41 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Good question...finally a honest question, so you desire a honest answer...stand by...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yes, stand by, sports fans. DugFmJa's got some serious googlin' to do!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 9:57 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Socialism and our American brand of republicanism are completely incompatible with socialism and here are some reasons why:
1. The Federal Government can only establish the post office and roads; the States were free to engage in free enterprise and commerce between themselves. Private property rights were honored and respected.
2. Socialism as an economic system must first establish socialistic principles thru a powerful central government, this goes against the Founders intent of a limited federal government with enumerated powers and private property rights. Socialism creates a powerful national government that infringes on individual liberty and rights from our Creator, this goes against the original intent of our Constitution.
3. Republicanism safeguards our rights given to us by our Creator where Socialism creates artificial rights which the government can take away!
We are a constitutional republic by the authority of our constitution and not a representative democracy. Here are some more facts that support our republican form of government being a constitutional republic and not a democracy:
1. The words representative democracy are not found together in Federalist Paper #10 but only arguments by Madison in support of a republic over a democracy as our form of government,
But you can find the words representative republic together in Federalist #48,
2. There are 85 Federalist Papers, 18 of which mention our republic or republican form of government. Only 3 of the 85 mention democracy but only in a negative light to promote the republican form over the democratic form of government.
3. Federalist Paper #85 Conclusion by Alexander Hamilton does not mention democracy or democracies even once but mentions the word republican four times.
4. The Constitution of the United States of America does not contain the word democracy or forms of the word.
The Founders that ratified our Constitution knew full well about the ills of democracy and that is why they gave us a Constitutional Republic instead.
Since socialism as an economic system must first have socialistic government principles in place to implement socialism as an economic system, so not only is there a philosophically friction but there is sedition as well.
Doe that answer your question?
p.s. Yes, I have answer that question before, old news to me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 23, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Then whoever first established a standing peacetime army under federal control usurped the Constitution a long time ago. Go on...
Except for blacks. And women. Oh yeah, and the natives.
Ever heard of anarcho-socialism?
The establishment of the U.S. Constitution was actually a centralizing of government, overriding the Articles of Confederation.
As for the "republic, not democracy" bit, that goes right back to what I originally pointed out, that a republic has a measure of representation but not as much as with direct democracy.
Another question: since the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted by an arm of the government, what real protection does it offer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 23, 2010 10:33 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
O.K. I am fried, and I love you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 10:58 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
my reply is at the bottom...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
July 24, 2010 1:05 AM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
One wonders how the duq deals with all the happily functioning socialist democracies in western Europe especially Scandinavia.I've heard of anarcho-socialism, and I've heard of anarcho-capitalism, and I've even heard of anarcho-syndicalism.Anarcho-capitalism seems to be much closer to what the baggers, other wingnuts and the Chamber of Commerce desire than the sort of representative republic the founders envisioned.
That said Tommy(tan lines) Tancredo is a five-star brass-plated attention whore who can't get used to being out of the spotlight and hasn't had a good or original idea maybe in his entire life. Fux noise has to put a damper on the crazy once in a while because the law of diminishing returns says even their brain dead audience has a saturation point
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Your grip on the English language seems to be slipping. Are you under stress?
:D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
July 23, 2010 9:59 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
If this is meant as sarcasm, then it's really good sarcasm!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
new10
July 24, 2010 8:45 AM in reply to brianm0122
It's not sarcasm. This person is a serious right-wing troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
July 23, 2010 11:20 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Name one such crime. With proof. Please. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
new10
July 24, 2010 8:43 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Sounds like you went to Glenn Beck University. You would be better informed by taking accredited economics and political science courses. Then, maybe, you will learn the difference between an economic system and an political system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Angry McAngus
July 24, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
No need to reply, just blow it out your shorts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Never threaten the socialists with facts! They're like juvenile delinquents. They hurl insults. I'm sure you could tolerate that, if they were correct. The problem is that they're victims of 50 years of socialist, progressive professors.
The neat thing about being an ideologically deranged socialist, is that they can be wrong, one hundred percent of the time, yet still "rationalize" their philosophy as the "way it should be."
No where on Earth, at any time, has socialism ever worked or even existed. There is only the philosophy, or a dictatorship, that calls themselves socialists.
Obama, in my opinion, is somewhere between an elitist capitalist, which is capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor, and a socialist dictator, which is more of a fascist state with socialism for the poor. Neither of which allows for an upper middle-class.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Never threaten the socialists with facts! They're like juvenile delinquents. They hurl insults. I'm sure you could tolerate that, if they were correct. The problem is that they're victims of 50 years of socialist, progressive professors.
The neat thing about being an ideologically deranged socialist, is that they can be wrong, one hundred percent of the time, yet still "rationalize" their philosophy as the "way it should be."
No where on Earth, at any time, has socialism ever worked or even existed. There is only the philosophy, or a dictatorship, that calls themselves socialists.
Obama, in my opinion, is somewhere between an elitist capitalist, which is capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor, and a socialist dictator, which is more of a fascist state with socialism for the poor. Neither of which allows for an upper middle-class.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 26, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to dwjoae
Great post,
I agree with almost everything you said, expect Obama is more of Stealth Globalist with prominent Socialist tendencies with seditious designs on America than some bastardized version of a capitalist.
Make no mistake Obama really believes in Marxism and Uncle Karl was an advocate of 'Free Trade' to help bring about socialism to capitalist economies and nations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 29, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Then we do agree on all points. My humble apologies for neglecting to include that. I THOUGHT I was indicating the "stealth globalist" facet of his politics when I mentioned he is a stooge for the Trilateral Commission.
He's stealthy to those who don't study and love the Constitution. Anyone who holds that document as sacred has no love for Obama.
Keep up the good work!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 8:37 PM
What the heck is going on with Tancredo? Looney as ever, yes, but he has a whole new affect. Who's he channeling? He sounds like he thinks he's in an ascot and smoking jacket and holding a brandy snifter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 23, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
Him and Zell share the same bad dope, I'm guessing. (Or maybe they ARE the same dope??)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
July 23, 2010 9:39 PM
Ok, so what is the readership of the paper formerly known as the Washington Times? Maybe if we ignore them, they will just go away. If I hadn't read this, I wouldn't even know that Tancredo had emerged from the anal porn shop he has been hiding in these past 18 months. I DON'T WANT To KNOW WHAT TOM TANCREDO IS SAYING OR DOING!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 9:40 PM
Oh you're right! Of course, Zell seems to fancy himself a gentleman of the Confederacy, while Tancredo? I don't know. A gentleman of the chicken ranch, perhaps?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
July 23, 2010 9:49 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
Tancredo is certainly a gentleman of the chickenhawk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 10:00 PM
Okay, goofball. Now you've identified Art. IV, Sec. 4 as what you (mistakenly) imagine to be the section of the Constitution that establishes our republican form of government, how is Obama chiseling away at it?
Also, now that I've advised you that this is actually the section that guarantees a republican form of government in each of the STATES, feel free to come up with some other section that you think Obama's chiseling away at.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 23, 2010 10:36 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
It's a circle jerk.
Even when presented with facts, Dug will Dig in, unfazed. Kinda fun, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 10:44 PM in reply to Bwakfat
And I love the Obama as a Saint Icon he's got going on. I want a poster of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to Bwakfat
Progressive Conjecture is not facts, here is a fact the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
Lynn Dee was mixing some facts with progressive conjecture to be obnoxious and augmentative, that's all! But at least she was more civil than you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
July 24, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
I drive east-ish in the morning, and in recent weeks have seen sunrise and dawn.
The sun has been rising in the east northeast this past week and the sunrise has been slowly tracking southward since June 20.
All too soon, it will be dark for my entire commute - and at that time, the sun will be rising in the east southeast and even further southward than that.
This word, "fact", I don't think it means what you think it means.
Granted, many people accept as fact that the sun rises in the east, and are wrong on all but a scant handful of days in each year. Context and nuance - these are things that matter a great deal when speaking of facts. Lose sight of them and you don't actually understand what's going on. A stopped clock, while correct occasionally and regularly, is basically useless for telling time. It would be nice if you could free yourself of being that way, when discussing the state of our nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to kenga
Thanks for proving that progressive can't even accept a simple known fact without over analogizing it is beyond the pale, no wonder you people have trouble reading the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
July 26, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
"analogizing"
Is this another word you don't understand?
I didn't analogize your "known fact".
I used empirical observation, repeatable and falsifiable (all science-like) to demonstrate that what you believe is a fact is actually a mistake.
So just so I'm clear - what you call a known fact is wrong.
Which means ... it is not a fact - regardless of what you however many others believe it.
I'm glad I didn't address your "sun sets in the west" assertion, given the difficulty you are having in understanding that the sun does not rise in the east, on almost every day of every year, regardless of one's latitude and longitude at the moments of local sunrise and sunset.
This does explain some of the Tea Party problems with what the Constitution is and does, and is not and does not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 26, 2010 8:24 PM in reply to kenga
What's your opinion on the existence of 'Common Sense'?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Where was she mixing conjecture with facts? Be specific, Dug. I don't appreciate being an excuse you can use to weasel out of an honest query.
Saying you are kind of fun is plenty civil. Tell me what was uncivil about my comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 24, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to Bwakfat
In fact, I'm curious to know where Lynn Dee was using any conjecture at all. I don't believe we ever got close to any sort of discussion!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 26, 2010 10:13 PM in reply to Bwakfat
"It's a circle jerk.", I find civility in that statement. Do you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
July 23, 2010 10:45 PM
Crap! After all that work to post that at the bottom. Okay, I repeat:
Now that's sad. It appears DugFmJa has run off with his tail between his legs. Most unfortunate.
But, on the off chance he's still skulking about somewhere, peeking out from beneath a trash can lid or something, lemme say this:
DugFmJa, you say you never specified whether you were talking about our federal government or any of the state governments, but that really just demonstrates how ill-informed you are. You really need to specify. It makes a huge difference.
In any case, the U.S. Constitution establishes the federal government. It also guarantees, in Art. IV, Sec. 4, a republican form of government for the states. But, it does not establish any of the state governments. That is left for each individual state to define in its own state constitution.
And finally, whatever you were talking about or imagine you were talking about, you never quite got around to identifying how Obama was chiseling away at anything, at any part of our Constitution -- did you? You've been doing nothing but spouting ka-ka and all the while claiming everyone around you was spouting ka-ka. You are, quite simply, A FRAUD.
So, on that note, cheers and good night to you, as well. Nothing personal, you understand. I just play for keeps is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
When I said,
...this does not conflict with your above statement, but when Federal Law has evolved to trump State Law in effect chiseling away at State Rights and the Constitution we have a situation where the Constitution is ignored OR disregarded completely to introduce more socialism into our republican form of government. We have sedition!
Obama is indeed 'chiseling away' by signing H.R. 3590 into law and attacking the AZ Law for SB 1070, and for appointing followers of the ‘living constitution’ to various positions in his administration.
These are just some small examples of Obama’ sedition….Good Night Now!
p.s. The only real FRAUD around here is you my dear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 25, 2010 12:56 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Say that California legalized marijuana. Not just for medicinal purposes, but total legalization, meaning any adult could buy weed openly regardless of their intentions. Say that, in response the Obama administration sent in federal law enforcement in an all-out crackdown. Feds trampling all over a state-level issue. Would that be seditious?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 25, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Yes, of course it would!
It would be a perfect example of the Feds overstepping their Constitutional Authority and disregarding the 9th and 10th Amendments.
I would have used the recent issue concerning the 'California Delta Smelt', Arnold should have defied the Federal Court Order to turn off the water to the central imperial valley and kept the water flowing and told the Feds to pound sand!
I always find it amazing that liberal cities or states can ignore federal law with no repercussions, example "Sanctuary Cities" and conservative Governors and Majors are expected to obey the Federal Law regardless of the constitutionality of the law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 25, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I did a search on that issue, having heard squat about it until now. Interesting about the smelt, but the extensive system of pumps to subsidize living in impractical locations is what's most ridiculous of all to me.
California has huge concentrations of people in places where there's nowhere near enough natural resources to justify it. While I'd fully understand Schwarzenegger taking up your preferred tactic, it sounds like federal intervention is the reason that system exists in the first place. If the examples you gave above aren't authorized, I can't imagine how that passes muster either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 25, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Hey FCL,
Check out the Al Franken Thread and tell me what you think!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 23, 2010 11:04 PM
I would agree but we are discussing Obama’s usurping of the Constitution, not others.
Not relevant to the discussion, sorry nice try!
No, what is it?
Correct, but going from anarchy to central government with limited enumerated powers based on individual liberties and equal justice is what sold the Constitution to the States, not a centralized socialistic government with unlimited powers based on social justice as we have today!
Ok, but I precisely laid out the origins of our constitutional republic with my above post. Did you read it?
Another great question...the real protection of the Constitution is a knowledgeable citizenry that will elect public officials to represent them that would read the Constitution as written and ratified without personal prejudice, someone like me for example would be a great Senator and Champion of the Constitution…
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 24, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
At least you realize that.
You said unambiguously, with no qualifications, that property rights were recognized by the Founders. How are examples that prove otherwise not relevant?
Voluntary organization combined with socialist economic principles, with no central government at all. I'm more of a mutualist than a straightforward anarcho-socialist though: within a non-state structure that recognized the rights of labor, & dis-recognized artifical property claims, I'd back total lasseiz-faire.
...the Articles of Confederation were equivalent to anarchy?
Everyone politically active says that at one point or another.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
July 24, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Obviously not. I'm saying those people had property rights too, which despite the Constitution were not recognized at the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Fair enough, but the Constitution does have an ART V Amendment process that has worked to resolve conflicts in the past and there is no reason to disregard it in the present or the foreseeable future. The Constitution is a legal enduring document created to last thru many generations of Americans, lets not give up on it!
Restore the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
July 23, 2010 11:44 PM
i guess he noticed that the breitbart scum was geting all the attention, so he decided he had to make a statement that was over the top just enough to warrant attention. i can think of quite a few rewason bush should have been impeached. top would be lying to declare was an invading a sovereign nation
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
July 24, 2010 12:45 AM
When the right-wing ever brings out an actual, serious thinker, please someone let me know. Kthxbai
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sangsue
July 24, 2010 12:47 AM
Dug tell me why Obama being what you consider to be seditious is impeachable yet politicians advocating the assisination of Obama is not treasonous.
This is an example of what your warped logic since I don't expect you to get it otherwise.
If a Republican raped the daughter of a Democratic congressman, it's the daughter's fault for daring to say no. Or it's the father's fault because if he's a Democrat, his daughter deserves to be raped.
Can't make it any blunter than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 24, 2010 5:59 AM
Dear Uncle Tom: I realize your greatest fear and fantasy is having a really large non-white penis tearing ur white butt into pieces... after this, u will enjoy my very white penis ripping u into shreds...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jack45
July 24, 2010 6:05 AM
Don't you just love the misspelling "idealogue"?
Kind of makes me wonder if someone is poking fun at Mr. Tancredo in the article. We could think of the misspelled "idealogue" as a combination of idea (meaning having ideas) and logue (from the Greek meaning "words") in order to create a new definition: Man with [good] ideas who knows how to convey them in words!
One dictionary defines ideologue
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Sounds to me like these are some of the characteristics of Mr. Tancredo.
Sorry, Tom, you aren't an idealogue, only an ideologue. Obama has the ideas (not every one good, I sometimes think) that he can articulate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nick
July 24, 2010 6:59 AM
We know Reagan Closed down all the nut houses but it wasn't clear till now that all the patients went to the Repuk party
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shoes4world
July 24, 2010 8:41 AM
When the right-wing ever brings out an actual, serious thinker, please someone let me know. Kthxbai
this website is very good, you can go and see it
http://www.shoes4world.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
July 24, 2010 9:34 AM
Hey douchebag, where were you and your complicit complaining when Bush jr was spewing his goddamned piece of paper crap huh? Where were you when they approached ATT for illicit access to their backbone? Dumbasses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texar
July 24, 2010 10:29 AM
Awwww, now he's gonna get all depressed about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JAB
July 24, 2010 11:21 AM
Would you support the impeachment of President Obama?
http://www.youpolls.com/default.asp
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 24, 2010 11:26 AM
The post on Van Jones defense of Obama made me wonder if those same critics would defend the president if Republicans actually sought to impeach him. I guess this thread gave me my answer. Very few, if any of the usual Obama critics are on this thread calling Tancredo out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Obama might be in favor of impeachment proceedings if it might appease Glen Beck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
July 24, 2010 12:15 PM
what's up with his nose?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 24, 2010 2:36 PM
DugFmJa made a rather long winded (to his argument's discredit) and esoterica point of illustrating how maybe Health Care changes the form of our Republic without going through the necessary . It's had to argue Treason or sedition when the public gave Congress and Obama a clear amandate to enact such laws.
The Constitution is mailable and DugFmJa knows this as well, I've followed "its" comments here on TPM and its not made the same principled stand against the Patriot Act or facets of Homeland security or any other neoconservative Bush era flap.
Much like Glenn Beck and wing nuts DugFmJa is the Republican Lucy dressed in colonial garb with the mini-Constitution in pocket holding the football for our Democratic Charlie Brown ready to kick the game wining point.
Guess what happens every time ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 24, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to Christopher
Sorry I'm really groggy this morning. Corrections :
"..without going through the necessary amendment process."
"It's hard to argue treason or sedition..."
Anyway, not that two wrongs make a right, but DugFmJa has made the same spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors and it only illustrates what happens when you try follow and get down in the muck of its neoconservative screed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 24, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to Christopher
You are gravely mistaken…
…if you think the public can democratically vote away our republican form of government without going thru a Constitutional Convention without a two thirds vote by both Houses of Congress, two thirds of the several States Legislatures and finally ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, what would you be thinking?
I would say you must be thinking like a progressive hell bent for leather on undermining our republican form of government and replacing it with a socialistic one.
The American People gave no such mandate to Congress or Obama to engage in sedition against our Constitution.
Excuse me but I know not what you mean when you state, “The Constitution is mailable”! Please educate me with you keen insights and knowledge.
If you have been following me around TPM then you should know by now that I rarely been asked about the Patriot Act but I’m on record as saying it is constitutional as long as the Patriot Act meets the standards set forth by the Constitution.
The USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 was signed by President George W. Bush and Became Public Law No: 109-178 on 3/9/2006 after all 55 Republicans and 40 out of 44 Democratic Senators voted Yea, including Clinton and Obama.
The Democrat Senators on average voted with President Bush's signed legislation 73% of the time compared to Clinton's 85% and Obama's 80%.
The Republican Senators of 2006 on the average voted with President Bush's legislation 94% of the time compared to John McCain's 90% and Olympia Snowe's 85%.
Does that help you change your position on the Patriot Act?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 25, 2010 12:18 PM
I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT I AGREE WITH YOU AND WHETHER KELLY DOES OR NOT SHOULD NOT STOP YOU FROM SPREADING THE WORD THAT HE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED. I DO THINK THAT GLEN BECK WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH YOU. I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD HAVE BROUGHT UP THE FACTS ABOUT HIM NOT BEING A CITIZEN AND PROBABLY NEVER WENT TO THE COLLEGES THAT HE CLAIMED HE DID. I'VE READ THAT HE HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TRYING TO KEEP THESE THINGS OUT OF THE COURTS. WHEN HE LIES TO THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S.,I THINK, SHOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND HE HAS MANY TIMES.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Khaaannn
July 25, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to Robert
Medication not working today I see?
That would explain both the shouting (capslock) and the stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JBL1955
July 26, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to Khaaannn
It's not Robert's fault. He read this stuff someplace on the internets, and you know how impossible it is to post lies on the tubes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Khaaannn
July 25, 2010 3:17 PM
Ahh, Tom Tancredo.
The Ignorant Redneck's version of Joe McCarthy, without the brains.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcmchugh99
July 26, 2010 11:02 AM
If I were Obama, i really would use the CIA against people like these or their family and friends--just make them have accidents or disappear. If they want war then give it to them.
They always try to impeach every Dem ptresident, too--they will make up a reason in they have to, just like they did with Clinton, so I really think the time has come to start playing a lot rougher with these people, finding ways to really hurt them. We have been much too easy on them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ian
July 26, 2010 11:52 AM
His complaints are so overstated, vague and circular.
"He's destroying the Consitution!"
Really? how?
"Through his radical agenda!"
Which is what?
"To subvert the Constitution and destroy the rule of law!"
Why?
"So nothing will stop his radical agenda!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 26, 2010 8:55 PM
Ahhhh, the Tea Party is the brainchild of the Libertarians. They're mad at the Republicans for stealing their thunder. The Jackass Democrats totally missed that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lunz31
July 27, 2010 11:33 AM
I never watch Fox (okay, I may stop for 10 seconds when I'm channel-surfing), so I don't know this talking head and what she may be doing at Fox to mess things up, but Tancredo is a complete and total idiot. It was clear that was the case last year in the debates and it's even more clear now. The guy is a total loon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
March 29, 2011 8:04 AM
thanks for thsEssay Writing
Coursework Writing
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?