Emmett Rensin - essayist, playwright, columnist, author, and editor based in Chicago, IL.
aka Member of Children of the Corn
Sounds like the loons over at the saloon are starting to worry about their boy.
Impeach hell, pep walk his ass out the front door of the WH. He works for us and is not above the law.
I think I speak for all sane men and women when I say Odungo and the Moochie wonder are deserving of a FAR WORSE fate than impeachment.
Dana Milbank at the Compost says we have embraced martyrdom
probably the only way that the lefty propaganda trash from “salon” gets any attention at all is when it gets posted here on FR.
what a treat.
There was none of this high-minded concern for the dignities of office when Bush was President - the author grudgingly admits as much. When, if ever, the author defends a Republican President in the same terms, we can talk. This piece is not, as it pretends to be, an objective consideration of the merits of impeachment, it is only another tiresome tribal drum song.
Salon fags! Next The Nation’s Latrina Van den Hooters will tell us John McCain thinks removing, or even impeaching the Lizard King is a bad idea.
When the left and establishment repubs are warning of the impending dangers of impeachment, then you can be sure that it’s time to impeach.
There is strong evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors-perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, failure to uphold US laws, misappropriation of tax payer dollars, utter disregard for the constitution, inciting lawlessness, etc. This is not about politics or delegitimizing the presidency, Obama has already done that to himself. This is about delegitimizing the rule of law and, thus, the constitution of the US and the republic itself. If allowed to persist, it sets a precedent for future Presidents.
Emmett Rensin - essayist, playwright, columnist, author, and editor based in Chicago, IL.
aka Member of Children of the Corn
The trick will be to impeach Obama while appearing not to do so.
The crony establishment Senate is petrified they’d have to vote on an impeachment against a political mob boss charged with crimes much, MUCH worse than a cigar and a blowjob, let alone stealing 20 minutes of audio.
Not impeaching over the IRS fiasco alone would hang a string of garlic over the Senate’s “Tweed Ring” vampire neck for at least the next 30 years. This would upset the corrupt “apple cart” of the beltway syndicate for a long, LONG time.
Personally I do not think that the time the House and the Senate spent on Impeaching and Trying Bill Clinton were wasted.
To me when they were occupied with Clinton they were not doing the more destructive things they usually do.
And there was the added benefit that quite a number of citizens got a lesson in how the government is supposed to work rather than how it has come to dysfunction.
N u t. c a s e ...
The first thing we should note about Rensin’s narrative of his long-term tumultuous relationship with his polyamorous girlfriend Lou is how un-polyamorous the whole relationship appears. There is little to the actual relationship that would seem to be meaningfully impacted by the very definitions of polyamory Rensin gives, of being able to pursue relationships with multiple people at the same time. Sure he mentions the time he and Lou go out with other people, sleep with others, and engage in non-monogamous activities that Rensin thinks defines polyamory. However, his narrative of his relationship with Lou is characterized more by their uneasy reliance and, as Rensin dubs it, co-dependency on each other. Fragile egos lead to fights, fights lead to break ups that don’t last, cohabitation continues more out of habit than desire, miscommunications occur on both sides. On the one hand these details support Rensin’s conclusion that there is nothing abnormal about being polyamorous; polyamory is not an ideal condition that will save you from making terrible choices in your choice of partners or relationships in other words.
How should we square Rensin’s personal narrative then with his emphasis that polyamory, in the long term, is better than monogamy? Rensin’s beef with monogamy is that it is often unrealistic and provides fantastical narratives for people that they cannot possibly live up to. Rensin even sometimes seems to believe that his relationship’s failure stems from not letting go of monogamous ideals enough, of still viewing fighting and riled emotions as signs of care for another person. Perhaps this is true of Rensin’s relationship – though it is difficult to fully judge because we only have Rensin’s words to take on this and the other important player, Lou, shifts from being a real, independent person to another character in his story. By the end of this personal narrative Rensin is indeed single but still polyamorous and so with each new relationship has to negotiate the waters of “coming out” as polyamorous to all the monogamous others that, for Rensin, dominate the world. The ending is hardly satisfactory, and for all his apparent disclosures there is still an element of smugness to Rensin’s account, that he has figured something out that the rest of us mortals are ignorant of, even though he claims to have already overcome such zero-sum thinking.
http://theoreticalliving.tumblr.com/post/76731426220/polyamory-in-theory
Ain't he cool (feet on the table)
Putting aside the Constitution dismissing savagery of this president, del-igitimization is TACTIC ONE in the Lefts playbook. They don't argue the merits of anything EVER;