The point gbaji was trying to make was about semantics.
No, the point he was making was apologetic remarks about how it was really all okay to act like that. And then crying about a word that was actually used to martyr his poor little self.
Nope. Ash is right. My point is about semantics. You fell all over yourself about the fact that the word "obstruct" was used, making the GOP "obstructionist". ****, it's in the **** thread title you chose to write.
You can make a valid argument against something without flying off the **** handle with the semantically loaded terminology Joph. Try it once maybe.
You'll notice he never once remarked on the "random impeachment attempts" bit because he was too busy crying about the word "obstruct".
Yes. Which should be your first clue that my point
wasn't about the impeachment statements, but about the semantics of playing on the word "obstruct" to make this not just about one guy responding to some random question from a crowd of people, but some kind of indictment of the entire GOP and their actions/agenda as a whole.
Tell you what? When someone in the GOP actually puts down legislation proposing impeachment of the president *then* we can discuss the purpose, reason, and possible ulterior motives. I'm far far more concerned with actual political actions, actual legislation being passed, and actual executive decisions being made than one representatives response to one person at one town hall meeting (or whatever it was). And no amount of you playing word games makes me put any more weight on this than that (ie: close to zero). Edited, Aug 10th 2011 3:53pm by gbaji