or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Impeach on the Beach
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Impeach on the Beach

post #1 of 124
Thread Starter 
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #2 of 124
I believe you spelled "Beaceh" wrong.
post #3 of 124
Thread Starter 
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #4 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

I believe I mispelled Impeach in the title and I can't fix it

Sebastian

I've fixed that for you.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #5 of 124
Thread Starter 
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #6 of 124
To quote midwinter:

Get a job.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 124
Are you directing that statement towards GW? I certainly hope so.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #8 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Are you directing that statement towards GW? I certainly hope so.

No.....keep guessing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 124
Good to see you in true form again, SDW.

-----

Slewis, got any of the helicopter shots? I want to see the message. I really would like to see an end to the carnage that GWB and his fan club are wreaking upon the planet.

Hope the Dems go back on their promise and try to impeach the jerk before he totally destroys everything.

Hopefully, Slewis, your generation will avoid electing such morons to public office and actually elect a leader who can honestly hold his head high and say that he is in office to serve the people, the nation, and the world with honesty and dignity. Study hard, get into a good university (forget the ones covered with vines, they tend to produce molded figures), get a good job and put your vote to work.

Oh, and while you are in school, watch out for the more out-spoken teachers; they may have agendas other than your future in mind.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #10 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Good to see you in true form again, SDW.

-----

Slewis, got any of the helicopter shots? I want to see the message. I really would like to see an end to the carnage that GWB and his fan club are wreaking upon the planet.

Hope the Dems go back on their promise and try to impeach the jerk before he totally destroys everything.

Hopefully, Slewis, your generation will avoid electing such morons to public office and actually elect a leader who can honestly hold his head high and say that he is in office to serve the people, the nation, and the world with honesty and dignity. Study hard, get into a good university (forget the ones covered with vines, they tend to produce molded figures), get a good job and put your vote to work.

Oh, and while you are in school, watch out for the more out-spoken teachers; they may have agendas other than your future in mind.


This is just the worst kind of hatred bordering on obsession.

Quote:
I really would like to see an end to the carnage that GWB and his fan club are wreaking upon the planet.

It pretty much sums up the irrational hatred of this President and his administration.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/200...6/18344482.php

Basically over a thousand people gathered to make a human impeachment sign on the San Francisco Ocean Beach. I just noticed it on the News during a dull moment, basically someone got the idea to do this when looking at Google Map Images.



Sebastian

EDIT: Impeach* Apparently I can't fix the Title

Wow! Over a THOUSAND!

I think it's positively stupid, no matter what your politics are. There is absolutely nothing to impeach the man for. You don't impeach someone because you disagree with a policies or actions carried out within the powers of his office. You can hate the war. You can hate him. You can even hate everything he does and says. But impeachment? Advocating that in this situation makes one look like a fool.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow! Over a THOUSAND!

I think it's positively stupid, no matter what your politics are. There is absolutely nothing to impeach the man for. You don't impeach someone because you disagree with a policies or actions carried out within the powers of his office. You can hate the war. You can hate him. You can even hate everything he does and says. But impeachment? Advocating that in this situation makes one look like a fool.

Hey in case you haven't noticed a large majority don't like Dubbya and are fed up with the way he's been running things. If you ask me he's lucky he hasn't been impeached by now!
Upholding the constitution my ass! More like trying to change it to his liking.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 124
Bush won't be impeached because it would be politically risky for Democrats. Clinton was at the height of his popularity when he was being impeached by Republicans.

But if a president can't be impeached for illegally eavesdropping on Americans, and torturing and imprisoning US citizens without trial, then a president can't be impeached for anything.
post #14 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

...get a good job and put your vote to work....

Don't vote, it only encourages them. It's like feeding the bears.

On a serious note, I have actually given considerable thought about the "Don't Vote" position that most of the populace of the US holds (intentionally or not). The way I see it, if one chooses to vote, then one has the right to bitch about WHO gets elected (or not). However, they do NOT have the right to bitch that someone WAS elected. If one chooses not to vote, then one has the right to bitch that someone WAS elected, but not to bitch about who it was.

I've heard the line many times, and even uttered it myself, in absolute thoughtlessness, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain!" What a crock of ... brown stuff. That's like saying that because I didn't vote against being eaten by the tribe of canibals who are boiling me alive, I have no right to bitch about it. I certainly don't have a right to bitch about whether I am sauteed or flambeed though.

One of the great tragedies of human existance is that so long as we desire the benefits of technology and of a unified society in general, there must always (as far as we've seen so far anyway) be some form of limitation on the rights and privilages of the members of society. One could wish for an Anarchist state, where there is a minimum of centralization of government, but that has historically led to lots of war n' stuff.

Maybe in the distant future when humans are linked into a giant network through neural implants, and we act a huge hive-mind, we can dispense with the foolishness of leaders.

Then again, the multitude of cells in the body are all guided, controlled, and ruled by one small clump of grey cells.

<shrug>

Anyway, lets all stop being assholes and stabbing at each other every chance we get. It IS actually possible to have an intellectual discussion involving politics and religion. You just have to be willing to not assume that your opinions, based solely off of YOUR experiences, are the absolutely, 100%, undeniabley true and right ways to look at things.

blah.
<dons flame retardant long-johns>
ok, flame away.
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #15 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is just the worst kind of hatred bordering on obsession.



It pretty much sums up the irrational hatred of this President and his administration.

I don't irrationally hate the president and in fact I do think that GWB has been creating global havoc. He single-handedly lost all the world-wide support we had after 9/11 and has made a god-awful mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. His idea of foreign policy is "I'm not talking to you!!! That'll teach ya!!!" Sorry, global carnage is a rather appropriate term.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 124
Thread Starter 
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #17 of 124
Why did they have clothes on??? Disappointed by SF.
post #18 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow! Over a THOUSAND!

I think it's positively stupid, no matter what your politics are. There is absolutely nothing to impeach the man for. ...........

How about lying under oath? That is what got Clinton impeached.

When Bush was inaugurated in January 2005 for his 2nd term, he stated under oath, to "uphold the Constitution of the United States....". At least 6 months before his swearing in, he had approved secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens, in direct contravention of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Slamdunk... how much more obvious can it get?

Impeachment must be on the table. Anything less should be interpreted as 'going soft on crime'.

Is Pelosi a weasel, or a patriot? One easy guess: it begins with W.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #19 of 124




CONFIRMED!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #20 of 124
Let the games begin!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #21 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

...Like Ants or Termites -_-...

Precisely. On the other hand, too much government tends to lead to the same thing. I wonder though whether the merging of individuality into a collective would be good or bad. One writer, Alastair Reynolds, who is also a physicist, describes the Conjoiners, who have done precisely that - they have neural links that allow them to share thought and emotion with the collective whole. In Reynolds books, it is a good thing. Of course, they still had a ruling councel. I wonder how it would be in real life? What are the benefits of separated individuality? What would be the benefits of a fully merged society, where all know the minds of each other? (NOT like 1984, where personality and individuality are surpressed, but rather where they are gladly accepted and absorbed as part of the whole.)

<cough> Groupthink </cough>

hmmmmmmm
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #22 of 124
Back to the topic at hand, if I recall my Govt/econ class correctly, impeachment does not necessarily equal removal from office. It serves only to initiate the review process. More like putting the guy on trial. From that point of view, considering that whenever a serious accusation is made that someone has violated the law a trial generally ensues, as it should, impeachment can be viewed as a very reasonable, and even necessary thing. It would initiate investigation, and judge whether the president has violated the law, especially the constitution, and if so, whether those violations are grounds for removal from office.

From that perspective, viewed according to it's actual function and purpose, I think impeaching Bush would be a pretty good idea.

I suspect that a lot of the malice in these discussions results from polarization over whether or not Bush should be REMOVED. On one hand we have those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that he should be held accountable, and who assume that that means that he should be removed, and on the other hand, those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that there is insufficient grounds for removal.

Impeachment, however, is simple the review process. You stand accused, and we will investigate, and pass judgement. It's that simple.

Historians: Has an impeachment ever resulted in removal from office?

Here's a thought: What if we had manditory impeachment, for every president, every year? It'd be like a year-end review. If he's not doing a good job, OUT WITH EM! (NOOOO, that would screw up the checks and balances!!!!)

Celemourn
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #23 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post

Back to the topic at hand, if I recall my Govt/econ class correctly, impeachment does not necessarily equal removal from office. It serves only to initiate the review process. More like putting the guy on trial. From that point of view, considering that whenever a serious accusation is made that someone has violated the law a trial generally ensues, as it should, impeachment can be viewed as a very reasonable, and even necessary thing. It would initiate investigation, and judge whether the president has violated the law, especially the constitution, and if so, whether those violations are grounds for removal from office.

From that perspective, viewed according to it's actual function and purpose, I think impeaching Bush would be a pretty good idea.

I suspect that a lot of the malice in these discussions results from polarization over whether or not Bush should be REMOVED. On one hand we have those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that he should be held accountable, and who assume that that means that he should be removed, and on the other hand, those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that there is insufficient grounds for removal.

Impeachment, however, is simple the review process. You stand accused, and we will investigate, and pass judgement. It's that simple.

Historians: Has an impeachment ever resulted in removal from office?

Here's a thought: What if we had manditory impeachment, for every president, every year? It'd be like a year-end review. If he's not doing a good job, OUT WITH EM! (NOOOO, that would screw up the checks and balances!!!!)

Celemourn

Ok, what the crap? 6 days and no one replies to this? Was the post that bad, or did I just not make it inflamatory enough? I can fix that, if that's the problem.

"*cough* Ahem! Hear Ye, Hear Ye!! Bush is a Child Mollestor!"

There. Now SOMEONE aught to feel the need to reply to THAT one!

A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #24 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post

Bush is a Child Mollestor!

Dubya plays with himself if front of school children while terrorists attack

CONFIRMED!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #25 of 124
Quote:

That's more like it!
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #26 of 124
If we Impeach Bush then we are stuck with his Dick.............cheney. another tough guy war hero who had what 5 deferrels from Vietnam. Lets face it the U.S. was dragged into this war by a bunch of draft dodgers who never served in any military. Here some Hero's at least in their minds and everyone a draft dodger. All hiding under their desks.
Bush
Cheney
Hastert
Lott
Delay
Libbey
Limbaugh
Rove
Gingrich
Its like a who's who of the republican party that put us into this mess while the democrats were kissing their rear's because they were to scared to say to the administration where is the evidence of WMDs?
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #27 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora View Post

If we Impeach Bush then we are stuck with his Dick.............cheney. another tough guy war hero who had what 5 deferrels from Vietnam. Lets face it the U.S. was dragged into this war by a bunch of draft dodgers who never served in any military. Here some Hero's at leat in their minds and everyone a draft dodger. All hiding under their desks.
Bush
Cheney
Hastert
Lott
Delay
Libbey
Limbaugh
Rove
Gingrich
Its like a who's who of the republican party that put us into this mess while the democrats were kissing their rear's because they were to scared to say to the administration where is the evidence of WMDs?

Good point. I do suspect that there would still be a significant impact from an impeachment, especially if it resulted in removal. Politicians love to find scape-goats, and if Bush were to fall, I think the rest of the crew would take the opportunity to do a little bit of an about face. Or at least a Column Left.
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #28 of 124
Thread Starter 
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #29 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

How about lying under oath? That is what got Clinton impeached.

When Bush was inaugurated in January 2005 for his 2nd term, he stated under oath, to "uphold the Constitution of the United States....". At least 6 months before his swearing in, he had approved secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens, in direct contravention of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Slamdunk... how much more obvious can it get?

Impeachment must be on the table. Anything less should be interpreted as 'going soft on crime'.

Is Pelosi a weasel, or a patriot? One easy guess: it begins with W.


I just realized, you're kinda dumb.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey in case you haven't noticed a large majority don't like Dubbya and are fed up with the way he's been running things. If you ask me he's lucky he hasn't been impeached by now!
Upholding the constitution my ass! More like trying to change it to his liking.

So let's get this straight...he should or could be impeached because "people don't like him and are fed up?" That's not why we impeach a President.

BR:

Quote:
I don't irrationally hate the president and in fact I do think that GWB has been creating global havoc. He single-handedly lost all the world-wide support we had after 9/11 and has made a god-awful mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. His idea of foreign policy is "I'm not talking to you!!! That'll teach ya!!!" Sorry, global carnage is a rather appropriate term.

That's ridiculous. "Global havoc?" He's created global havoc? This kind of thinking just astounds me, because clearly you can't see that the "good will" of the world was nothing but political bullshit to begin with. Our foreign policy shouldn't be based on what makes other nations happy with us. It should be based on our national interests.

Secondly, let's explore the "global havoc" idea. You're telling me Afghanistan wasn't a war you supported? Or, are you taking issue with mistakes made in the process of overthrowing the Taliban? Iraq has not gone well, but that hardly creates global havoc. Iran and NK would still be rogue states without our actions. Russia would still be dealing with Iran, and acting in its interests. We'd still have rampant anti-Americanism in the Arab world. We'd still have a rising Red China and rising oil demand. Bush didn't create any of these problems by invading Iraq and refusing to make another utterly useless "deal" with NK. He didn't put a madman in power in Iran, either.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Bush won't be impeached because it would be politically risky for Democrats. Clinton was at the height of his popularity when he was being impeached by Republicans.

But if a president can't be impeached for illegally eavesdropping on Americans, and torturing and imprisoning US citizens without trial, then a president can't be impeached for anything.

Oh stop. Those are both ongoing legal disputes about the limits of Presidential power as exercised for national security reasons. They aren't grounds for impeachment. The court may put a stop to both (or other) actions, but that doesn't mean Bush committed a crime. Get real.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 124
Bush could and should be impeached. There has been ample discussion of th ereasons elsewhere (with plenty of links for support with very lkittlesupport except name-calling by those supporting King George).

Now with Bush sending more troops (there were mistakes made, dear troops, you paid for them, and now he's asking more of you to pay more for them) combined his incapability/refusal to work with others in government (outside of his small group of cronies) shows even more strongly than ever why action needs to be taken NOW.

I will be labled a Bush Hater by someone on these boards for my comments, but that is the best those who support him can do.

There are sound reasons supporting impeachment proceedings against this jerk (supported elsewhere with plenty of links, unlike those posts in favor of Bush which lack support as if we are supposed to believe it all as the word of Godette) and I pray that the Dems have the courage to go ahead with them.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #33 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

BR:

That's ridiculous. "Global havoc?" He's created global havoc? This kind of thinking just astounds me, because clearly you can't see that the "good will" of the world was nothing but political bullshit to begin with. Our foreign policy shouldn't be based on what makes other nations happy with us. It should be based on our national interests.

Was it really? At what point does political bullshit end and reality begin? Seems to me that the world runs on politics so having political support isn't such a worthless thing like you try to portray it.

Quote:
Secondly, let's explore the "global havoc" idea. You're telling me Afghanistan wasn't a war you supported? Or, are you taking issue with mistakes made in the process of overthrowing the Taliban?

I'm telling you that we need the troops that are currently in Iraq to be in Afghanistan right now. Iraq was dumb from the start. Iraq is what lost us the good will. And then Bush has the fucking gall to ignore EVERYONE and send MORE troops.
Quote:
Iraq has not gone well, but that hardly creates global havoc. Iran and NK would still be rogue states without our actions. Russia would still be dealing with Iran, and acting in its interests. We'd still have rampant anti-Americanism in the Arab world. We'd still have a rising Red China and rising oil demand. Bush didn't create any of these problems by invading Iraq and refusing to make another utterly useless "deal" with NK. He didn't put a madman in power in Iran, either.

His ridiculous foreign policy has taken bad situations and made them worse.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #34 of 124
Thread Starter 
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #35 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I just realized, you're kinda dumb.

If you were capable of contributing to the argument, rather than resorting to middle-school name calling, it would help around here. If you can rebut the statement to which you were obviously referring, then here is the place to do that...... ..... or are you so enamored with this president and his policies that anything directed against him/them is seen as an insult directed against yourself personally?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #36 of 124
The tactic of name calling is used over and over by "Rightys" when they cant point to facts.. We have to remember that some people cant think for themselves and are incapable of change.

Iraq was better off when Saddam was running it then with George and his roundtable of pretend Hero's. Congress should challenge his signing statements and his made up war in Iraq. Iraq never attacked the U.S. so why the hell are we there? George was played by somebody and the American people need to find out who? Corporations? Pentagon? Israel? Or just his Dick........cheney. Someone took this dufus and put into his head this was a solution. We need to find out who? Bush destroyed America's reputation and standing in the world, utterly destroyed it. How the heck to you go from having everyones support to no ones support? Yet our pretend Hero's George & Dick accomplished this.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #37 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh stop. Those are both ongoing legal disputes about the limits of Presidential power as exercised for national security reasons. They aren't grounds for impeachment. The court may put a stop to both (or other) actions, but that doesn't mean Bush committed a crime. Get real.

Whether someone should be convicted for committing a crime is always a legal and factual dispute. The defendant's attorney will make legal arguments and the legal system will decide. It's no different for impeachment.

The real difference is that the kind of "crime" committed is not spelled out for impeachment like it is in state and federal criminal statutes. If what the president did is considered to be beyond the pale, Congress has the power to throw him out. And again, if indefinitely imprisoning and torturing American citizens and eavesdropping on American citizens without warrant isn't beyond the pale constitutionally, you tell me something that is. What about testifying that you didn't have sex when you really did?
post #38 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I just realized, you're kinda dumb.

I just realized (again) that you have and always will be:



But here's a surprise for you. I agree this stunt does nothing for anyone. The only step to take besides writing your representatives and voting is plain old:



"B-b-but the new season of 24?"
post #39 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh stop. Those are both ongoing legal disputes about the limits of Presidential power as exercised for national security reasons. They aren't grounds for impeachment. The court may put a stop to both (or other) actions, but that doesn't mean Bush committed a crime. Get real.

Is there a better reason to impeach? Impeachment does NOT equal removal/conviction. It is the Trial. As I mentioned above, when a person stands accused of crimes, and those accusations are supported by evidence (valid or invalid, damning or innocuous) it is society's duty to try them, regardless of popularity (or lack thereof).

Quote:
Our foreign policy shouldn't be based on what makes other nations happy with us. It should be based on our national interests.

In years and eons past, when nations and tribes were independent and self-sufficient, that would likely be judged by all to be an accurate statement. In this modern world where our economies are so thoroughly interlaced, it's wise to keep the interests of your neighbor in mind. Granted, that ties into our own national interests. And that's the point. The stability of the world as a whole, and the interests of other nations, is becoming increasingly, "Our Business".

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo

If you were capable of contributing to the argument, rather than resorting to middle-school name calling, it would help around here. If you can rebut the statement to which you were obviously referring, then here is the place to do that...... ..... or are you so enamored with this president and his policies that anything directed against him/them is seen as an insult directed against yourself personally?

Quit letting yourself be goaded into perpetuating the name calling and insults, man. You know better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora

The tactic of name calling is used over and over by "Rightys" when they cant point to facts.. We have to remember that some people cant think for themselves and are incapable of change.

See above. Name calling is used by most people, regardless of their political affiliations. In my experience, it occurs most often when the person hears a statement which is very contrary to their understanding of the world. Snap judgement of the statement as being absurd, and they take offense that someone would present such a foolish argument. Frustration with an argument also leads to this, when one side just won't acknowledge the arguments of the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

And again, if indefinitely imprisoning and torturing American citizens and eavesdropping on American citizens without warrant isn't beyond the pale constitutionally, you tell me something that is. What about testifying that you didn't have sex when you really did?

These, in my mind, are serious enough accusations (backed up by tons of media coverage, and my own personal experience when I was in Iraq) to warrant a VERY serious investigation and probable impeachment (again, refer to the above bit about impeachment != conviction).

Impeachment is one of the instruments of our Checks and Balances system thingy. Balance of power is necessary to prevent anyone person, faction, group, or conspiratorial group from seizing power. An unfortunate consequence of the nature of natural leaders, is that they always want to lead.

Ok, nuff for now.

<Dons Flame-Retardant Undies>

Have at it.
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #40 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post


Ok, nuff for now.

<Dons Flame-Retardant Undies>

Have at it.

Bravo, Celemourn. Did you serve in Iraq? My hat's off to you. I have a question. Would be logical/feasible to even start an impeachment process during a time of war?

To me those are the only stumbling blocks, time being a major reason (this is far more reaching than a BJ you know).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Impeach on the Beach