This is topic Lark - Bush: 1 - 0 in forum Karp Park at The Azure Heights Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.math.miami.edu/~jam/azure/forum/buzz/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008468

Posted by Lark84 (Member # 1186) on 01-13-2005, 03:43 AM:
 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

I always said there weren't any WMD's stockpiled in Iraq.

Feel free to post your own "me - Bush" scores in this thread, but if you count other things besides Iraqi WMD's, please include links or other proof.
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 01-13-2005, 02:30 PM:
 
It's like winning an argument with that dumbass who we used to argue with all the time here. What was his name...The Great Dreamer?

So, anyway, the argument has been won, but no one (including Bush) notices or cares.

The Democrats are the pussiest pussies to ever puss a puss.

The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a BJ, and the Democrats are too busy leafing thru their Bibles to figure out how to get more holy, when they should be impeaching Bush for lies that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries, a further erosion of America's world standing, an incredible increase in the debt, etc., etc.

And the Democrats are still pissing themselves wondering why people won't vote for them.

I should go to Congress and do my secret kung fu on all of them and take over.

[ 01-13-2005, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 
Posted by Rudoku (Member # 3451) on 01-13-2005, 02:33 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a BJ,

No they didn't. They were:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
still pissing themselves wondering why people won't vote for them.



[ 01-13-2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Rudoku ]
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 01-13-2005, 02:37 PM:
 
Rudoku: No they didn't.

also what
 
Posted by JohtoMaster (Member # 1023) on 01-13-2005, 03:06 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a BJ under oath in a federal court in front of a federal grand jury.

Fixed. [PBJ Time!]
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 01-13-2005, 03:50 PM:
 
So it's better to lie to all Americans during the State of the Union Address?

Also wtf is wrong with a country if someone can be brought up before a federal grand jury about getting a BJ in the first place?

[ 01-13-2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 
Posted by Apophis (Member # 487) on 01-14-2005, 12:18 AM:
 
not to mention the fact that bush has created unprecedented change to american law.

he is the first president to exercise the 25th amendment..transfer of power to the vice president....DURING A COLONOSCOPY. that is where a doctor sticks a camera up your ass to see if your junk is broken or not. he seriously did this.

oh yeah...and all that war stuff. booooo war is bad.

*drinks a soda*
soda is good.
 
Posted by White Cat (Member # 42) on 01-14-2005, 05:31 AM:
 
K: So it's better to lie to all Americans during the State of the Union Address?

If "better" means "not illegal", then yes.

Apropos: not to mention the fact that bush has created unprecedented change to american law.

he is the first president to exercise the 25th amendment..transfer of power to the vice president....DURING A COLONOSCOPY. that is where a doctor sticks a camera up your ass to see if your junk is broken or not. he seriously did this.


Interesting, I hadn't heard that before. Although, according to this link, it was actually the second time.

I'm not sure what the problem is, though. It seems like a reasonable precaution, and it can't really be called "unprecedented" when the 25th Amendment specifically allows for it.
 
Posted by Apophis (Member # 487) on 01-14-2005, 10:35 AM:
 
i dont like the man. this is why:
the next time you see him speak, pay attention to his facial gestures. he ALWAYS looks like....
1. he just pooped his pants.
2. he is in the process of pooping his pants.
3. he is thinking about how cool it would be to poop his pants.

he is fucked up. not right in the head.
 
Posted by Dweedle (Member # 1209) on 01-14-2005, 11:11 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by White Cat:
K: So it's better to lie to all Americans during the State of the Union Address?

If "better" means "not illegal", then yes.

just because something is not illegal doesn't make it right
 
Posted by Lark84 (Member # 1186) on 01-14-2005, 03:30 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
So, anyway, the argument has been won, but no one (including Bush) notices or cares.

You mean this isn't pushed in the US?

I guess it is to be expected, but I would have thought it would be at least some kind of questioning of the president, or demands of questioning him, from his political opponents, or the UN, or something...

Actually, I thought it would have been huge.

Your president sent your sons and daughters to be killed while defending a freedom which never was threatened.

It wasn't a big news item over here, but the tsunami killed many Swedes on vacation, which gave it almost exclusive media coverage for about a week. I'd expected it to be bigger in the US, though...

BTW, how's it going with bin Laden? You've got him cornered in those caves, right? </irony>

[edit: strange language]

[ 01-14-2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Lark84 ]
 
Posted by Random Loser (Member # 1538) on 01-14-2005, 03:43 PM:
 
Yeah like we were all like questioning him and shit but then we had like these vote thingies and like he fucking won again despite being a fucktard and all the questionings and so everyone realized that like no one gave a fuck and stopped like questioning since it's all about ratings and like we obviously like the guy since we like voted him in again.
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 01-14-2005, 04:05 PM:
 
Lark84: You mean this isn't pushed in the US?

Nope, no one cares. You'd think the "liberal media" would be all over this, but they're just sort of reporting that the WMD search is over. They asked the White House if maybe it was kinda bad that they lied, but the Press Secretary said he didn't think so, and that seemed to satisfy them.

Your president sent your sons and daughters to be killed while defending a freedom which never was threatened.

True, but remember Americans can't tell the difference between Osama and Saddam or any brown people, reallly, so they haven't really noticed.

BTW, how's it going with bin Laden?

We're gittin' him dead or alive. Mostly alive.

Also abuse of power is grounds for impeachment, so even if it's technically legal to lie to your people so you can blow up some others (which I don't believe it is anyway), the Dems should still be gettin' some wet hot impeachment action goin' on here.

Maybe they're waiting to choose their moment, like when there's only one Democrat left in Congress or something...
 
Posted by Bugcatcher Ed (Member # 3289) on 01-14-2005, 08:44 PM:
 
The only grounds for impeachment are:

Bribery
Treason
High crimes and misdemeanors

Since simply being owned outright by industry and the extremely wealthy is not bribery per se, we can kiss that goodbye.

Treason involves betraying our country to an enemy. With the possible exceptions of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Bush won't even give the time of day to our closest allies, much less our enemies.

That leaves high crimes and misdemeanors. This was intended to be any crimes against the government or political system itself that are equivalent to the first two. For example, blowing up Congress. Or using government resources to spy on political enemies. Note that merely spying on your political enemies wouldn't be good enough, IMHO, it's the use of government resources that makes it possibly a high crime. Mere perjory, as when Nixon signed a false income tax document, is insufficient. Or at least it was intended to be, and was, until the House impeached Clinton for it. Now, the bar is so low that jay-walking would probably qualify. Bearing in mind some of the liberties the Bush administration has taken with the constitution, law, and treatie, he could certainly be impeached even by the old standard. Whether or not he could be convicted is a seperate issue I don't know enough to speculate on. So, all the Democrats have to do is get the House of Representatives to impeach him. This requires:

1) Someone in the House move that he be impeached.
2) The House Judiciary committee then has to decide to initiate an impeachment inquiry. Since the House Judiciary committee, like the other committees, is controlled by the majority party, there is no chance of this happening to Bush, unless he starts shooting Republican congressmen, becomes a liberal, etc.
3) Assuming it somehow happened anyway, the majority of the House would have to approve the resolution to start an inquiry. This is even less likely. Maybe if Bush started sending extremely conservative Republican congressman to the fronlines in Iraq, or to Guantanamo Bay.
4) The Judiciary committee must prepare articles of impeachment, which must be approved by the majority of the committee. Oops, there's that "the Republicans have to want it" thing again.
5) Then the majority of the (heavily Republican dominated) House of Representatives has to approve the articles of impeachment. Then he's impeached, and can actually be tried in the Senate, where even the Democrats would (and should) insist on ironclad proof that he committed the offenses in the articles of impeachment.

In other words, if a party has sufficiently strong control of Congress and sufficiently low ethics, they can impeach the President for any trivial offense (as they did with Clinton) and convict him (fortunately, a reasonable number of Republican senators had ethics), and throw him out of office.

However, without some kind of leverage, the minority party (Democrats) can only make themselves look like idiots no matter how reprehensible the believe the President's behavior is.

Short version: It ain't gonna happen without a big Democratic majority, which isn't looking all that likely.
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 01-14-2005, 09:48 PM:
 
Bugcatcher Ed: That leaves high crimes and misdemeanors.

That would be the one.

However, without some kind of leverage, the minority party (Democrats) can only make themselves look like idiots no matter how reprehensible the believe the President's behavior is.

Some say "idiots" others say "honorable".

They should be kicking up a fuss like anyone with any balls would do. Obviously, they wouldn't be able to throw Bush out of office, but I'll bet they could make some alliances and make a little progress.

The point would be to get stupid people to realize that Bush did something wrong, which right now they don't get.

Once people on the shiny box in the middle of the family room are talking about impeaching the President, stupid people will think it's OK to talk about it too.

Remember that the Republicans managed to brainwash stupid people into thinking impeaching Clinton was a great idea (witness some of the people in here). Getting a message out is important, particularly if your candidate just got trounced because he didn't stand for anything.

[ 01-14-2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 
Posted by White Cat (Member # 42) on 01-15-2005, 01:53 AM:
 
Ed, how far along the five-step process did the Clinton impeachment go? What about Nixon?
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 01-15-2005, 03:27 AM:
 
the main thing to remember is than Clinton WAS impeached. Being "impeached" means there was just an accusation against you.

After being impeached, you then may or may not be found innocent/guilty and/or kicked out of office...

Just to clean up this common misconception...

Impeachment != Being kicked out of office.
 
Posted by Lark84 (Member # 1186) on 01-15-2005, 09:18 AM:
 
I was gonna write something, but I don't know what. It's not like whining at a Pokémon forum will change the world for the better, so I won't.

But you know what I'm thinking.
 
Posted by Turbo X (Member # 1808) on 01-15-2005, 04:37 PM:
 
Remember kiddies, waaaaay back they also tried to impeach Andrew Johnson, for what reason I'm unsure of right now. However he survived by one single vote. So this concept of impeachment isn't new among American presidents.

[EDIT] Me - 1, You - 0... Wilt Chamberlain - countless

[ 01-15-2005, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Turbo X ]
 
Posted by DoomMullet (Member # 3363) on 01-17-2005, 01:58 AM:
 
Andrew Johnson was a fucking loony.
 


Karpe Diem