taks

in your fantasy world, yes. in the real world, when we sit around and wait we end up with boznia, cambodia, etc... it's nice to paint the world in such broad, rose colored brush strokes, but it isn't always that simple. had we not invaded iraq, saddam would still be killing his own people, the corruption in the oil for food program would still be going on, and eventually, one of the most despotic tyrants of the 20th century would have gotten ahold of nuclear weapons. taks

fortunate for you, eh? taks PS: ba dum bump!

no, that's not true. it is still bifurcation. you've arbitrarily assigned only two possible outcomes when there is ample evidence to the contrary. the statement "he foolishly believed his Intelligence staff..." is an absolute joke. exactly what is their purpose then? you've devolved into rambling incoherently, for sure. btw, "his Intelligence staff" was appointed, in part, by mr. clinton. the more likely situation is that the evidence was flawed, and he, just like everyone else, took it at face value. besides, the whole WMD thing is way overblown. that was only one of a dozen or so reasons we went to war... also, there's more and more evidence showing up that there really were WMDs, but he moved them out by the time we invaded. taks

i wasn't specifically referring to your statements when i quoted mothman. that's why i did not include your original post. the ad-homs regarding christian conservatives themselves, bush in particular, are flying in here. for the record, your original post was not that clear, either. and, as mothman noted, the term "christian conservative" is more often than not used as a derogatory statement. the term "communist" however, is not. taks

this is what is known as rational thought. keep this in mind, hades, in future discussions. good job commissar (hey, i had no problem with the rest of what you said in this post, btw, just didn't include it all...) really, you're kinda growing on me. taks

bifurcation. a logical fallacy. coming from you, i'm not surprised. there are certainly more than two options here. taks

apparently liberal bigotry is OK, but not the other way around. as i've said before, i love double standards. they're easy to spot because there are two of them. taks PS: FWIW i'm an atheist and i'll defend your position till the day i die.

yeah, kinda....same thing with Arnold the Governator....if he were Speaker of the House and both the President and VP died at the same time, we would have a scenario that the Constitution does not normally allow.....a foreign-born President. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the top scenario is not a loophole, as the term limit strictly applies to being elected president. the bottom scenario, with the governator, cannot happen. he would be skipped over to the next in line as it is a constitutional requirement that the president be born in the USA (natural born citizen, which applies to territories). taks

the latest scoop, however, is that he really didn't out plame, wilson did it himself. i'm waiting to see. however, i don't consider the prosecution a partisan issue at all, at least not with fitzgerald. he issued a subpoena to libby, and libby lied. he should be prosecuted. i said the same thing about clinton. taks

gotta remember that this would be three years from now. even the republicans don't care about sandy berger anymore... of course, poor ole sandy just can't stay out of trouble. taks

He didn't need to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yeah, he was only impeached, not convicted. the senate chose not to move forward with the "trial." i am curious if he could still be indicted or not. either way, bush would've pardoned him. presidents are like that, regardless of affiliation. it is one of the most exclusive fraternities in the world and all... taks

yes, i believe it was called odyssey. rather heavily modified, IIRC. so does the witcher, but heavily modified again (graphics look a bit better, IMO). for the record, ramza, seek professional help. and i don't mean a professional plumber. taks

no worse than clinton pardoning marc rich. oh well. like i said, he'd do it during an 11th hour executive decision rush after the election was over. by law, he doesn't even have to announce his decisions. they would be drowned out by all the inauguration hoopla. btw, i think it is a good idea for the president to be able to grant pardons. this is actually a check for unfair laws. it also helps protect politically motivated indictments and other legislative shenannigans. now, however, if it can be proved that money (or gifts) traded hands in exchange for a pardon, that is bribery, a felony, and any president could conceivably be convicted. of course, his successor would likely pardon him as well, regardless of political affiliation. taks

it wouldn't be me unless i pointed out that nearly every political leader says utterly ridiculous things, on a more or less regular basis. liberals just seem to think these things are what make most conservatives intellectually lacking. "they're all so dumb, why do they keep getting elected?" laments the far left. rather funny to actually turn the tables and note the top 20% wage earners in the country are conservative, and not coincidentally also the most educated (barring the top 1% uber rich that are liberal). it is funny to confuse the intellectually gifted left with the facts, i must admit. taks

that was will ferrell, saturday night live. nice try though. taks

yes, it is allowed, unless he managed to get himself impeached and convicted as well. yes, i think he would pardon libby, but not till after the next election. taks

not so wide as to make any sort of real political impact... taks

that's kind of my point. well, a two-parter: a) democratic president can't spend as much as bush because of republican congress and b) republican congress can't get anything passed because of democratic president. bush is allowed to spend like mad because of a republican congress. given that two years of investigating resulted in nothing more than an indictment for false testimony to a grand jury, i'd say it is likely rove won't go to jail. it seems they did nothing wrong. i saw a good breakdown of the generally accepted "trail" for this whole thing the other day... good read, not really politically biased, either. taks

no i'm not, and you should know that. the closest definition to me would be libertarian. misguided is way off, given history keeps backing me up with regards to my most devout beliefs. if he chooses to rewrite the constitution, then he is a bad choice (uh, legislating from the bench is what i mean). other than that, not much he can do wrong. taks

actually, he did, but not till his senior year. i don't think we can agree on that at all. that's the problem. nobody knows. ? based on what? she's conservative so she must be dumb? there's not really enough evidence to make a case either way. as gromnir noted, roberts ain't no slouch. bork is probably one of the brightest legal minds of our century. his nomination fiasco was a shame. btw, i do agree he dropped the ball on her nomination anyway. though not a specific requirement (you don't even need to be a lawyer AFAIK), i think a bit more exposure to the bench is a good idea. taks

damn. i must be under the same level of sedation. taks

actually, i've always assumed it was earned because we had a split legislative and executive branch. i.e. democrat clinton couldn't get his spending ideas (uh, healthcare anyone?) passed in republican house and senate. this is the sole reason i favor a democratic president now. however, should the senate republicans continue to implode as well, we'll end up needing a republican president next time to counter the soon-to-be democratic controlled senate. oh well. taks

uh, doubtful. as far as i can tell, we're the only ones discussing it, and barely at that. pointless, sure, but they have to do their job in the end (they being the secret service). his poll numbers aren't just low btw, they are cratering. taks

because they probably just first found it... not everyone is as clued in as al gore, the inventor of the internet, you know... good that you could find the time to throw in the jab at bush's apparent lack of intellect. i won't bring up kerry's failure to outperform bush while at yale, however. :roll: taks

Hmm...I would say that if George would rather fret over The Onion than run the United States, that's okay with me. Mind you, there's very few people in American politics who I would like to see running the United States. The more of them fretting over the Onion, the better. At least that way, things could hardly get worse, right? " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> except for the fact that bush really doesn't have anything to do with enforcement of this. my guess is that he doesn't even know anything about it. the secret service routinely investigates a myriad of issues daily. to presume that they inform the president of every little violation is ridiculous. taks