Impeach Bush?

[Commissar]

He's doing things that are part of his job description. He's also democratically elected (this time around).

 

The reason I had no problem with Clinton being impeached is because shagging interns is not part of the presidents job. Making tough choices which a lot of people wont like is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not what Clinton was impeached for.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

He's doing things that are part of his job description. He's also democratically elected (this time around).

 

The reason I had no problem with Clinton being impeached is because shagging interns is not part of the presidents job. Making tough choices which a lot of people wont like is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not what Clinton was impeached for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He was impeached for lying about it wasnt he?

[Commissar]

That is why I hate the U.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then there's nothing keeping you here. Free to leave at any time.

 

I dislike the current administration, too. I'm also, quite frankly, scared to death at the number of people who reject evolution, if polling is to be believed. I do think that we're in danger of starting to actually restrict rights rather than grant them.

 

But I don't hate the country. If you really do, then get the hell out. Seriously. Make room for an immigrant family who'll be working too hard to have time to complain about current events.

 

I don't like George W. Bush, and I think it's abhorrent that we have a leader who seems to lack the mental capacity to best a six year-old in a debate, but all the same, I thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, too. Know why? Because everyone else in the world did as well. He didn't lie, and he also wasn't out downrange in a turban and balaclava gathering intelligence first-hand, so you really need to stop attributing all of this to him. Do I think he wanted the war no matter what? I certainly do. But they sold it to us using information that was widely regarded as correct at the time, and not only did the majority of the American people - my liberal ass included - agree with it, so did the majority of our government, on both sides of the aisle. You might've been one of the few dissenters, and more power to you if that's truly the case. I have my doubts. We can debate all we want about tremendously bad handling of the actual war, but going back and forth over how it all got started is not going to get us anywhere. In hindsight, I'm the first to regret the decision, and I currently think of it as being a bad idea, but I'm very well aware that my opinion was different when we first started rolling in.

 

Bill Clinton broke the law. There's no way around that. Yeah, a lot of people think he was impeached because of the morality of the whole thing, but that's not the way it went down. He committed a criminal act. It's possible Bush has too, but until there's proof, that's just speculation. Suggesting he ought to be impeached for something that most of the country cheered at the time is a little out there.

[Commissar]

He's doing things that are part of his job description. He's also democratically elected (this time around).

 

The reason I had no problem with Clinton being impeached is because shagging interns is not part of the presidents job. Making tough choices which a lot of people wont like is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not what Clinton was impeached for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He was impeached for lying about it wasnt he?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, yeah. Sort of similar to the Plame case; those weren't the charges that the special prosecutor was initially investigating, they're what came out at the end.

[Judge Hades]

If I had the money to move out of the country I would move to either Australia or Great Britain.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If I had the money to move out of the country I would move to either Australia or Great Britain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well your more than welcome to Tony Blair.

[SteveThaiBinh]

So you're suggesting a straight swap, Hades_One for Tony Blair?

 

We might need some time to think about that.

[Judge Hades]

Tony Blair isn't much better than Bush, but at least you guys have television shows that I can stomach.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Tony Blair isn't much better than Bush, but at least you guys have television shows that I can stomach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your welcome to EastEnders too "

[taks]

So if Bill serves as the Speaker of the House and both the President and VP decease, he could then become the president? Unlikely scenario, but isn't that a loop hole in the Constitution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[taks]

Oh, so I guess that completely justifies your comment, doesn't it?  Nice to know ignorance and bigotry works both ways, huh Commissar?  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[taks]

The question remains, is George W. Bush a liar or is he incompetent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bifurcation. a logical fallacy. coming from you, i'm not surprised.

 

there are certainly more than two options here.

 

taks

[Plano Skywalker]

it's really hard for an American to get a work visa for an EU country.

the employer, essentially, has to prove that they looked really hard and just

could not find *anyone* else in the EU who wanted to do the job.

 

so unless you have some arcane skill that would put you in that position, it is all but impossible to make such a move and actually work in an EU country.

[taks]

Bill Clinton broke the law.  There's no way around that.  Yeah, a lot of people think he was impeached because of the morality of the whole thing, but that's not the way it went down.  He committed a criminal act.  It's possible Bush has too, but until there's proof, that's just speculation.  Suggesting he ought to be impeached for something that most of the country cheered at the time is a little out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Commissar]

Oh, so I guess that completely justifies your comment, doesn't it?  Nice to know ignorance and bigotry works both ways, huh Commissar?  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aw, Taks, you're so cute when you're making statements like that.

 

By your logic, I'm quite free to address you as a bigot yourself, since I'm going to assume you're opposed to communism. After all, I clearly stated that I'm opposted to "Christian conservatism" as a political and social philosophy, not to Christians themselves.

[Judge Hades]

Taks, he either knew the information was false or he foolishly beleived his Intelligence staff who did a lackluster job in putting their report together.

 

Liar or incompetence.

[Commissar]

Taks, he either knew the information was false or he foolishly beleived his Intelligence staff who did a lackluster job in putting their report together.

 

Liar or incompetence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, come on. It wasn't just us who had intelligence pointing towards weapons programs. Just about every other intelligence service in the world thought he had them, too.

 

Edit: Fixed a typo.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Commissar

[Plano Skywalker]

yeah, they would have preferred to get Clinton on a whole host of other things:

 

Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle Futures, etc but they just couldn't connect enough dots to make it work (and, in some cases, it was actually Hillary who was more involved). So they ended up with a cheesy perjury trap.

[taks]

By your logic, I'm quite free to address you as a bigot yourself, since I'm going to assume you're opposed to communism.  After all, I clearly stated that I'm opposted to "Christian conservatism" as a political and social philosophy, not to Christians themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Judge Hades]

Oh, come on.  It was just us who had intelligence pointing towards weapons programs.  Just about every other intelligence service in the world thought he had them, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but it was us who choose to attack and act on them. Poof, it was proven false for there was no weapons of mass destruction at all. It was a smokescreen done so by Saddam so he wouldn't appear weak and defenseless against his neighbors Turkey and Iran, who both have very strong militaries and would wipe the floor out of Iraq's Republican Guard.

 

It doesn't take a genius to see that ploy.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Hades_One

[Commissar]

By your logic, I'm quite free to address you as a bigot yourself, since I'm going to assume you're opposed to communism.  After all, I clearly stated that I'm opposted to "Christian conservatism" as a political and social philosophy, not to Christians themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I know. I cleared it up a little later on, though.

 

And I don't know whether or not to say I use it in a derogatory fashion; it's certainly a philosophy I'm very much opposed to, so perhaps it's possible.

[taks]

Taks, he either knew the information was false or he foolishly beleived his Intelligence staff who did a lackluster job in putting their report together.

 

Liar or incompetence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[taks]

It doesn't take a genius to see that ploy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

fortunate for you, eh?

 

taks

 

PS: ba dum bump!

Edited November 3, 2005 by taks

[Judge Hades]

The only good reason to invade another country is if that country attacked us first. Then we go in, wipe the opposing force out of existance so that they can never harm us again, and immediately leave. Clean, efficient, and cost effective.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Hades_One

[Commissar]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There I'm going to have to disagree with you. This line of reasoning has been used a lot recently, but I'm afraid that the war really was sold to the American public as necessary due to the threat to national security posed by Iraqi nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. There has been a great deal of backpeddling since the whole WMD thing went down the tubes, but that's the reason we went in.