NationStates Jolt Archive

I've recently changed my mind on the subject of a GWB impeachment. The reason can be best illustrated here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/11/11/18517/186

But, in a nutshell, am now in favor of allowing the shrub's lame-duckness, and thorough shutting out of democrats to work in favor of his oppositon. He already had conservative politicians asking him to stay away from their campaigns. And, as the article points out, an impeachment would only stick us with Cheney, or Hastert (shudder).

Bush alone is weak and harmless. It's about discrediting and removing all the elements around him, from Cheney to Rove.

But really, tell me anything Cheney would do that he hasn't gotten Bush to do just yet?

I am quite sure that George W. Bush can rest easy knowing that you are no longer seeking his impeachment. He used to be worried sick and would keep saying things like: "Sure, Congress isn't going to do anything, but what Unabashed Greed could be here with his powers of impeachment at any minute." or "I know that there is no real legal basis for it, but what if Unabashed Greed decides to impeach me anyway by using his powers of posting on the Interweb and being quoted in Fiddlebottoms sig?"

I am quite sure that George W. Bush can rest easy knowing that you are no longer seeking his impeachment. He used to be worried sick and would keep saying things like: "Sure, Congress isn't going to do anything, but what Unabashed Greed could be here with his powers of impeachment at any minute." or "I know that there is no real legal basis for it, but what if Unabashed Greed decides to impeach me anyway by using his powers of posting on the Interweb and being quoted in Fiddlebottoms sig?"

Ahh, the day wouldn't be complete without the nonsensical sarcasm of fiddly. You can piss off now.

Ahh, the day wouldn't be complete without the nonsensical sarcasm of fiddly. You can piss of now.
Seconded.

I am quite sure that George W. Bush can rest easy knowing that you are no longer seeking his impeachment. He used to be worried sick and would keep saying things like: "Sure, Congress isn't going to do anything, but what Unabashed Greed could be here with his powers of impeachment at any minute." or "I know that there is no real legal basis for it, but what if Unabashed Greed decides to impeach me anyway by using his powers of posting on the Interweb and being quoted in Fiddlebottoms sig?"
Fiddles, sometimes I worry you're too evil for even me...

Ahh, the day wouldn't be complete without the nonsensical sarcasm of fiddly. You can piss off now.
Well I am oh so sorry for point out the unbelievable arrogance inherent in say that your are "now in favor of allowing the shrub's lame-duckness."
That's like me announcing, "You know what, I think I will let the Sun come up tommorow. I was originally planning to make turn it off for a couple days, but then i thought about how plants might need it to produce oxygen."

Well I am oh so sorry for point out the unbelievable arrogance inherent in say that your are "now in favor of allowing the shrub's lame-duckness."
That's like me announcing, "You know what, I think I will let the Sun come up tommorow. I was originally planning to make turn it off for a couple days, but then i thought about how plants might need it to produce oxygen."

Didn't I give you permission to piss off? Oh well. It's not arrogance, it's optimism. I see that a president and administration that I despise are scrambling, and I merely am going back on an old assertion that I desired an impeachment. The shrub is doing far more damage on his own than I could have dreamed possible. At this rate, he'll make the entire republican party unelectable (accept in the south, and who really likes them anyway?) for at least the next 20-25 years on reputation alone.

Just an observation...

Well I am oh so sorry for point out the unbelievable arrogance inherent in say that your are "now in favor of allowing the shrub's lame-duckness."
That's like me announcing, "You know what, I think I will let the Sun come up tommorow. I was originally planning to make turn it off for a couple days, but then i thought about how plants might need it to produce oxygen."

LMAO

Didn't I give you permission to piss off?
I've given you permission to excise your head from your rectum in the past, it seems that giving someone that you have no power over permission to do something that they don't want to do reallly doesn't make any difference in the world, doesn't it? Connects me back nicely to my point about how little Bush cares about your opinions, but we'll drop that angle since it makes Dobbsworld unhappy, and I live only to please his cock. I mean him, I live only to please him.
Oh well. It's not arrogance, it's optimism. I see that a president and administration that I despise are scrambling, and I merely am going back on an old assertion that I desired an impeachment. The shrub is doing far more damage on his own than I could have dreamed possible. At this rate, he'll make the entire republican party unelectable (accept in the south, and who really likes them anyway?) for at least the next 20-25 years on reputation alone.

Just an observation...
Keep dreaming, sweet thing.
Firstly, the South does seem to have a handful of Senators and Representatives, so I suppose that a bit of concern is warranted in their direction.
Second, American Political Parties are the stuff of legend in their resislience. The Republicans survived Nixon and the Democrats have survived their share of dick heads, as soon as Bush steps down he'll be squirreled away somewhere out of sight, and any damage he may have done will be gone by the next ('12) presidential election.
If you are right, by some freak of fate, then it won't matter so much because there really is no difference among Republicrats anyway, so I fail to see the major impact. Maybe the presence of that little 'D' next to their name supplicates you, but Republicans are scared of looking like jerks and Democrats are scared of actually opposing Big Business. So life will roll in more or less the same big government direction without heed.

But, in a nutshell, am now in favor of allowing the shrub's lame-duckness, and thorough shutting out of democrats to work in favor of his oppositon. He already had conservative politicians asking him to stay away from their campaigns. And, as the article points out, an impeachment would only stick us with Cheney, or Hastert (shudder).

It's good you've reached that conclusion, given that to be impeached normally requires an impeachable offense be committed. ;)

Can anyone outline for me what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense?
And who has to make the allegation to whom in order to make it happen?

It's good you've reached that conclusion, given that to be impeached normally requires an impeachable offense be committed. ;)

Such as lying about getting a blowjob??

Can anyone outline for me what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense?
And who has to make the allegation to whom in order to make it happen?

An impeachment has to be initiated in one of the houses of congress.. usually the House, although there have only been a couple impeachments, so pinning down rules based on those precedents is kinda tough.. but it's much easier to get a congressman to intiate something like that than a senator, since they answer to fewer people.. so if someone wanted to impeach Bush, for example, it'd be best to write to a congressman from Marin County or something. :p

Anyhow, if it passes the house, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the hearings in the Senate, and a vote is held. This is my understanding. As for impeachable offenses, something illegal is a good start.

Can anyone outline for me what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense?
And who has to make the allegation to whom in order to make it happen?

anything that a majority of the US congress and senate agrees is an impeachable offense is an impeachable offense, basically.

...don't blame me, gerald ford said it first ;)

Such as lying about getting a blowjob??
Such as lying under oath, that is sort of a no-no in legal circles, and the issue was one of sexual harrasment. Monica Lewinski only became the topic of conversation when Bill Clinton lied (under oath) about her.
The reason that she was important was because the prosceuter was trying to establish a pattern of Clinton coming on to his female suborndinates, which would then lend additional credence to the claims of sexual harrasment.

Cleanly outlined enough for you? Or do you want me to make you a cartoon so you can absorb it like you absorb the rest of your political views?

Such as lying about getting a blowjob??

Sure.. purjury and obstruction of justice are illegal at least.. if you want Bush out, you would do well to prove that he did something illegal, which no one has. Also, it's not as if Clinton was kicked out of office for purjuring himself, so if you want Bush kicked out, rather than simply impeached, you'd have to do better than our reps did with him.

Can anyone outline for me what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense?
And who has to make the allegation to whom in order to make it happen?

There are really 2 different sets of criteria for what would lead to impeachment:

If there's a Republican President and a Republican Congress, nothing short of eating an aborted fetus on national television will do.

If there's a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, then telling a lie about getting a hummer will suffice.

Such as lying under oath, that is sort of a no-no in legal circles, and the issue was one of sexual harrasment. Monica Lewinski only became the topic of conversation when Bill Clinton lied (under oath) about her.
The reason that she was important was because the prosceuter was trying to establish a pattern of Clinton coming on to his female suborndinates, which would then lend additional credence to the claims of sexual harrasment.

Cleanly outlined enough for you? Or do you want me to make you a cartoon so you can absorb it like you absorb the rest of your political views?

Do you prefer grape, or tropical punch?

Do you prefer grape, or tropical punch?
Either one mixed with some rum* can be nice, but that is hardly the point. The point is that I made the point, and that instead of responding to the point you are dodging the point thus causing me to initiate a run-on sentence that overuses the word "point."

*In case you were wondering, rum is that stuff that your mom drank while she was pregnant with you

Either one mixed with some rum* can be nice, but that is hardly the point. The point is that I made the point, and that instead of responding to the point you are dodging the point thus causing me to initiate a run-on sentence that overuses the word "point."

*In case you were wondering, rum is that stuff that your mom drank while she was pregnant with you

Let's get off the subject of moms here. I mean, I just got off of yours, and she wasn't that good...

The "point" is that it was a victimless "crime", and it was the only thing republicans had to hang their hat on concerning bubba. It was weak sauce at best. Now, misleading the entire country into a war, that's impeachable, but as I stated earlier, I'm content to allow the shrub to burn his own house down. And, the fact that you're even here so vigorously defending him tells me that he's more than well on his way to doing so.

There are really 2 different sets of criteria for what would lead to impeachment:

If there's a Republican President and a Republican Congress, nothing short of eating an aborted fetus on national television will do.

If there's a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, then telling a lie about getting a hummer will suffice.
And I suppose you consider that funny?

Am I the one who has to tell you that your entire system sucks monkeyballs?

Now, misleading the entire country into a war, that's impeachable, but as I stated earlier, I'm content to allow the shrub to burn his own house down.

If Dem senators thought they could prove this, they'd have tried by now.. it'd be good PR for them, just the accusation itself. Instead, the more sensational claims about Bush are made by Democrats to Democrat audiences, so as not to allow reason to spoil things. Democrats who participated in the investigations on Iraq intelligence (I'm assuming you mean Iraq) wouldn't sit on their hands if they found evidence that could implicate Bush..

If Dem senators thought they could prove this, they'd have tried by now.. it'd be good PR for them, just the accusation itself. Instead, the more sensational claims about Bush are made by Democrats to Democrat audiences, so as not to allow reason to spoil things. Democrats who participated in the investigations on Iraq intelligence (I'm assuming you mean Iraq) wouldn't sit on their hands if they found evidence that could implicate Bush..

Well, there's the small part of repos having a stranglehold on the government. No amount of any kind of proof would be enough in this case. Bush could shoot congresswoman Tubbs-Jones in the face on the senate floor, and still avoid an impeachment.

And I suppose you consider that funny?

Am I the one who has to tell you that your entire system sucks monkeyballs?

If you believe that a Republican Congress would never impeach a Republican, then you can call the system broken if you want.. but just because the Dennis Kucinich "Where are the WMD? Impeach Bush!" chant isn't enough to get Congress in a furor doesn't mean real, actual crimes or unethical acts wouldn't. Republicans would cut Bush off like a gangrenous toe if something impeachable really was done, out of self-interest.

Edit: Case-in-point: Howard Dean the Presidential Candidate.. :p

Let's get off the subject of moms here. I mean, I just got off of yours, and she wansn't that good...
Maybe corpses just aren't your thing, you sick fuck.
The "point" is that it was a victimless "crime", and it was the only thing republicans had to hang their hat on concerning bubba.
What got him in trouble was lying during his deposition about the Paula Jones case. Someone else here mentioned it once, if he had simply said "Hell, yeah! I fucked her till she couldn't walk straight!" then a handful of people would have fretted, but no one would really care. He lied under oath, that's bad, and when you do bad things, you get punished.
It was weak sauce at best.
Not based on the stains it left on Lewinski's blouse. *rimshot*
Now, misleading the entire country into a war, that's impeachable
That's funny, because it seems that no one else believes so. The fact is, Bush has plausible deniablity. No one wants to wade through the mess of pointing fingers, and any result would just be decided based on personal bias. Witch hunts are just so last century.
but as I stated earlier, I'm content to allow the shrub to burn his own house down.
And as I have stated earlier, he no doubt feels great relief from that fact.
And, the fact that you're even here so vigorously defending him tells me that he's more than well on his way to doing so.
I'm hardly defending him. Before this post I have: Called you arrogant; Admitted to Being Dobbsworld love slave; Admitted to liking rum and punch; Called you various etcs; and Attacked Clinton.
I'm only here because I enjoy playing the opposition, if you had announced that George Bush was the second-coming, I'd be making fun of you from the other direction. I'm just a little ball of hatred and bitterness that way.

If you believe that a Republican Congress would never impeach a Republican, then you can call the system broken if you want.. but just because the Dennis Kucinich "Where are the WMD? Impeach Bush!" chant isn't enough to get Congress in a furor doesn't mean real, actual crimes or unethical acts wouldn't. Republicans would cut Bush off like a gangrenous toe if something impeachable really was done, out of self-interest.

Edit: Case-in-point: Howard Dean the Presidential Candidate.. :p
The problem is that there are no safeguards in the US system. Not only is the President the Head of State, with all the reserve powers, but he's also the head of government - and at the end of his term he will most likely have moved the Supreme Court more into his own direction.

How often in history has a US President faced a hostile upper house? Is it common, or is it an exception?

Ultimately, there have been a number of serious things that happened under the Bush Administration (from Enron to the whole Leak the CIA Agents).
You can hold Bush responsible for the people he chose and supports, in which case he is at least an acessory to the various illegal things that happened.
Or you cannot do so, and in that case you have to argue that Bush has no idea what's happening under him, and in that case I don't know why you guys aren't getting all your guns and use them for the reason you always claim you need them.

Didn't I give you permission to piss off? Oh well. It's not arrogance, it's optimism. I see that a president and administration that I despise are scrambling, and I merely am going back on an old assertion that I desired an impeachment. The shrub is doing far more damage on his own than I could have dreamed possible. At this rate, he'll make the entire republican party unelectable (accept in the south, and who really likes them anyway?) for at least the next 20-25 years on reputation alone.

Just an observation...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Politics in the U.S. is very fickle. I remember just 3 years ago that the democratic party was thought to by dying, that they would never be a serious party again, and so on. The opposition to the war on terror and the initial resistance to the war in Iraq severly turned the american public against the democratic party. If you haven't noticed, there is a republican president, house, AND senate.
Even thoughts of impeachment are temporary. Remember what happened with Clinton? He was impeached, and even though the public was turning against him, they also turned against the republicans for "playing politics". Which the democrats are in danger of doing now. Yes, Bush is down, but kicking him while he is down may make the american public think the democrats are now just "playing politics", so that may counteract any dramatic shift away from the republicans.

The problem is that there are no safeguards in the US system. Not only is the President the Head of State, with all the reserve powers, but he's also the head of government - and at the end of his term he will most likely have moved the Supreme Court more into his own direction.

How often in history has a US President faced a hostile upper house? Is it common, or is it an exception?


Congress is our safeguard.. the budget is Congress's main weapon. If Bush moves the Supreme Court rightward, it'll be because we elected him to do it.. he said so in the debates. Congress can impeach judges if they choose as well.. It's pretty common for the President to have an opposition Congress. Bush did for a while, as did Clinton, Reagan, etc. Congress has been mainly Democrat for the last 40 years, however.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Politics in the U.S. is very fickle. I remember just 3 years ago that the democratic party was thought to by dying, that they would never be a serious party again, and so on. The opposition to the war on terror and the initial resistance to the war in Iraq severly turned the american public against the democratic party. If you haven't noticed, there is a republican president, house, AND senate.
Exactly what I said. USians like the two-party system, because it gives the die-hard followers clearly defined "goodies" and "baddies", one man isn't going to change that. The Republicans survived Nixon, the Democrats survived Clinton, and everyone moves on along the same more or less even split.

I'm just a little ball of hatred and bitterness.

Then who needs you? I'm never going to feed you again. You turn all green and drooly when I do, and while it can be fun to point and laugh at times, it requires more energy than it's worth. You are now dead to me ;)

Then who needs you? I'm never going to feed you again. You turn all green and drooly when I do, and while it can be fun to point and laugh at times, it requires more energy than it's worth.
Trolls have to initiate the attack, I merely responded. It does you good to sharpen your edge against someone who is willing to play Devil's Advocate. When the day is over you can rest easy knowing that you haven't made an ass out of yourself in front of a real opposition and you get to discard what parts of an argument don't work.
You are now dead to me ;)
Does that mean I get a coffin or a suit? I could use both.

Congress is our safeguard.. the budget is Congress's main weapon. If Bush moves the Supreme Court rightward, it'll be because we elected him to do it.. he said so in the debates. Congress can impeach judges if they choose as well.. It's pretty common for the President to have an opposition Congress. Bush did for a while, as did Clinton, Reagan, etc. Congress has been mainly Democrat for the last 40 years, however.
Congress is both houses of parliament, correct?
Is it likely, or even possible, that a Republican President would have to work against a Democratic Lower house? Because we have already established that the Senate is often in the same colour as the Prez.

My fundamental question is this: How can someone with a popularity of less than 30%, with a record of scandals and an unpopular and unsuccessful war be guaranteed to serve out his term?
It is fairly obvious that in a Republican Congress, in both houses, no one will step up.
The safeguards obviously have a hole in them somewhere, no?

Let's get off the subject of moms here. I mean, I just got off of yours, and she wasn't that good...

Damn dude. That joke is OLD.

Congress is both houses of parliament, correct?
Is it likely, or even possible, that a Republican President would have to work against a Democratic Lower house? Because we have already established that the Senate is often in the same colour as the Prez.
As per the moment, yes, but often the the majority of the Senate and the President are on opposing sides, such as in Clinton's run. Senators are generally elected to protect local pork barrel projects and Presidents are elected based on slicing open a goat and reading its entrails.

My fundamental question is this: How can someone with a popularity of less than 30%, with a record of scandals and an unpopular and unsuccessful war be guaranteed to serve out his term?
Why shouldn't he? The people decided to give him another 4 years, so its his job to sit out the next 4 years. Provided he doesn't whip out his willy in front of unwilling viewers or start breaking into Democratic hotel rooms what can you complain about? We were in Iraq when the people voted, there had been scandals when the people voted, there were polls showing that Bush was less popular then AIDS when people voted, and they still voted him in.
Its rather late to be having buyers regret.

Damn dude. That joke is OLD.
Almost as old as your Mom.
(Hey, it had to be said)

Congress is both houses of parliament, correct?
Is it likely, or even possible, that a Republican President would have to work against a Democratic Lower house? Because we have already established that the Senate is often in the same colour as the Prez.

My fundamental question is this: How can someone with a popularity of less than 30%, with a record of scandals and an unpopular and unsuccessful war be guaranteed to serve out his term?
It is fairly obvious that in a Republican Congress, in both houses, no one will step up.
The safeguards obviously have a hole in them somewhere, no?

Eh.. first off, Bush's approval ratings have never gone below 30%.. slightly below 40 in some polls, but not below 30.. And if you think it's odd that Bush has dropped below 40, remember that Clinton was at 37% in some polls and still managed to get re-elected that same year. If Congress doesn't want Bush around, they won't act on his initiatives and won't back his plans. In any case, Congress is quite often opposed to the President's agenda, leaving the President to compromise.

Almost as old as your Mom.
(Hey, it had to be said)
Damn you Fiddlebottoms! I was trying to set someone up for that one! :upyours:









(I don't care what anyone says, I love that smiley)

I've changed my mind...

Flip-Flopper

Flip-Flopper
*snicker*

Its rather late to be having buyers regret.
Well, I didn't buy him so I guess it's not my place to complain.

I've always been of the opinion that really it's none of my business what Bush does, as long as it only affects Americans. I can be amazed at the characters and situations that US politics allows, nay, promotes, but other than a comment or two, I don't get worked up about it.

But as soon as it comes to Foreign Policy, it does matter. And the man is a buffoon, surely he has hurt the US more than any other president in history, and he's done a lot of damage, both human and diplomatic.

Americans should consider that when they make up their mind.

*snicker*

Hooray! Sense of humor! +5 brownie points.

Note: Brownie points are entirely meaningless in the grand scheme of things as nobody takes Keruvalia seriously anyway.

Hooray! Sense of humor! +5 brownie points.

Note: Brownie points are entirely meaningless in the grand scheme of things as nobody takes Keruvalia seriously anyway.
YAY! So how many do I need to get to buy an actual Brownie? :D