NationStates Jolt Archive

So, no thread appeared dealing with this topic, so i figured i'd give a heads-up.

On Saturday, the United States of America had a small window of opportunity to circumvent (somewhat) the stranglehold the Bush Administration has on rational, sensible Americans (and people who deal with the consequences of the administration who DON'T reside in the U.S.).
As in, if Bush were to be impeached, Cheney would be in charge.
Well, on Saturday, for a few hours, Bush was pretty literally occupied with other concerns, and in no position to be in charge of the country, so he put Cheney in charge - where, of course, there would've been somewhat of a possibility to get them both out.
*sigh*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001790.html
Bush will transfer powers under the 25th Amendment, which permits the president to voluntarily hand over authority when he is unable to perform his duties. The White House said Cheney will probably be in charge for about 2 1/2 hours while Bush recovers from the effects of the sedative.

Vice President Cheney will assume presidential duties briefly today, under the rarely invoked 25th Amendment, while President Bush is anesthetized for a colonoscopy.

This will be the second time Cheney has become acting president, and under almost identical circumstances to the first. Bush underwent sedation for a colonoscopy on June 29, 2002, and Cheney was the commander in chief for two hours and 15 minutes. That test found no signs of cancer and doctors said then that Bush would need another test in five years. A spokesman said Bush has experienced no symptoms.

The White House labored to portray the situation as unremarkable, announcing it at the daily press briefing only after a long report on developments in Iraq and using words such as "routine" and "standard" to describe it. The president's doctor, Air Force Brig. Gen. Richard J. Tubb, who will supervise the procedure, was not made available to talk about the medical issues, nor was White House counsel Fred F. Fielding available to talk about the constitutional issues.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRPqFe4ioM.w&refer=home


:eek:

So far, the images i've found online have been not a far throw from visage of certain fundamentalists.
*shrug*

I really want to watch The West Wing now.

I really want to watch The West Wing now.

Classified, of course, but i also heard he started singing fraternity pledge songs during the 'scopy.

It's only a rumour that he emulated good ol' Ashcroft at the time. Perhaps it's partially true and CHENEY was singing it when Bush was getting scooped.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3728766709933002275&q=Ashcroft+Eagle+Soar&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Classified, of course, but i also heard he started singing fraternity pledge songs during the 'scopy.

It's only a rumour that he emulated good ol' Ashcroft at the time. Perhaps it's partially true and CHENEY was singing it when Bush was getting scooped.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3728766709933002275&q=Ashcroft+Eagle+Soar&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Apparently the dulcet toned wonder featured there stood up to Bush over the whole wiretap thing....

I hope it's fatal.

Apparently the dulcet toned wonder featured there stood up to Bush over the whole wiretap thing....

Isn't that amazing?
I was one of those people under the gulliblility cloak of thinking the next guy wouldn't be worse. :mad:

Oh well, we all get our chance to be tapped, and apparently, so does the arse of our illustrious "president".

I hope it's fatal.

Hope harder. We're COUNTING on you!
:eek:

So, no thread appeared dealing with this topic, so i figured i'd give a heads-up.

On Saturday, the United States of America had a small window of opportunity to circumvent (somewhat) the stranglehold the Bush Administration has on rational, sensible Americans (and people who deal with the consequences of the administration who DON'T reside in the U.S.).
As in, if Bush were to be impeached, Cheney would be in charge.
Well, on Saturday, for a few hours, Bush was pretty literally occupied with other concerns, and in no position to be in charge of the country, so he put Cheney in charge - where, of course, there would've been somewhat of a possibility to get them both out.
*sigh*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001790.html


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRPqFe4ioM.w&refer=home


:eek:

So far, the images i've found online have been not a far throw from visage of certain fundamentalists.
*shrug*

Is there a point to this thread? Are we to discuss the ramifications of invoking the 25th Amendment?

What opportunity did "we" have to do anything?

WHY AM I SO STUPID THAT I DON'T GET THIS THREAD!? :confused:

Is there a point to this thread? Are we to discuss the ramifications of invoking the 25th Amendment?
Yes, to some degree. If that works for you. :)


What opportunity did "we" have to do anything?Incapacitation provides lots of things ... i'm sure a few things would come to mind.

WHY AM I SO STUPID THAT I DON'T GET THIS THREAD!? :confused:Nothing of the sort. TG.

Ah more Bush bashing:rolleyes:
It's not just about Bush you know. When you get rid of him, you will still have the political and economic system that he is simply the public face of. And you'll also have a country full of clueless liberals thinking that the nightmare is over. It will only be just beginning, no matter who happens to be the next ass in the big chair.

So how does Rush Limbaugh fits into all of this?

Ah more Bush bashing:rolleyes:
It's not just about Bush you know. When you get rid of him, you will still have the political and economic system that he is simply the public face of. And you'll also have a country full of clueless liberals thinking that the nightmare is over. It will only be just beginning, no matter who happens to be the next ass in the big chair.Ah, more liberal bashing :rolleyes:
Speak of clueless.
Here's a representation of conservative cluelessness:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122821,00.html
From FauX of all places.
The country obviously isn't "full" of "clueless" liberals or it wouldn't be as fucked up as it is right now, through TWO so-called "elections" involving Bush, so drop that bullshit pronto.

As far as the rest of it, i don't necessarily disagree with you, it isn't as utterly wrong as the points i objected to.

So how does Rush Limbaugh fits into all of this?
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm

"Fit" is the right word. I suspect Limbaugh and his ilk have been "fitting" into all of this for some time. :p

Otherwise, it's somewhat anecdotal.

Ah more Bush bashing:rolleyes:
It's not just about Bush you know. When you get rid of him, you will still have the political and economic system that he is simply the public face of. And you'll also have a country full of clueless liberals thinking that the nightmare is over. It will only be just beginning, no matter who happens to be the next ass in the big chair.

Bill Hicks agrees with you:

It doesn't matter who gets elected president! You know what happens when a new guy wins the election? Right before he goes into the whole transition thing, a bunch of guys in suits take him into the White House basement and show him a film. And the film is of the Kennedy assassination...but it's taken from an angle that nobody's ever seen before. When it's over, the lead suit asks, "Any questions?" And the new guy says what they've all said -- "Uh...just what my agenda for this term is...."

So how does Rush Limbaugh fits into all of this?

He, too, is an asshole who should be rigorously examined?

He, too, is an asshole who should be rigorously examined?
You know i love you.
:)

BTW ... The Colbert Report had a fellow on today who brought up Ashcroft's problem with the wiretapping, almost directly after i read the reference about it above. Maybe a coinkydink.

Bill Hicks agrees with you:

Ever since Carter and that Project Bluebook thing, there hasn't been a lot of swaying, methinks.
What did Kennedy have to do with space again, hmmm? :eek:

Ah, more liberal bashing :rolleyes:
Speak of clueless.
Here's a representation of conservative cluelessness:
So much political discourse in this country these days has less to do with actual conversation and analysis then a knee-jerk response to keywords. The two-step process begins with a superficial scan of an opinion that is supposed to determine which of the two absurd 'camps' the statement belongs to. What follows is a canned statement of bland support or banal condemnation. We will never get anywhere until we begin to listen to what people are actually saying rather then what we expect them to be saying.

Opposition to Bush's policies is one thing. But to make this a campaign that centers on an individual who will be out of office in a year and a half rather then a campaign against a socio-economic power machine that will ensure that his successor will be unable to substantially deviate from his policies actually sabotages a movement that can create real social change. This focus on Bush personality will inevitably lull many of the good liberal minded folks who have been politically awakened during this acute crisis into a dangerous complacency once Bush is gone. this will give the next president free reign. If you are willing give the likes of Hillary Clinton a presidency without significant challenges from the social justice set then you might as well vote Republican.

Bill Hicks agrees with you:
I do not buy into the conspiracy theory of history. The president is a part of an administrative culture as well as a social and economic class. He will generally protect the inherent interests of these without any special indoctrination.

So much political discourse in this country these days has less to do with actual conversation and analysis then a knee-jerk response to keywords. Yes, so that's especially important to remember when you invoke the whole "liberal" lambasting.
The two-step process begins with a superficial scan of an opinion that is supposed to determine which of the two absurd 'camps' the statement belongs to. What follows is a canned statement of bland support or banal condemnation. We will never get anywhere until we begin to listen to what people are actually saying rather then what we expect them to be saying.Like "vote for me/support me, or the terrorists win"?


Opposition to Bush's policies is one thing. But to make this a campaign that centers on an individual who will be out of office in a year and a half rather then a campaign against a socio-economic power machine that will ensure that his successor will be unable to substantially deviate from his policies actually sabotages a movement that can create real social change. This focus on Bush personality will inevitably lull many of the good liberal minded folks who have been politically awakened during this acute crisis into a dangerous complacency once Bush is gone.Funny, my wife asked if i'd be this pissed after he's gone. There's a good chance, since i was raised libertarian and have voted republican moderate more than anything else. I'm an independent, so i'm taking your statements seriously, and pretty much agree with you.
this will give the next president free reign. If you are willing give the likes of Hillary Clinton a presidency without significant challenges from the social justice set then you might as well vote Republican.This false choice premise here is the problem. Someone can intensely dislike Bush and Co. on THEIR OWN MERIT and not due support of "my enemy's enemy". I'm not interested in her being president, and i'm further not interested in being told or hooked into the idea that i MUST be out of opposition to the other guy/gal.



I do not buy into the conspiracy theory of history.What? Everything any group does ANYWHERE is a conspiracy. The sooner you accept it the better, i think, but whatever works for you.
The president is a part of an administrative culture as well as a social and economic class. He will generally protect the inherent interests of these without any special indoctrination.
True, generally.
Some, however, could *never* have gotten where they are without these kinds of people's help.
And not to be nebulous, Bush is a PERFECT example.

While it is good to know that you are not so easily pacified, I am afraid that what I have seen of the mainstream anti-war and general opposition movement is not so clear-sighted. As much of a so-and-so as Bush may be, one of his most dangerous roles is that of the scape goat and lightning rod of the capitalist system.

I do not condemn 'Bush bashing' as somehow 'traitorous' but rather as a social safety valve that serves only the oppressive system that Bush represents. We must strike at the root of the problem rather then at it's most visible blossom.

While it is good to know that you are not so easily pacified, I am afraid that what I have seen of the mainstream anti-war and general opposition movement is not so clear-sighted. And the rub there being, "what I have seen"?
There is a clear and apparently SLOW to react opposition to him, his fucked up policies, and the role they are attempting to implement in the world today. This has gone on much, much longer than a "casual misunderstanding" and misapplication of "a few facets" of a philosophy, and the proof is very much in the pudding. As boring as i could be about supplementing that particular statement with lots and LOTS of material, i'll let you do whatever research is needed to provide you with an understanding of that perspective.
If you like, though, i could TG a few things worth your while, or if the conversation even sways that far, i could provide a few more contextual references ;p

As much of a so-and-so as Bush may be, one of his most dangerous roles is that of the scape goat and lightning rod of the capitalist system.

I do not condemn 'Bush bashing' as somehow 'traitorous' but rather as a social safety valve that serves only the oppressive system that Bush represents. We must strike at the root of the problem rather then at it's most visible blossom.Yes, but do you do so visibly, with a clear and capacitative forum (such as this somewhat represents), and possible discourse AS WELL as behind the scenes? Because people are more now unwilling to keep their feelings about the situation "behind the scenes" because there is no better part of valor at this point with discretion.
None should feel that they should be stifled or silenced because someone else assigns a false decorum and even philosophy about it.
Enough has shown me the nature of these people, this far into the scenario, that they earn no quarter from my discontent, none at all. It isn't the only front, here, to express it, and rest assured, this isn't the only expression i make.
Neither should it be anyone else's.