By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!


Discussion in 'News' started by Sparoism, Jan 25, 2006.

  1. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    SF Bay Guardian link

    Normally, I'm not too big of a fan of this paper, but the headline caught my attention.

    What pisses me off is that Nancy Pelosi (top Democrat in the House of Representatives, and from SF no less), who normally seems to have some kind of moral compass, is keeping mum on the issue of whether or not the evidence is strong enough to go ahead with an impeachment hearing.

    I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming...and this isn't good enough for her?

    Someone's on the payroll, it seems. And, with that, you would think that SF would get a bigger cut of federal funding...wrong.

    So, what the hell IS going on? Why are reps from the most liberal city in the country protecting Bush? What do they know, and why aren't we involved in the democratic process anymore?
  2. Harvey Wallbanger

    Harvey Wallbanger Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Oct 13, 2004 Messages: 8,567 Likes Received: 401
    There are a lot of people who seem to be protecting this guy. I can't believe that after everything that has happened, we're just now starting to hear serious discussion of impeachment. But I'm glad it's at least coming up... let's keep our fingers crossed.
  3. bobthemothafuckinbuilder

    bobthemothafuckinbuilder Junior Member

    Joined: Jan 23, 2006 Messages: 111 Likes Received: 0
    "I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming..."

    OK once again, who the fuck are you to make a type of assertion like that? Are you some kind of specialist in the field? If they would have enough evidence to do it they would... it's not as easy as you think to impeach a president.
  4. John Birch

    John Birch Member

    Joined: Apr 14, 2004 Messages: 747 Likes Received: 0
    if any impeachment is going to happen, it will be after the elections this fall...and more importantly, the results of said election...btw, what ever happened to karl rove getting fired?
  5. bobthemothafuckinbuilder

    bobthemothafuckinbuilder Junior Member

    Joined: Jan 23, 2006 Messages: 111 Likes Received: 0
  6. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    I'll bet I'm a lot smarter than you. And, I'm a fiscal conservative who thinks this guy should have never been in charge in the first place. Plus, I've worked in the legal field for about six years, so I have a fairly good idea when I see a case that I believe can stand up in court. If there is a hearing, it won't be till after the elections....and only if the Dems get the majority back.

    I do agree with you about Karl Rove, although I think he should have to do some time at Guatanamo first.
  7. Soup

    Soup Elite Member

    Joined: Jul 24, 2002 Messages: 4,425 Likes Received: 283
    I wish I could think the problems will end after Bush is gone, but other things I'm sure he himself didn't invent disturb me. For one, how often does Bush answer questions in front of a genuine representation of the entire American population? Or when is it brought up in court the legality of avoiding that kind of situation?
  8. bobthemothafuckinbuilder

    bobthemothafuckinbuilder Junior Member

    Joined: Jan 23, 2006 Messages: 111 Likes Received: 0
    This isn't a question of your intelligence. It's a question of your knowledge of impeachments. Six years eh? How many of those impeachments were you a part of that you're such a great expert? Because the house only excersized the right of impeachment about 30 times in the past 200 years.
  9. bobthemothafuckinbuilder

    bobthemothafuckinbuilder Junior Member

    Joined: Jan 23, 2006 Messages: 111 Likes Received: 0
    BTW what's wrong with Guatanamo? The people held there are enemy combatants whom are terrorist (and because of the nature of terrorist-such as blending in among civilian poulations, targeting civilians...not abiding by any rules of war forefit their status as a POW) and therefore they can be held indefinitley. What's the problem here, you want us to let em loose? Read some TIME magazine articles... each one that interviews insurgents it's something like this: "when I was realeased form guantanamo bay..." Fuck em. e-z.
  10. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    It was eighteen times, and only for three presidents, since 1868.

    That was in the article.

    And, I've studied plenty of American history in addition to constitutional law, and I seriously doubt he can beat the rap, unless he just declares himself president for life ala Idi Amin.

    Just the illegal wiretapping issue would have sunk any other president, but this one happens to be a lot luckier than any other to date.

    If the GOP is willing to spend $50 million to impeach Clinton over a blowjob, why aren't they concerned with flagrant disregard of due process at the executive level? Not to mention the Constitution, the Katrina mess, etc. I'm sure a lot of Republican constituents got hosed...Trent Lott being one of the most high profile.
  11. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    I think Karl Rove would be in good company, seeing as how he's one of the biggest terrorists out there.

    Time magazine? Are you kidding? They're part of the problem.
  12. bobthemothafuckinbuilder

    bobthemothafuckinbuilder Junior Member

    Joined: Jan 23, 2006 Messages: 111 Likes Received: 0
    Clinton wasn't impeached for getting head, he was impeached for lying under oath.

    I don't see any problems with magazine like TIME NEWSWEEK etc. when it comes to thing such as interviews... I enjoy reading the insurgent interviews because they're pretty consistant as to what some of the insurgents in Iraq are saying. And by the way... the whole "we don't negotiate with terrorist" thing is horseshot because we are running programs in Iraq to do just that :).

    Tell me one crime that bush has commited... regarding the war of course. Let me tell you ahead of time... him talking about intel gathered by our agencies (Weapons of blah blah and all that other shit) is not his responsibility. The senators were presented with the exact same materials as he was and they voted yes to give the power to attack....

    So... let's hear it.

    KING BLING Guest

    So you're saying a more reasonable approach would be to ask Bush to testify to congress under oath regarding these complex and secret legal manuevers? I'm sure he will offer to do this because the man has nothing to hide...
  14. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    How about the Downing Street memo? Or Valerie Plame? Or why dozens of engineers have gone on the record to state that the way the WTC buildings collapsed in a way that is more consistent with demolition than a sudden outside impact?
  15. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    There's a lot more to this but we'll just start with those three.

    Remember, I'm not some liberal crying over spilt milk..but this guy has gotten away with way too much for too long. I agree that Clinton did lie, but I think that any of us would have done the same thing and lied about it...and he DID fess up in the end. Bush has yet to prove that he's accountable for ANYTHING that has happened on his watch...and, when he has taken a little responsibility, he seems to shift the majority of it to his flunkies.

    Sorry, I don't mean to keep double posting like this. I'll work on that.