Jump to content

Impeachment?


Guest Sparoism

Recommended Posts

Guest Sparoism

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Guest Sparoism

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sparoism@Jan 25 2006, 09:10 PM

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING
Originally posted by bobthemothafuckinbuilder@Jan 25 2006, 07:55 PM

Clinton wasn't impeached for getting head, he was impeached for lying under oath.

 

So... let's hear it.

 

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

democrats probably know they'd get nowhere fast

with a totlly republican-controlled congress, i think it just would not happen.

 

as for republicans, they love him, they hate him, but he's still their commander in chief

 

of course, i think he never won the first election, and possibly bought the second one

i'm still of the mind that this is an ex-cokehead-frat-president-drunkard-richboy-turned evangelical, and his war-profiteering is leading us to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by symbols@Jan 26 2006, 09:20 AM

democrats probably know they'd get nowhere fast

with a totlly republican-controlled congress, i think it just would not happen.

Exactly. On the issue of illegal wire-tapping, Bush's excuse was (and I'm paraphrasing) "Terrorist communication technology is evolving too fast for us to pass laws that would allow the monitoring." Congress' reply was "Well just tell us what you need, and we'll make some new laws." Shit is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

That's why it won't happen till AFTER the elections unless someone in Congress decides to man up for a change.

 

2004 was the start of the Fourth Reich, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no one is doing shit after the elections either.

i have a feeling that people like Rove and DeLay have some shit on democrat insiders.

the whole thing is insidious

 

i also wonder whether the dems are even capable of capitalizing on this amazing time of republican incompetence, they certainly weren't even able to secure the last presidential election they won.

 

certainly plenty of people are having this same thought......

 

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

Let's Make It a Million!

640809 :

the number of people who have already voted

in the referendum to Impeach Bush!

 

http://www.impeachbush.tv/

 

http://www.thefourreasons.org/

 

http://zzpat.bravehost.com/

 

http://impeachbush.meetup.com/

 

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

 

http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com/

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

I'd say 1% of the population marching on DC would send a pretty clear message, at least one that would be hard for the media to ignore.

 

That's only (?) three million people...and 1% of that is approximately how many folks are registered on 12 oz.

 

The sad thing is that grassroots campaigning doesn't seem to do a whole lot of good in the states anymore...MoveOn.org? They meant well, but the message/groundswell was lost when the conservative press switched the focus to the legitimacy of Kerry's Vietnam service. And, how much money was spent on smearing Kerry compared to what MoveOn.org had to spend to support him, then defend him? Everybody knows that it's difficult, if not impossible, to wage a battle on two fronts.

 

I may be conservative in some respects, but I expect nothing but complete impartiality when it comes to the press, and that is exactly what I don't see nowadays. That has a lot to do with why the real crimes of the Bush regime are being overlooked, if not completely ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Sparoism

That's a good point, but I think 3 million would get some kind of reaction.

 

As for me, I do some volunteer work locally. Food Not Bombs, some homeless outreach...the people who were left behind in the last few years...remember them?

 

Not the kind that you would approve of, but it's a start.

 

But, what about the evidence I listed? That's what I wanted to hear from you about originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sparoism@Jan 25 2006, 10:40 PM

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.

 

I'm guessing you're referring to this. ok so here...

The wiretapping is in no way illegal... and like I said before every single president since the cold war era was responsible for some form of wiretapping programs on the public.

 

With the clinton impeachment... clinton was impeached for lying under oath... lying under oath undermines the whole base of this county (and everyhting is stands for).

 

I'm glad to hear that you do acutally get involved... now all we need is 100 million people like you and then you can have a change in the way this country is run. Most people (99.9% on this site) run their fucking mouth all day and do nothing. I believe in us finishing our job in Iraq.. So I put myself in for deployments when available... I'm not gunna sit here like a pussy saying I support teh war and then be a pussy ass bitch and not go fight it.

 

Time will tell about Bush's impeachment I guess... in the end even if he is impeached he will not be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

But I'm not exactly sure why we're trying to instill democracy in a country that doesn't even seem to want it.

 

The elections don't really tell me anything other than the Iraqis are capable of voting. The only reason I see US intervention in Iraq being a necessary option is continuity. By that I mean that Bush couldn't very well claim to be against terrorism without going after Saddam Hussein.

 

I didn't like the guy myself, and I'm glad he's finally getting his comeuppance. I just worry about us doing the same thing in Iran and/or Syria...we're already fighting a war with a all-volunteer army on two fronts...three or four fronts? Sure, maybe in WW2...when the US stood to lose something and the entire country was willing to mobilize and sacrifice to defeat the enemy.

 

I don't think the military strategy of the Bush administration is all that. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong...but what I do know is that we'll be paying for our campaigns overseas for the next twenty or so years.

 

I agree, he probably won't be impeached unless somethng so blatant comes out that there's no other option than for him to face the panel....and the odds of this happening are about 50-50, I'd say. The insiders seem to have a bad track record vis-a-vis keeping secrets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sparoism@Feb 10 2006, 05:09 PM

But I'm not exactly sure why we're trying to instill democracy in a country that doesn't even seem to want it.

 

The elections don't really tell me anything other than the Iraqis are capable of voting. The only reason I see US intervention in Iraq being a necessary option is continuity. By that I mean that Bush couldn't very well claim to be against terrorism without going after Saddam Hussein.

 

I didn't like the guy myself, and I'm glad he's finally getting his comeuppance. I just worry about us doing the same thing in Iran and/or Syria...we're already fighting a war with a all-volunteer army on two fronts...three or four fronts? Sure, maybe in WW2...when the US stood to lose something and the entire country was willing to mobilize and sacrifice to defeat the enemy.

 

I don't think the military strategy of the Bush administration is all that. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong...but what I do know is that we'll be paying for our campaigns overseas for the next twenty or so years.

 

I agree, he probably won't be impeached unless somethng so blatant comes out that there's no other option than for him to face the panel....and the odds of this happening are about 50-50, I'd say. The insiders seem to have a bad track record vis-a-vis keeping secrets.

 

The people in iraq want democracy... " all it tells me is they can vote" uh yea... if everytime you vote you have a very very very high chance of getting blown up would you go and vote? Probably not but they did... just becausecertain Sunnis (who lost power- economical,political) don't wanna vote and fight us like a bunch of dickfaces is their roblem. Read my Iraq threads about that issue thoe.

 

The people of Iran also want democratic freedoms... such as listening to western music and things (they have tons of underground clubs and shit). The governments of both syria and Iran set their people back for decads on puropuse. You can easily enslave an uneducated population.

 

If we go into Iran we would not put a single trooper int here and we would win. Although the information is largley classified i'm quite sure that special forces are doing their deed all across syria...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sparoism

It's the hearts and minds thing in action.

 

These people suffered from a trade embargo for over a decade, and then we invade them. Well, I'd be pissed, but that's just me.

 

I think the reason a lot of folks voted was simply because they had the option to do so, not because any of the candidates were qualified to lead the country.

 

If there had been a real leader who said, "If you elect me, I'll cut a deal with the insurgents so the coalition can go home", do you think he would have had a chance in hell of getting on the ballot? No, because that doesn't represent our interests very well....even though I think it's probably what a lot of Iraqis would gladly vote for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't cut a deal with thr insurgents do you not understand this. The SUNNINS lost ALL OF THEIR POWER... Saddams henchmen who were on his payroll were taking the people money for doing nothing and now that income has been taken away from them. They want to go back to ruling over the shias and the kurds. Al-queida insurgents want world domination by islamic law. So fuck them, they need to and will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...