| View previous topic - View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LeoDraco
Demon Hunter
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 584
Location: Riverside, South Cali
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:43 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | | I'm not a republican, but seriously, impeaching Bush is not a good idea. First of all, it's a waste of tax payer money, and time on behalf of government workers. Secondly, we have a republican controlled house and senate. No one will kick him out of office, and if he some how did get kicked out, Cheney would just continue to implement Bush's policies. Thirdly, is it really wise to try to impeach a president over such a small offense in the middle of an ongoing military action? Not really. |
Oh, I agree: personally, I think it was a stupid decision on the part of the 50.73% of the United States to reappoint Bush in the first place, and while I think he has done a number of stupid things in office, I hardly see any legitimate reason for placing charges against him. And, as you say, it would be difficult to oust him, as well as achieving little. (Although, from a certain point of view, Presidents have been "removed" from office during on-going military actions when the popular vote swayed against them, just not via such an extreme mechanism.)
| Quote: | | Excuse me for having an opinion that differs from the liberal agenda or for offering a different and valid point of view. |
Oh, I do not contest your having your own point of view; however, I have found that politics has a nasty habit of degenerating to flame wars. Also, you yourself have exhibited (perhaps sarcastically; one can never tell in a purely textual medium) opinions that are every bit as extreme as the "liberal agenda" (fundamentally equating those not in support of Bush to terrorists).
_________________
"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
OK. Let's agree to disagree then. :)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nodtveidt
Demon Hunter
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 786
Location: Camuy, PR
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | | President Bush, whether you like it or not, is one of the most influencial presidents of all time. |
Do 1000 good deeds, and no one will care. Do 1 evil deed, and you are immortalized.
| NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | | I'm sorry, but Bush is doing everything and anything necessary to protect our nation. Polls show that this is what the people want. Some confusion over the law isn't enough to call for impeachment. In fact, if you're against fighting terror as enemy combatants of the United States, some may see you as a traitor. |
I can't believe you just said that...looks like someone's been successfully fed the White House propaganda at face value...and please, if you are to provide "polls", at least give references to these polls, and also, so we don't think you're one-sided, also provide the counter-polls or more recent polls that show just the opposite.
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace
Last edited by Nodtveidt on Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:43 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ninkazu
Demon Hunter
Joined: 08 Aug 2002
Posts: 945
Location: Location:
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
Want to know why he should be impeached as possibly even impaled? prisonplanet.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:38 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: | | if you are to provide "polls", at least give references to these polls... |
OK. You're wish is my command. :)
| Quote: | Jan. 10, 2006 — Three in 10 Americans believe the federal government has made unjustified intrusions into personal privacy as it investigates terrorism. That's nearly double the level of concern shown a few years ago, but it's still far from a majority view.
More broadly, the public still grants investigating terrorism a higher priority than guarding privacy rights, but by somewhat less of a margin than in the past. And Americans divide about evenly on the specific issue of warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency: Fifty-one percent call them acceptable in investigating terrorism, 47 percent unacceptable — views that are marked by huge partisan and ideological gaps. |
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1490715
This news report was posted 5 hours before I posted it here, so at the time of my posting, it's the newest information.
_________________
INFP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tcaudilllg
Dragonmaster
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 1731
Location: Cedar Bluff, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | | Quote: | | if you are to provide "polls", at least give references to these polls... |
OK. You're wish is my command. :)
| Quote: | Jan. 10, 2006 — Three in 10 Americans believe the federal government has made unjustified intrusions into personal privacy as it investigates terrorism. That's nearly double the level of concern shown a few years ago, but it's still far from a majority view.
More broadly, the public still grants investigating terrorism a higher priority than guarding privacy rights, but by somewhat less of a margin than in the past. And Americans divide about evenly on the specific issue of warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency: Fifty-one percent call them acceptable in investigating terrorism, 47 percent unacceptable — views that are marked by huge partisan and ideological gaps. |
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1490715
This news report was posted 5 hours before I posted it here, so at the time of my posting, it's the newest information. |
I don't disagree with the wiretaps. What I disagree with is that he didn't ask a judge. There is a reason why the law demands the approval of a judge for these things. Judges aren't stupid; hell, they could give a blanket order for every intercept between a single individual. Judges aren't there to obstruct; they are there to protect.
But Bush didn't think Congress would go along with it, and neither did his administration. Why would they think Congress lacked common sense? They wouldn't, of course. Colin Powell wouldn't think so, but maybe he didn't even know about these things.
There are a lot of shadows of Iran-contra in this controversy. Secret governments that top officials aren't even aware exist... that's always bad. Even Clinton acknowledged the existence of Area 51. That's another reason that Bush should be impeached: because it happened to Clinton, and for something completely negligible to the national interest. Bush made the point that "it may not be accurate but it is fair" to justify opposing the Florida recount. Well, it's fair to try Bush for breaking the law, too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: | | That's another reason that Bush should be impeached: because it happened to Clinton, and for something completely negligible to the national interest. |
But Clinton lied under oath. That's a clear cut criminal offense.
There's a lot of gray in what happened with the wiretaps. The White House thinks it wasn't against the law what they did.
We need expect reparations from those who knowingly break the law. Bush thought he wasn't doing anything illegal. Intent is a determining factor in bringing up a legal case.
_________________
INFP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoDraco
Demon Hunter
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 584
Location: Riverside, South Cali
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | | Quote: | | That's another reason that Bush should be impeached: because it happened to Clinton, and for something completely negligible to the national interest. |
But Clinton lied under oath. That's a clear cut criminal offense.
There's a lot of gray in what happened with the wiretaps. The White House thinks it wasn't against the law what they did.
We need expect reparations from those who knowingly break the law. Bush thought he wasn't doing anything illegal. Intent is a determining factor in bringing up a legal case. |
So if I go out and kill a man, and I did not think it was against the law to do so, then it is all kosher? Fantastic.
On the note of killing people, I find it amusing that we laud our troops (at any point in history) as heros, even though they go out and, essentially, murder other people.
_________________
"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tcaudilllg
Dragonmaster
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 1731
Location: Cedar Bluff, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | | Quote: | | That's another reason that Bush should be impeached: because it happened to Clinton, and for something completely negligible to the national interest. |
But Clinton lied under oath. That's a clear cut criminal offense.
There's a lot of gray in what happened with the wiretaps. The White House thinks it wasn't against the law what they did.
We need expect reparations from those who knowingly break the law. Bush thought he wasn't doing anything illegal. Intent is a determining factor in bringing up a legal case. |
Who are you to discern intent? You say Clinton "knew" he was lying when he lied about his sexual relations? I argue differently. I for one didn't consider oral sex to be "sex" at the time (come on, one way makes a baby and the other doesn't), and I doubt he did, either.
That's why you follow the law. Intent doesn't come into it until after the fact.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sirocco
Mage
Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: |
On the note of killing people, I find it amusing that we laud our troops (at any point in history) as heros, even though they go out and, essentially, murder other people.
|
I hate to seem like I'm splitting hairs, but once you sign on and don your country's uniform, you are no longer a civilian... you are a professional soldier, and that means the rules change. Combat with other soldiers is just that: combat. As long as they engage in combat while following accepted rules of engagement and do not demonstrate outright malice in their actions, I do not consider them to be committing murder. By definition, a strong element of malice is (nearly) required to elevate an act of killing from manslaughter to murder.
However, soldiers who intentionally kill civilians, especially the unarmed variety, and murderers. The same thing goes for soldiers who blatantly ignore accepted rules of engagement, such as those who knowingly fire on medics attempting to extricate wounded/dead soldiers.
Last edited by Sirocco on Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BadMrBox
Bringer of Apocalypse
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 1022
Location: Dark Forest's of Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: |
I'm sorry, but Bush is doing everything and anything necessary to protect our nation.
|
Thats one of the most stupid things I have read in a long time. I dont feel to argue the matter further with one who seriously believes that so I dont.
Slip'n'slide to another track;
Why the heck are USA so damned fit to have weapons of mass destruction anyway and no muslim country? I'm just curious.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoDraco
Demon Hunter
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 584
Location: Riverside, South Cali
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Sirocco wrote: | | Quote: |
On the note of killing people, I find it amusing that we laud our troops (at any point in history) as heros, even though they go out and, essentially, murder other people.
|
I hate to seem like I'm splitting hairs, but once you sign on and don your country's uniform, you are no longer a civilian... you are a professional soldier, and that means the rules change. Combat with other soldiers is just that: combat. As long as they engage in combat while following accepted rules of engagement and do not demonstrate outright malice in their actions, I do not consider them to be committing murder. By definition, a strong element of malice is (nearly) required to elevate an act of killing from manslaughter to murder.
However, soldiers who intentionally kill civilians, especially the unarmed variety, and murderers. The same thing goes for soldiers who blatantly ignore accepted rules of engagement, such as those who knowingly fire on medics attempting to extricate wounded/dead soldiers. |
Right, all of which makes sense. My point was that it is amusing that we even have such a double standard in the first place, and that the double standard is supported --- at least, to minor extents --- by people whom are nominally appauled at atrocious behaviour, such a murder. Again, that goes back to splitting hairs and, at least by todays standards, arguing distinctions that perhaps do not clearly exist, but it is an observation that may be made.
| BadMrBox wrote: | | Why the heck are USA so damned fit to have weapons of mass destruction anyway and no muslim country? I'm just curious. |
Because we had the original WMDs first? While that is not a valid excuse, that is what it fundamentally boils down to: he with the biggest guns makes the rules. Heinlein wrote a rather extreme story about this very thing, which was quite good: Solution Unsatisfactory.
_________________
"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BadMrBox
Bringer of Apocalypse
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 1022
Location: Dark Forest's of Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:35 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Yeah, I think thats right LeoDraco. *Sigh*
This world is sick. I must move home.
*BadMrBox points at alpha centauri*
| Quote: |
Who are you to discern intent? You say Clinton "knew" he was lying when he lied about his sexual relations? I argue differently. I for one didn't consider oral sex to be "sex" at the time (come on, one way makes a baby and the other doesn't), and I doubt he did, either.
|
Heh, if arguing like you LG, gay people cant have sex. You should go tell this to pope so that he has one less thing to think about.
Nah, I think you are abit wrong on that one.
Anyway, Clintons blowjob has nothing to do with anything. He cheated on his wife, thats bad but its also the whole deal. That had nothing to with his ability to be the president.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| BadMrBox wrote: |
Anyway, Clintons blowjob has nothing to do with anything. He cheated on his wife, thats bad but its also the whole deal. That had nothing to with his ability to be the president. |
Except that he lied under oath. :(
_________________
INFP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BadMrBox
Bringer of Apocalypse
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 1022
Location: Dark Forest's of Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
That is true. But the whole drama was caused because he was cheating on Hillary. Silly in my point off view.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
