Always the Clinton administration. Did I make any mention of Clinton at all? It seems when right-minded people run out of arguments, there's always Clinton to fall back on. Get over it. Clinton did NOT cause all of the problems that Bush would like you to think he did (the economy, Syria, Israel, you being born). I'm so sick of hearing that tired old rhetoric. At least the only war that Clinton took us to was a justified one that was backed by the rest of the world...
Always the Clinton administration. Did I make any mention of Clinton at all? It seems when right-minded people run out of arguments, there's always Clinton to fall back on. Get over it. Clinton did NOT cause all of the problems that Bush would like you to think he did (the economy, Syria, Israel, you being born). I'm so sick of hearing that tired old rhetoric. At least the only war that Clinton took us to was a justified one that was backed by the rest of the world...
I asked a serious question, and you respond with drivel.
What would the grounds be for impeachment?
Oh, yeah, president has very little to do with economy, yet every few months he comes out with an economic stimulus package to dig us deeper into debt under pretences of "stimulating the economy."
Well, if you get the country into debt to stimulate the economy, then you take responsibility for stimulating the economy, and if you have nothing to show for it, then sure as hell you are responsible for the economy.
And maybe the late 90's boom was fueled by debt, but in a capitalist system, individuals and companies can borrow money for stupid reasons and lend money for stupid reasons, and pay the price. But the government should be able to sustain itself without having to borrow 300 billion a year. The government should be responsible, because unlike corporations, which go bankrupt all the time, the government going bankrupt would be devastating to the US economy.
How are we supposed to know what the grounds are if the Republicans had to spend 100 Million in taxpayer money to find some grounds to impeach Clinton.
These things can't be done on the cheap. And since GOP is in control of the congress, there aren't going to be many congressional investigations.
These things can't be done on the cheap. And since GOP is in control of the congress, there aren't going to be many congressional investigations.
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
When you speak inglowingly of Carter's amazing diplomacy record, does that include the Rambo-esque failed attack on Tehran?I'm sorry, but nothing screams Rambo quite like a few helicopters filtrating Iran in the middle of the night to fly in and bring hostages home.
Carter: military excursion to free hostages.
Bush: war against Iraq (and probably more in the future) without the support of the largest international governing body
Horrible comparison. You also seem to forget the actual diplomatic record that Carter had, and still has. I haven't seen one admirable act of diplomacy on the part of the Bush administration that even mildly compares to that of Carter.
Again, Carter did not create a war that killed hundreds (reaching thousands) of friendly troops, not to mention uncountable figures of dead Iraqi troops and civilians and razed one of the most prominent countries in the Middle East.
Not sure where the figure of "third largest coalition ever" comes from, but I certainly hope its not simply from the number of countries that are with him. Check out the list for yourself, it includes quite a few I personally didn't even know existed (and I bet you didn't either). Not to mention that fewer than ten of those (last I checked) are actually offering physical military support. Carter's "half-cocked" excursion was hardly an attack on Iran in the same way that this "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is an attack on Iraq. Your comparison fails on all levels.
DevilsAdvocate:
Do you need to be so obtuse?
The point is not that Bush should be impeached. Nobody here is seriously suggesting this - not even Moonbeam... The point is that even those who support Bush's father, those who have held senior positions in right-wing administrations, think he is going too far. Do you get it now?
Stop being so literal and stop making people explain everything to you in every post...
N
Do you need to be so obtuse?
The point is not that Bush should be impeached. Nobody here is seriously suggesting this - not even Moonbeam... The point is that even those who support Bush's father, those who have held senior positions in right-wing administrations, think he is going too far. Do you get it now?
Stop being so literal and stop making people explain everything to you in every post...
N
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Can't post much right now, GF just got here, but let me just say for now that there have been 2 stimulus packages proposed so far...that hardly makes it one every few months. As for those packages...they were created to put money back in people's hands so that they could spend it as they saw fit. Hopefully they would put it back into the economy by purchasing needed goods or even investing it. Now....the govt is in no danger of going bankrupt.....deficit spending during an economic downturn is a good thing. It keeps the economy from sinking lower by continuing to put money into the economy and not keeping it locked up in the govt coffers where eventually some genius will get the idea to spend it on a study of the Malaysian blue footed short billed womble bat. If the govt were to tighten the flow of money during a downturn it would just make things worse by drying up the dollars needed for investment, etc.....
Gotta run....I'm getting those "I just got here so pay attention to me" looks from the GF...be back later....or tomorrow depending on....well...you know...
I resisted the urge to call you obtuse, and now here you go with the name calling.
I don't think that Eagleburger has any basis for suggesting that the president should be impeached in that circumstance, thus undermining his credibility. I was just asking if someone here wanted to throw out some reason.
I am just encouraging you and others to explain your idiotic viewpoints with the hope, infintesimally small though it may be, that you may come to the realization that you are stupid on your own.
Of course, you may be too obtuse to do that.
Kon -
My point was that Carter - the great diplomat that he is - realized that diplomacy fails. Diplomacy was given months to work by Bush, and it failed.
My point was that Carter - the great diplomat that he is - realized that diplomacy fails. Diplomacy was given months to work by Bush, and it failed.
OK, but you said "The President, any President, has very little to do with the economy. In fact I would say that the President has about as much effect of the economy as Big Bird does astrophysics."
If that's the case, he should not be passing taxcuts to simulate the economy, since his taxcut would have " about as much effect of the economy as Big Bird does astrophysics"
If he claims that taxcuts are needed to simulate the ecomony, and asks people to borrow money to pay for the taxcuts to simulate the economy, then the economy becomes his responsibility.
DevilsAdvocate:
I don't give a crap if you agree or disagree with me, and I don't much care if you think I am stupid. What I do care about is that if you take the time to post in my thread, that you also take the time to think about what I have posted. If you are incapable of that then why would your bother?
N
I don't give a crap if you agree or disagree with me, and I don't much care if you think I am stupid. What I do care about is that if you take the time to post in my thread, that you also take the time to think about what I have posted. If you are incapable of that then why would your bother?
N
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Bush isn't go9ing to Attack Syria or Iran no way no how. The main reason is that Americans won't stand for it. Besides, they don't have too. All they have to do is be successful in rebuilding Iraq into a Properous Democracy and the Syrians themselves will take care of the Syrian Baathists.
Iran is on the verge of coming around. Give them another 5 years and they too won't be a pain in the ass..unless Bush listens to the Chicken Hawks in his Administration and does something seriously stupid.
Iran is on the verge of coming around. Give them another 5 years and they too won't be a pain in the ass..unless Bush listens to the Chicken Hawks in his Administration and does something seriously stupid.
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
So, you really think Bush is running the economy into the ground?
No, I think the economy is booming under Dubya.
I actually did take the time to think about what you have posted.
The title of your post is - "Impeach Bush if he attacks Syria..." I was remarking about the fact that there is no way that Bush could be impeached. That was a thoughtful post.
Basically, I thought that he went off half-cocked, and said something incredibly stupid. As SOS, he should know how government works better. His credibility was undermined.
That was a reasoned response that you may disagree with. I was on point, and I was just curious about the basis of impeachment. I was trying to stimulate discussion about the actual topic.
Guess you don't want to talk about your own topic.
If the Bush admin anted to attack, nothing would stop them. And gaining public support is quite easy. When he first declares his intentions, about 20% of the populaiton will instantly support him. After several months of endless campaigning, support would be around 40%, at which point he could attack and another 15-20% will join so they don't appear unpatriotic or something.
Pretty much what happened with Iraq.
My point exactly. Bush and co suck at diplomacy, and I am ashamed that the president of the largest and most prominent country in the world resorts to warmongering without (in my opinion, and no, as much as Bill O'Riley would have you believe, there has not been diplomacy with Iraq for 12 years) sufficient time given to diplomacy.
First off - you conveniently misquoted the thread title - but that is OK...
Secondly, Eagleburger is an idiot...
My point, as I have tried to make clear to you is this: when one's own colleagues go to great lengths to disagree with you, perhaps you have gone to far. Do you get it now?? If the democrats call for Bush's head, this can be blown off. But when someone like Eagleburger says something as stupid as "lets Impeach Bush if he does X, Y or Z..." then perhaps saner heads should stand up and say that this whole thing has gone too far.
I am not sure how to make this clearer than I already have - so I won't...
Cheerio,
N
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
Wonder if anyone realizes that Eagleburger has recanted what he said in light of the new evidence they have on Syria?
They do now - I have changed the title to reflect this. If only the morons posting stuff about the U.S. finding WMD would do the same when it is hown that thisw is B.S....
N
you mean the same evidence we've never been shown that iraq has WMD. If they wanna go attacking every country in the ME, I want some verifiable proof, first and foremost that Iraq has WMD, verified from independant sources. I am not going to go along with this we have a hunch crap. Quite franky, I do not trust Bush/Cheney.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter