Impeach Bush?
- Thread starter wazzledoozle
- Start date
I dont. Everyone in here already has their mind made up, NO development is going to change the results.
I'm new to the community, so for me this is post #1. Hope you guys don't hate on the new guy, but I have my $0.02 to add.
First off I'm no Bush fan at all. However, he is the elected leader and we are stuck with him for another few years. The Clinton impeachment was a dumb waste of time, and should be an embarassment to the Republican politicians that voted for impeachment. I believe impeachment should never be used unless in the most dire circumstances; not just for political gain as was the case for Clinton. Fact of the matter is, there's just not enough information at this point to support impeachment. We impeach two presidents in a row, we're setting up each future president for impeachment for minor issues.
Besides what would change? Cheney would be president, so not much. Sure, Congress could impeach both Bush and Cheney, then we're stuck with Hastert. I guess if the Democrats gained control they could impeach Bush and Cheney and hope their Speaker of the House gets a nice promotion. Personally, that's almost like a coup in a sort of way and I would hope wouldn't happen unless there is a very strong reason behind it.
The voters can decide in a few years if we should have more of the same by voting a strong Bush ally, or if it's time for a change. Personally I'd love a change, but the Democratic party has given me little hope there is a decent alternative.
First off I'm no Bush fan at all. However, he is the elected leader and we are stuck with him for another few years. The Clinton impeachment was a dumb waste of time, and should be an embarassment to the Republican politicians that voted for impeachment. I believe impeachment should never be used unless in the most dire circumstances; not just for political gain as was the case for Clinton. Fact of the matter is, there's just not enough information at this point to support impeachment. We impeach two presidents in a row, we're setting up each future president for impeachment for minor issues.
Besides what would change? Cheney would be president, so not much. Sure, Congress could impeach both Bush and Cheney, then we're stuck with Hastert. I guess if the Democrats gained control they could impeach Bush and Cheney and hope their Speaker of the House gets a nice promotion. Personally, that's almost like a coup in a sort of way and I would hope wouldn't happen unless there is a very strong reason behind it.
The voters can decide in a few years if we should have more of the same by voting a strong Bush ally, or if it's time for a change. Personally I'd love a change, but the Democratic party has given me little hope there is a decent alternative.
Yes, good first post. If Bush were to be impeached, I would prefer to have Cheney go with the package :beer:
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Mardeth
Platinum Member
- Jul 24, 2002
- 2,608
- 0
- 0
Impeachment would be symbolic more then anything else. It would show the world that you dont actually agree with his methods, that you think for yourself and that if your not satisfied you actually do something about it. Step to a right direction. After all much of anti-americanism is actually anti-bush...
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
For consideration again:
Impeachment? Try a trial for treason.
4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-- No probable cause is presented, yet the government is searching our electronic effects without warrants. This goes against the documents our nation was founded on.
Article VI, US Constitution
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Sounds pretty clear. The Bush administration has authorized searching of citizens' effects, which is illegal per the 4th Amendment. Article VI of the Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land, and the President must also obey that law.
Presidential oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
He has not defended the Constitution. To the contrary, he has intentionally violated parts of its very core. At the very least that counts as lying under oath.
Taking it a bit further:
treason
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country. He violated the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, after swearing an oath to protect and defend it.
Impeachment? Try a trial for treason.
4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-- No probable cause is presented, yet the government is searching our electronic effects without warrants. This goes against the documents our nation was founded on.
Article VI, US Constitution
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Sounds pretty clear. The Bush administration has authorized searching of citizens' effects, which is illegal per the 4th Amendment. Article VI of the Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land, and the President must also obey that law.
Presidential oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
He has not defended the Constitution. To the contrary, he has intentionally violated parts of its very core. At the very least that counts as lying under oath.
Taking it a bit further:
treason
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country. He violated the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, after swearing an oath to protect and defend it.
This is a blatant repost, but the bigger question that begs for an anwer is:
Who in the hell were you, before you were banned, brainiac?
Who in the hell were you, before you were banned, brainiac?
Impeaching Clinton for his transgressions but not impeaching Bush for his would send a very disturbing message to not only the world, but our society now and in the future, about the priorities of the American system. IMHO.
It would be no surprise however. Simply view the American ethos in regards to violence and sex as proof. We, as a whole, have an almost unlimited appetite for violence and gore and don't blink when the most brutal, horrific of violent acts is simulated on prime time TV. Simulate sex too graphically however, one of the most natural acts a human being can engage in and the second strongest instinct human's possess, or, lord have mercy, show nudity on prime TV and all hell breaks loose and the wrath of the government is brought down upon broadcasters.
Impeach for sex and lying.... complain and express outrage over sex on TV.
Ignore disastrous war resulting in tens of thousands of dead civillians alone and avalanche of lies in support of it... eagerly lap up violence and gore on our way to making the CSI franchise billions.
Sick, sick, sick.
It would be no surprise however. Simply view the American ethos in regards to violence and sex as proof. We, as a whole, have an almost unlimited appetite for violence and gore and don't blink when the most brutal, horrific of violent acts is simulated on prime time TV. Simulate sex too graphically however, one of the most natural acts a human being can engage in and the second strongest instinct human's possess, or, lord have mercy, show nudity on prime TV and all hell breaks loose and the wrath of the government is brought down upon broadcasters.
Impeach for sex and lying.... complain and express outrage over sex on TV.
Ignore disastrous war resulting in tens of thousands of dead civillians alone and avalanche of lies in support of it... eagerly lap up violence and gore on our way to making the CSI franchise billions.
Sick, sick, sick.
Please try not to rewrite this rather despicable history now that it's convienant.
Sure, it was a half-assed impeachment (due to lack of numbers in the Senate I believe but feel free to correct me) but it was still an impeachment... only the second president ever to suffer that vote in Congress.
Certainly Bush also deserves at least this 'Impeachment-Lite' judging by the standard set against Clinton?
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Please try not to rewrite this rather despicable history now that it's convienant.
Sure, it was a half-assed impeachment (due to lack of numbers in the Senate I believe but feel free to correct me) but it was still an impeachment... only the second president ever to suffer that vote in Congress.
Certainly Bush also deserves at least this 'Impeachment-Lite' judging by the standard set against Clinton?
When you wake up from your wet dream, and Bush has sailed out to the Carribean, or wherever he is going, then please let history mark his impeachment. It's not gonna happen. He opened a can of worms, that will not be closed in his presidency. He may need to apply for an Executive Extension, so he can finish his business.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Please try not to rewrite this rather despicable history now that it's convienant.
Sure, it was a half-assed impeachment (due to lack of numbers in the Senate I believe but feel free to correct me) but it was still an impeachment... only the second president ever to suffer that vote in Congress.
Certainly Bush also deserves at least this 'Impeachment-Lite' judging by the standard set against Clinton?
When you wake up from your wet dream, and Bush has sailed out to the Carribean, or wherever he is going, then please let history mark his impeachment. It's not gonna happen. He opened a can of worms, that will not be closed in his presidency. He may need to apply for an Executive Extension, so he can finish his business.
I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if Bush tried to remain president beyond his term. Viva la revolution!
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Please try not to rewrite this rather despicable history now that it's convienant.
Sure, it was a half-assed impeachment (due to lack of numbers in the Senate I believe but feel free to correct me) but it was still an impeachment... only the second president ever to suffer that vote in Congress.
Certainly Bush also deserves at least this 'Impeachment-Lite' judging by the standard set against Clinton?
When you wake up from your wet dream, and Bush has sailed out to the Carribean, or wherever he is going, then please let history mark his impeachment. It's not gonna happen. He opened a can of worms, that will not be closed in his presidency. He may need to apply for an Executive Extension, so he can finish his business.
I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if Bush tried to remain president beyond his term. Viva la revolution!
He's already indicated to congress that exact intent! Too tired to find the link, but I read this somewhere, in the past few weeks. Unless someone else finds it, I'll find it and be back tomorrow.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Please try not to rewrite this rather despicable history now that it's convienant.
Sure, it was a half-assed impeachment (due to lack of numbers in the Senate I believe but feel free to correct me) but it was still an impeachment... only the second president ever to suffer that vote in Congress.
Certainly Bush also deserves at least this 'Impeachment-Lite' judging by the standard set against Clinton?
When you wake up from your wet dream, and Bush has sailed out to the Carribean, or wherever he is going, then please let history mark his impeachment. It's not gonna happen. He opened a can of worms, that will not be closed in his presidency. He may need to apply for an Executive Extension, so he can finish his business.
I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if Bush tried to remain president beyond his term. Viva la revolution!
He's already indicated to congress that exact intent! Too tired to find the link, but I read this somewhere, in the past few weeks. Unless someone else finds it, I'll find it and be back tomorrow.
Could you perhaps sound a little less excited about this potential hijacking of the system?
PS: You sure that wasn't an April fool's 'article'? There was one posted here that sounds similar to what you're talking about.
Let's hope it was.
I hesitantly say no.
btw, Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.
If I remember right, his impeachment had a 35% public approval rating.
I think Bush's would be higher by a bit.
btw, Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.
If I remember right, his impeachment had a 35% public approval rating.
I think Bush's would be higher by a bit.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
PS: You sure that wasn't an April fool's 'article'? There was one posted here that sounds similar to what you're talking about.
Let's hope it was.
I think that was my post from the enquirer for april fools, I would be out waving my pitchfork and torches with the masses if it was true.
And yeah, indict NOT impeach him and his regime straight off to the hauge.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter