That's an *outstanding* bill.
It reflect the same principles the US, JFK, stood for as space exploration began.
Just because he included the broad list of potential weapons the Pentagon has investigated or may well investigate has no impact on the qualities of the bill.
You don't think the use of mood altering and other agents has been studied? For what it's worth, the bill doesn't say 'earthquake weapon' anywhere in it that I see.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Interesting considering this has been my opinion for several years and my posts reflect as much.
Amazing when you actually read what I post instead of reading what you THINK I posted. Thanks for that
I remember watching the Republican impeachment circus in the 90s and sadly noting that in addition to the vast waste of time and money the GOP instigated with their crusade against Clinton, that because of their conduct and their clearly politically-motivated impeachment drive, no president would ever be impeached again, regardless of what they did.
Since it remains a constitutional tool available for functional government, even though the media paints it as this nasty weapon of last resort, somehow a sign of a system gone wrong - ignoring the fact that the high crimes and misdemeanors are what's gone wrong; the impeachment is intended as a remedy for it.
But because of their nonsense, the GOP have likely forever taken impeachment off the table. The circus impeachment of Clinton was the best high crimes and misdemeanors insurance GW Bush could ever have hoped for - it paved the way for the abuses of Bush and Cheney, safeguarded them. The moral cowardice of the Democrats (and the media's complicity and complacency in the face of Bush administration wrongdoing) fully enabled a rogue administration to continue to abuse its power.
It is necessary for our nation's soul to renew our commitment to being a nation of laws, not men.
The enabling of corruption and war profiteering, and the wholesale trashing of our Constitutional laws. The people of this country have a right to know what happened and an obligation to punish the guilty so the next would-be king will be squelched before he begins.
Since it remains a constitutional tool available for functional government, even though the media paints it as this nasty weapon of last resort, somehow a sign of a system gone wrong - ignoring the fact that the high crimes and misdemeanors are what's gone wrong; the impeachment is intended as a remedy for it.
But because of their nonsense, the GOP have likely forever taken impeachment off the table. The circus impeachment of Clinton was the best high crimes and misdemeanors insurance GW Bush could ever have hoped for - it paved the way for the abuses of Bush and Cheney, safeguarded them. The moral cowardice of the Democrats (and the media's complicity and complacency in the face of Bush administration wrongdoing) fully enabled a rogue administration to continue to abuse its power.
It is necessary for our nation's soul to renew our commitment to being a nation of laws, not men.
The enabling of corruption and war profiteering, and the wholesale trashing of our Constitutional laws. The people of this country have a right to know what happened and an obligation to punish the guilty so the next would-be king will be squelched before he begins.
At the very least, Kucinich is giving Americans one last look at the Constitution as it swirls around the toilet bowl on its way down.
Kuinich has done something admirable here and, despite your myopic outlook, also something potentially productive for the historical record. Anyone who retains the hope that this country will eventually extricate itself from the sordid legacy of this administration AND of the current ?mainstream media? will certainly not share your assessment of the value of Mr. Kucinich?s action.
If nothing else, Kucinich has introduced into the congressional record a bill of particulars or statement of facts about which history will surely render a judgment, regardless of whether Ms. Pelosi and others in this congress are willing to address those facts.
I may be wrong; but I?m willing to bet that most people will be glad that someone actually cared enough to do that.
I wonder, in the final analysis, who will really be considered more worthy of derision, Dennis Kucinich or the ?mainstream media? and this administration? Mr. Kucinich, to his credit, has risen to the task of documenting the facts that should allow a fair judgment by a revitalized citizenry with a more enlightened understanding of the principles upon which this nation was founded.
It?s too bad that the ?mainstream media? remains unwilling to acknowledge their part in providing that information to the public.
No, we don't. Why don't you list it?
No, we don't. It looks to me like simply what it appears, a bill to maintain our original policy against the militarization of space, and to block the deployment of weapons there.
So, it errs on the side of including a long list of speculative weapons. So what?
Let's say that's completely wrong. It's pretty harmless that it included it in the list, IMO.
Same with the 'tectonic weapons'. It's a forward-looking bill including things 'just in case'.
It's the first I've heard of tectonic weapons. For what it's worth, the 'conspiracy theorists' discussing them seem to mainly quote one speech by the Sec. of Defense in 1997:
Now, I have no view whether they're legitimate or not (theoretically), but I don't think it changes the outstanding bill insofar as maintaining the lack of militarization of space.
This is a site that discusses some of the technologies referenced in the bill, and the bill.
Hey... I obliged him with a long post, fully documented with facts, links, names, dates and quotes, that would have taken far longer to write if I didn't copy some of the formatted links and text from previous posts.
The truth in what I posted hasn't changed since I first wrote those various original posts. I bill a lot of money per hour to design high quality electronic products. If blackangst1 wants to pay me at that rate to compose entirely original text every time I post the same facts, quotes and links to the same lies, distortions and distractions by the same ass licking Bushwhacko sycophants, I'm more than willing to accomodate him.
The fact that he hasn't replied to post ANY documented facts to challenge ANYTHING in my post should be taken to mean that he can't.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
There is one total falsehood in this Laura Kellerman link--------namely----House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago declared the prospects for impeachment proceedings "off the table."
That is and remains a myth. Pelosi, as an initial olive branch when the dems took over the house in early 2007, took impeachment off the immediate agenda table, it bought GWB a honeymoon period, but Pelosi still retains the right to place impeachment right back on the table at any time.
Maybe the Kucinich impeachment resolution will die in committee, but it still can get new life at any time as it reemerges bigger, better, and stronger if GWB chooses to continue to flaunt the law or new evidence comes forward. The next test may occur on July 10, when Rove has a command performance before a house committee, if Rove does not show as GWB claims powers he does not have, we may well see the Kucinich impeachment resolution pass the full house.
That is and remains a myth. Pelosi, as an initial olive branch when the dems took over the house in early 2007, took impeachment off the immediate agenda table, it bought GWB a honeymoon period, but Pelosi still retains the right to place impeachment right back on the table at any time.
Maybe the Kucinich impeachment resolution will die in committee, but it still can get new life at any time as it reemerges bigger, better, and stronger if GWB chooses to continue to flaunt the law or new evidence comes forward. The next test may occur on July 10, when Rove has a command performance before a house committee, if Rove does not show as GWB claims powers he does not have, we may well see the Kucinich impeachment resolution pass the full house.
I don't think Rove not showing will trigged the impeachment, unless Bush does something absurd and unexpected. It may result in action against Rove - hopefully.
Well, I did use the word apparently, because I wasn't sure what the no votes meant.
I figured since the yes votes were the majority that tabled it, the no votes might mean they wanted to not table it for it to be discussed.
I figured there was a chance they meant something else, like the Republicans wanting it to get debated, like they did the Cheney amendmant, but hadn't yet checked, so I added the 'apparently' to allow for the possibility. Looks like, based on your post, my suspicion was right and my assumption was wrong, and he did not have nearly that much agreement.
I was pretty (pleasantly) surprised to see 166 come out for him against the leadership.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Before the GOP parties too hardy, they may want to review what happened less than 32 years ago with Nixon. In early July of 1974, a Nixon impeachment or convictions was thought to be still impossible. Then some new evidence came out, and on August 4, of 1974, Nixon resigned rather than face almost certain impeachment and conviction.
We in the present may be unable to foresee the immediate future and the ways in which events can interact. But if nothing else, the Kucinich blueprint is now in place, and if needed, events can proceed at a quicker pace.
All Fern has demonstrated is that the accused may not get their battlefield on their terms, but it does not demonstrate that a future battle will or will not occur.
We in the present may be unable to foresee the immediate future and the ways in which events can interact. But if nothing else, the Kucinich blueprint is now in place, and if needed, events can proceed at a quicker pace.
All Fern has demonstrated is that the accused may not get their battlefield on their terms, but it does not demonstrate that a future battle will or will not occur.
Sadly, the presidents stopped recording their oval office conversations after Watergate. I don't think we'd have much lack of evidence for impeachment if Bush tapes were available.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Nope, demonstrates what everybody should know by now - the Dems are not going to impeach GWB. Period.
Pelosi & Reid have consistantly said so. And the Dems all fell inline and voted to send this bill to it's death in committee.
I don't know who will in charge of the next Congress (Dems I presume, but I mean leaders), but GWB will be out of office thus no impeachment.
Fern
Apparently, the Republicans were eager to see the Dems mired in a political battle to take down Bush vs. trying to deal with important issues.
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,649
- 2,925
- 136
Whoa, whoa , whoa..... I've been reading these P&N forums for a year or two now. I've seen the "important issues" sarcasm used with Roger Clemens, the Mitchell Report, Spygate, etc. and never taken issue with it. But with all of the Dem whining and ranting over Bush for the last 6 years, to trivialize an impeachment article with the "important issues" sarcasm seems awfully hypocritical.
I'll admit I don't know (and don't care) if you're Dem, GOP, Independent or whatever. But I think it's pretty clear from the sentiment in P&N that Articles of Impeachment do NOT deserve to be lumped into the "important issues" sarcasm with the drivel that usually deserves to be there.
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