Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
I voted no. I don't believe warrantless wiretapping constitutes a "high" crime. I'd have forgiven Clinton of the same act under the same circumstances. Tenshodo is right. The result of terrorist attacks extends beyond the immediate casualties. A secondary casualty is the loss of some rights which follows.
If wiretapping is the best accusation you have against Bush, I think your foundation is rickety.
If wiretapping is the best accusation you have against Bush, I think your foundation is rickety.
You guys scare the shit out of me. You honestly think that because terrorists attacked us that one of the cornerstones of the bill of rights no longer applies and that the president can violate lawfully enacted statutes in secret without consequence. Creepy.
I honestly cannot think of a more powerful accusation that could be leveled against a president. He committed a felony in order to infringe upon the constitutional rights of American citizens, did so in secret, and publicly lied to the country when he stated he was doing otherwise.
I cannot understand how anyone who understands the basis for the constitution or the bill of rights could be okay with this.
I really can't believe this either. While these ninnies are pissing their pants in fear of "trrsts", the rest of us have to deal with diminished rights.
Atreus is probably one of those airport TSA workers who thinks he's doing a righteous job and pushes around people for having bottles .01oz over the limit.
People like that are disgusting and are no more than tools of tyrrany.
What did Bush do? It was Congress that authorized the war, not the president! Elected Officials that voted for the funding for the war should all be charged with violating the constitution, and thrown in jail. This is the ultimate logic. The president had a mandate from the people for the war, because their authorized representatives that they voted in office, voted for the funds for the war. So Impeachment on those grounds would be unconstitutional.
1. They authorized the ability to use force, not war. It is left to his best judgement how to carry that out, his judgement has been horrible. If you are given the ability to drive by the state does that absolve you from going out and running down people?
2. The authorization was given based upon false data, intentionally false data. They *KNEW* that it was wrong. They *KNEW* they were misrepresenting the facts. They *KNEW* they were misleading Congress and the US public.
3. He had a mandate to use force, not to fuck up the entire situation, abuse our rights, and, in general, commit crimes against humanity.
4. He violated the Bill of Rights, our legal system, circumvented the judiciary branch. All of which are impeachable offenses.
Personally, he should have already been tried and found guilty.
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
Oh nothing, just that MSNBC is crazy left biased so their site might attract more lefties that would vote yes. If this poll were on Fox, which tends to be more conservative, the results would probably be different. So I take this poll with a grain of salt.
I really don't think that the best question one should ask themselves is, "Does Bush deserve to be impeached?" Instead, I believe the better question would be to ask is, "What are the Pros and the Cons if Bush did get impeached?" To me, it makes no sense to impeach him just because I don't like the guy or disagree with his methods. I am far more concerned with how the whole world will react should an impeachment occur. I want to make a highly educated guess about whether or not it would be the best for this country as opposed to just letting him finish his term.
It wouldn't be *THAT* different. I'd also say that MSNBC isn't that left leaning, certainly not as much as Faux is right leaning.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Ignoring your incredibly biased assessment of MSNBC, all online polls should be taken with a grain of salt. They aren't even close to a representative scientific sampling.
That said, they're a lot of fun and they often offer insight into how popular passions are running on any given day.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
The single biggest, most terrifying con can be expressed in two words: President Cheney. Get Dick First.
I think impeachment would help America's image abroad, showing that our self-professed ideals about democracy and the rule of law are more than empty rhetoric. It would have helped a lot more had we done it two or three years ago.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Yes, I honestly think that. A lawfully enacted statute that protects privacy is reasonably breached if there's a search for terrorist activity. Now, I would be disgusted if they were rounding up dissenting citizens en masse like a gestapo. But until that happens, I don't view attempting to listen in on suspected terrorists' conversations as an impeachable offense.
You can't think of a more powerful accusation than he invaded people's privacy? I can, and the Jews can too.
It probably would for the most part. However, I am not certain if that is all it would do and that's the point. I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to impeachment.
Folks, keep in mind that my post was not intended to show signs of being for or against impeachment. I am just trying to open your minds a bit so that no one swallows what appears to be the obvious answer without at least critically thinking it through all of the way. Impeachment isn't exactly something which happens often in the US. Nor is it something which anyone here can say that they have first hand experience with. I am not saying it is a bad idea at this point, but it most certainly deserves the time and attention of several experts to sit down and really come up with educated predictions of how it will effect our country from all angles. To ignore such details is downright foolish, irresponsible, and irreversible should an impeachment occur. Do not take it lightly.
So about 11 score and change years ago, the founders of our nation fought a bloody war, prevailed, and forged a new form of government based nearly entirely on the precept that the best form of government is not a government of men, but a government of laws.
They rather cleverly codified this in a self-protecting constitution, and managed to convince pretty much everyone here (and many abroad) of the wisdom of their vision.
Fast-forward to present day, when an entire political movement has managed to convince, scare, confuse, or otherwise befuddle enough people to essentially render that original vision of the founders moot; today, we are governed by a party that believes that it is right, meet, and salutary to break the law if the law gets in the way of its goals.
The "opposition" party seems about equally divided into two factions - those that agree in principle with the ruling party, and those that don't but are too afraid of backlash and/or invested in their current fiefdoms to make anything other than timid, not-even-rising-to-symbolic-level peeps against this travesty.
Essentially, the U.S. Government as envisioned by the founders and codified in the Constitution is for all intents and purposes is broken. It may in fact be defunct - but its reasonably familiar shape and intermittent spastic twitching seems to provide enough hope for enough folks so that it's not really worth it to actually investigate the matter.
Impeachment may be off the table; maybe this won't go anywhere, but I, and obviously millions of Americans, have had to sit by for years watching Bush and Co break the law.
I am more than happy to finally have the full list of their law breaking entered into the Congressional Record. It's about time!
They rather cleverly codified this in a self-protecting constitution, and managed to convince pretty much everyone here (and many abroad) of the wisdom of their vision.
Fast-forward to present day, when an entire political movement has managed to convince, scare, confuse, or otherwise befuddle enough people to essentially render that original vision of the founders moot; today, we are governed by a party that believes that it is right, meet, and salutary to break the law if the law gets in the way of its goals.
The "opposition" party seems about equally divided into two factions - those that agree in principle with the ruling party, and those that don't but are too afraid of backlash and/or invested in their current fiefdoms to make anything other than timid, not-even-rising-to-symbolic-level peeps against this travesty.
Essentially, the U.S. Government as envisioned by the founders and codified in the Constitution is for all intents and purposes is broken. It may in fact be defunct - but its reasonably familiar shape and intermittent spastic twitching seems to provide enough hope for enough folks so that it's not really worth it to actually investigate the matter.
Impeachment may be off the table; maybe this won't go anywhere, but I, and obviously millions of Americans, have had to sit by for years watching Bush and Co break the law.
I am more than happy to finally have the full list of their law breaking entered into the Congressional Record. It's about time!
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