We need to open our eyes...

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
First Clinton is impeached, and now Bush has committed impeachable acts and may (probably not, though) be impeached...what the hell is wrong with Americans for electing these politicians? Not only that, but look at all the scandals...and you know what the problem is? It's the fact that politics has become a career for people...it's become about which group can promise enough to a certain group to win enough votes and stay in power. Republicans and democrats have no TRUE idealogy...and that's why we have sleezebags in office.

/Rant.
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
Ask yourself why someone would spend $367,228,801 for a job that pays $400,000 a year.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
First Clinton is impeached, and now Bush has committed impeachable acts and may (probably not, though) be impeached...what the hell is wrong with Americans for electing these politicians? Not only that, but look at all the scandals...and you know what the problem is? It's the fact that politics has become a career for people...it's become about which group can promise enough to a certain group to win enough votes and stay in power. Republicans and democrats have no TRUE idealogy...and that's why we have sleezebags in office.

/Rant.

I say impeach the whole damn couintry!! That way everybody gets the message!!!
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
The downside of democracy is that we CAN'T blame the politicians, if they are corrupt, it's our fault for being too dumb to elect better people. Of course it's easy to bitch about the system giving us only "two choices", but it's not like there is a law MAKING you vote for one of the two major parties.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
First Clinton is impeached, and now Bush has committed impeachable acts and may (probably not, though) be impeached...what the hell is wrong with Americans for electing these politicians? Not only that, but look at all the scandals...and you know what the problem is? It's the fact that politics has become a career for people...it's become about which group can promise enough to a certain group to win enough votes and stay in power. Republicans and democrats have no TRUE idealogy...and that's why we have sleezebags in office.

/Rant.

First off, you are going with the assumption that Clinton was flawed. Considering the past leaders of this country and their promescuity, I don't think a BJ should have been grounds for any type of investigation. It was a travesty that the impeachment process was used in the first place. Yes, he lied under oath. Yes, that is wrong. No, he should not have been investigated and he certainly shouldn't have been impeached.

The Rs of the 90's utilized the most serious tool to remove an abusive executive that this country has as a politican assasination tool. The blatant manipulation is despicable.

Bush, however, has comitted crimes against the Constitution and much more serious laws. I think investigations will uncover rampant abuse of power and a deception of truth greater than anything this country has ever faced. If, in fact, this is true, he should undoubtedly be impeached.

I would agree that Americans are too reactionary and the pendulum swings too far.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Ask yourself why someone would spend $367,228,801 for a job that pays $400,000 a year.
I'd spend $367m of other people's money for a $400k job.
Hell I'm sure I could get some sweet perks too. :)
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Ask yourself why someone would spend $367,228,801 for a job that pays $400,000 a year.
I'd spend $367m of other people's money for a $400k job.
Hell I'm sure I could get some sweet perks too. :)

There's also the power and prestige thing. You get to be "leader of the free world" for 4 years.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
We have open records acts and nobody flexes them. When I flex the act here in Colorado every agency has to be kicked int he butt cause I am the only person in the state that seems to flex it.

Watch these fvcks people and let them know you are wathing them!!!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
First Clinton is impeached, and now Bush has committed impeachable acts and may (probably not, though) be impeached...what the hell is wrong with Americans for electing these politicians? Not only that, but look at all the scandals...and you know what the problem is? It's the fact that politics has become a career for people...it's become about which group can promise enough to a certain group to win enough votes and stay in power. Republicans and democrats have no TRUE idealogy...and that's why we have sleezebags in office.

/Rant.
First off, you are going with the assumption that Clinton was flawed. Considering the past leaders of this country and their promescuity, I don't think a BJ should have been grounds for any type of investigation. It was a travesty that the impeachment process was used in the first place. Yes, he lied under oath. Yes, that is wrong. No, he should not have been investigated and he certainly shouldn't have been impeached.

The Rs of the 90's utilized the most serious tool to remove an abusive executive that this country has as a politican assasination tool. The blatant manipulation is despicable.

Bush, however, has comitted crimes against the Constitution and much more serious laws. I think investigations will uncover rampant abuse of power and a deception of truth greater than anything this country has ever faced. If, in fact, this is true, he should undoubtedly be impeached.

I would agree that Americans are too reactionary and the pendulum swings too far.
What crime did Bush commite? You guys say this over and over but can not name the law or show any evidence of proof.

"He lied about he war" etc etc You can't even prove that he actually lied.

All the wishing in the world will not turn up a crime, but keep working on it.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

What crime did Bush commite? You guys say this over and over but can not name the law or show any evidence of proof.

"He lied about he war" etc etc You can't even prove that he actually lied.

All the wishing in the world will not turn up a crime, but keep working on it.

Hopefully some well conducted investigations will turn up these crimes. Then we'll see what happens then.
 

bobdelt

Senior member
May 26, 2006
918
0
0
Considering the past leaders of this country and their promescuity, I don't think a BJ should have been grounds for any type of investigation. It was a travesty that the impeachment process was used in the first place.

the past leaders owned slaves... is ok to do that now too?

 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
First Clinton is impeached, and now Bush has committed impeachable acts and may (probably not, though) be impeached...what the hell is wrong with Americans for electing these politicians? Not only that, but look at all the scandals...and you know what the problem is? It's the fact that politics has become a career for people...it's become about which group can promise enough to a certain group to win enough votes and stay in power. Republicans and democrats have no TRUE idealogy...and that's why we have sleezebags in office.

/Rant.

We vote the options we're given. And we're not given many good options.

What do you get for running? An anal probe from the media, that's what. (That probe is not removable once you take office BTW) I've posted my observations on this subject many times in threads just like this over and over... The net result is that we get the people who are the best at hiding their skeletons. In other words... we get the corrupt a-holes who know how to cover their asses.

We demand such perfection from out politicians (Ever smoke pot? Ever cheat on your wife? Ever contract a "social disease"? Buh bye) that nobody can live up to the ideal. So we end up with the candidates most capable of presenting that ideal. Who can do that? Pathological liars and others who know exactly where to hide the dirty laundry.

As an electorate we're a lot like the idiot at the bar who turns down dance after dance because we're only going to dance with playboy centerfold lookalikes. In the end, misled by our beer goggles, we go home with a wildebeast.

 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Exactly my point...Americans continue to elect them because they promise us certain things and we buy into them. What happens when we continue to buy into them? Our government gets bigger and bigger and bigger regardless of who we elect. Our taxes go up and up and up...the tyranny of the majority allows more laws to get passed, and nobody seems to realize that they are the problem.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
We vote the options we're given. And we're not given many good options.

What do you get for running? An anal probe from the media, that's what. (That probe is not removable once you take office BTW) I've posted my observations on this subject many times in threads just like this over and over... The net result is that we get the people who are the best at hiding their skeletons. In other words... we get the corrupt a-holes who know how to cover their asses.

We demand such perfection from out politicians (Ever smoke pot? Ever cheat on your wife? Ever contract a "social disease"? Buh bye) that nobody can live up to the ideal. So we end up with the candidates most capable of presenting that ideal. Who can do that? Pathological liars and others who know exactly where to hide the dirty laundry.

As an electorate we're a lot like the idiot at the bar who turns down dance after dance because we're only going to dance with playboy centerfold lookalikes. In the end, misled by our beer goggles, we go home with a wildebeast.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are perfectly good people out there - those who haven't smoked pot, cheated on their wife, or been involved in other scandals. However, they are not part of this nation's aristocratic class. Our aristocracy has so much money and power that they have nothing better to do than have their interns smoke cigars with their crotches. They have enough money and power to perpetuate their money and power while keeping others from rising to their level. I've never smoked anything, but I know that I can never run for president because I wasn't born into the right circle. That is the problem with our political system.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
First Clinton is impeached, and now Bush has committed impeachable acts and may (probably not, though) be impeached...what the hell is wrong with Americans for electing these politicians? Not only that, but look at all the scandals...and you know what the problem is? It's the fact that politics has become a career for people...it's become about which group can promise enough to a certain group to win enough votes and stay in power. Republicans and democrats have no TRUE idealogy...and that's why we have sleezebags in office.

/Rant.
First off, you are going with the assumption that Clinton was flawed. Considering the past leaders of this country and their promescuity, I don't think a BJ should have been grounds for any type of investigation. It was a travesty that the impeachment process was used in the first place. Yes, he lied under oath. Yes, that is wrong. No, he should not have been investigated and he certainly shouldn't have been impeached.

The Rs of the 90's utilized the most serious tool to remove an abusive executive that this country has as a politican assasination tool. The blatant manipulation is despicable.

Bush, however, has comitted crimes against the Constitution and much more serious laws. I think investigations will uncover rampant abuse of power and a deception of truth greater than anything this country has ever faced. If, in fact, this is true, he should undoubtedly be impeached.

I would agree that Americans are too reactionary and the pendulum swings too far.
What crime did Bush commite? You guys say this over and over but can not name the law or show any evidence of proof.

"He lied about he war" etc etc You can't even prove that he actually lied.

All the wishing in the world will not turn up a crime, but keep working on it.

Besides the whole weapons of mass destruction thing, no there really isn't any evidence.

I don't know if you've noticed ProfJohn, the amount of documentaries and literature that has been produced about the Bush Administration is astounding. If I were Bush, I'd be sure as hell to be cooperative with the Democrats as much as possible. The American public isn't as once of approving of the Bush Administration as it once was.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Tab
Besides the whole weapons of mass destruction thing, no there really isn't any evidence.

I don't know if you've noticed ProfJohn, the amount of documentaries and literature that has been produced about the Bush Administration is astounding. If I were Bush, I'd be sure as hell to be cooperative with the Democrats as much as possible. The American public isn't as once of approving of the Bush Administration as it once was.
Ummm look at the number of books that came out about Clinton as well.
Every President has this problem. The big difference between Clinton and Bush is that anyone with a camera and a computer can make a movie these days.

BTW: What WMD thing? The ones that Bush and every Democrat and Republican as well as every country in the world THOUGHT Saddam had?

If I told you it was sunny and 80 today and you repeated that line to a friend are you guilty of telling a lie? Or just repeating false information?

BTW: Remember the parts to Saddam's nuclear program that were found in the lead scientists back yard? I guess the fact that Saddam was planning on restarting the Nuke program the second he could does not count as a WMD program to you?

Let me ask you this? cops watch a drug dealer on the corner make deal after deal. Then one day they raid his house and find nothing? Does that mean he is no longer drug dealer? Or does it just mean he didn?t have drugs on him at that TIME?

The only way you are going to impeach Bush is through some investigation you find some damning evidence. Like a memo where Bush admits to knowing something he said was false before he said it? I highly doubt that will happen based on Bush?s character.
Remember the Bush White House has been nearly scandal free. Name me one Bush appointee who had to resign due to a criminal investigation?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: DishonestJohn
What crime did Bush commite? You guys say this over and over but can not name the law or show any evidence of proof.

"He lied about he war" etc etc You can't even prove that he actually lied.

All the wishing in the world will not turn up a crime, but keep working on it.
So, now that your loser of a President had his ass handed to him on a plate, you're going to play stupid and ropadope with us? Or are you just going to tell us you haven't watched or listened to any news for the last six years or even posted to support your lame ass criminal President.

Would you like to start with more than 750 violations? This story from The Boston Globe lists them over seven pages. The article's way too long to repost so I'll post just some of it. You'll just have to read the entire article for the rest.
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006


WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
.
.
On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.

Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military..
.

Oversight questioned
Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.

On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating ''whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing.

When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.

When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections.
.
.
Bush could challenge each of these charges in a court of law, but the fact that the accusations have been raised and that they are serious charges means the place to address and resolve them is in a court of law.

You can try to question the validity of these violations, but I challenge you to prove that you're sufficiently versed in the law to speak with any authority whatsoever on the subject.

Of course, all of that doesn't begin to address holding the Criminal In Chief and his henchmen responsible for their blatant violations of international law and the U.S. Constitution and Bush's personal disregard for his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

You were funnier, yesterday, when you were copying Rush Limbaugh's game by claiming you were some kind of true Republican conservative who didn't support what the Bushwhackos and their Congressional criminal cohorts. When you were asked why you changed the title of this thread, you replied:
It is not denial. It is called having a sense of humor.

Remember the old Saturday Night Live Gilda Radnor character that ramble on and on and then find out that she misheard something and end her bit with the line "Nevermind"

Us conservatitives have a sense of humor too.
All I could do was to remind you:
On "Saturday Night Live," we knew Gilda Radner was doing humor. I find little reason to laugh about almost 3,000 dead and tens of thousand wounded American troops in a war based on your fearless, brainless leader's lies. :(
Deny it all you want. Nothing's changed. You're still a pathetic, lying POS Bushwhacko sycophant. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
Originally posted by: DishonestJohn
Ummm look at the number of books that came out about Clinton as well.
Buahahahaha!!! And of course, you had to dive back into the swamp to add yet another version of the old "point at Clinton" distraction.

Ignore the man behind the curtain. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I totally disagree with the assertion the GWB will not see criminal charges successfully pressed against him---not only does GWB outright lie, he also commits provable violations of US law,
and to top it off---he may yet be the first President to be charged as an international war criminal.

Once the facts are exposed---GWB MAY well be in a heap of trouble.

And Non-Prof John---just a word of advice---with your track record of bad predictions---I would advise you not to say never.
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Already Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales are going to be charged for war crimes. Makes you wonder what will happen to monkey-boy and Dead-eye after they're constitutionally ineligible to lead.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What crime did Bush commite? You guys say this over and over but can not name the law or show any evidence of proof.
Going AWOL is a crime.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
First Clinton is impeached, and now Bush has committed impeachable acts and may (probably not, though) be impeached...what the hell is wrong with Americans for electing these politicians? Not only that, but look at all the scandals...and you know what the problem is? It's the fact that politics has become a career for people...it's become about which group can promise enough to a certain group to win enough votes and stay in power. Republicans and democrats have no TRUE idealogy...and that's why we have sleezebags in office.

/Rant.

Elect me, you'll still have a sleezebag in Office but at least not a career Politician. :D
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
We vote the options we're given. And we're not given many good options.

What do you get for running? An anal probe from the media, that's what. (That probe is not removable once you take office BTW) I've posted my observations on this subject many times in threads just like this over and over... The net result is that we get the people who are the best at hiding their skeletons. In other words... we get the corrupt a-holes who know how to cover their asses.

We demand such perfection from out politicians (Ever smoke pot? Ever cheat on your wife? Ever contract a "social disease"? Buh bye) that nobody can live up to the ideal. So we end up with the candidates most capable of presenting that ideal. Who can do that? Pathological liars and others who know exactly where to hide the dirty laundry.

As an electorate we're a lot like the idiot at the bar who turns down dance after dance because we're only going to dance with playboy centerfold lookalikes. In the end, misled by our beer goggles, we go home with a wildebeast.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are perfectly good people out there - those who haven't smoked pot, cheated on their wife, or been involved in other scandals. However, they are not part of this nation's aristocratic class. Our aristocracy has so much money and power that they have nothing better to do than have their interns smoke cigars with their crotches. They have enough money and power to perpetuate their money and power while keeping others from rising to their level. I've never smoked anything, but I know that I can never run for president because I wasn't born into the right circle. That is the problem with our political system.

I made a much longer and more detailed post on this subject a while back that covered that issue as well. Above is the Cliff's Notes version.

It's not that a regular guy can't get into national politics. There are pleanty of crooks in congress that weren't born into the right circles. It happens all the time in the house... a little less often in the senate. But the basic take is that a nice normal guy up against a snake... well, the mouse tends to lose those confrontations.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Elect me, you'll still have a sleezebag in Office but at least not a career Politician. :D


Citizens of Planet Earth - I will even submit to Electro-Shock Treatment if it helps me lead the nation for the good of humanity . .

I need your volts :shocked: