Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
....for HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. One of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years. Blame Nancy Pelosi and the hypocritical Democrats who are equally disgusting.
Mennisco wrote:....for HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. One of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years. Blame Nancy Pelosi and the hypocritical Democrats who are equally disgusting.
Without looking it up....are you familiar with the process of impeachment?
Mennisco wrote:One of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years.
And that, my friends, is why we can't have this board open year-round. I don't even like Bush, but I sure as hell won't have my sitting President referred to as that. The additional obvious implication is that Americans must be too stupid to notice that he should have been 'deposed' long ago. He was a good man, in way over his head, who trusted his advisors and his own cowboy mentality far more than he should have.
Marlow wrote:He was a good man, in way over his head, who trusted his advisors and his own cowboy mentality far more than he should have.
You watch too many movies, Marlow... "W" wasn't a bio-pic.
But the point remains: even if he didn't purposefully do the things Mennisco indicates, does that absolve him from guilt? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for anyone.
Furthermore, he admitted to violating the FISA law (after assuring people that he would do no such thing), before it was retroactively updated.
JRM wrote:You watch too many movies, Marlow... "W" wasn't a bio-pic.
Didn't see it - ain't interested in seeing it - don't even like the guy (Bush or Stone). But anyone who has been paying attention for the last eight years can see the obvious. Oliver Stone must have seen what everyone else did. I expect the film is a caricature of GW, which means it contains psychological truth, if not literal.
JRM wrote:You watch too many movies, Marlow... "W" wasn't a bio-pic.
Didn't see it - ain't interested in seeing it - don't even like the guy (Bush or Stone). But anyone who has been paying attention for the last eight years can see the obvious. Oliver Stone must have seen what everyone else did. I expect the film is a caricature of GW, which means it contains psychological truth, if not literal.
Again: whether or not Bush is "a nice guy who got in over his head" is irrelevant insofar as the law is concerned. Who's in charge, the President or his advisors? And if he was at the whim of his advisors, doesn't that techincally make him a puppet (as Mennisco originally stated)?
Marlow wrote: I don't even like Bush, but I sure as hell won't have my sitting President referred to as that. The additional obvious implication is that Americans must be too stupid to notice that he should have been 'deposed' long ago. He was a good man, in way over his head, who trusted his advisors and his own cowboy mentality far more than he should have.
H.L. Mencken was right, Marlow. And I don't believe for one second you ain't doin' some serious butt kissin' by writin' what ya just did.
btw Marlow, if he lied about weapons of mass destruction and went killin' chix and kids as a consequence, that's evil. I know you claim to have attended Stanford but that don't impress me. You come off sounding like a dumb naive Yank singin' :
"Jingo Bells,
My Prez Don't Smell
O what the hell,
it's almost Xmas...."
Last edited by Mennisco on Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Impeachment as a tool has been used just twice, and both times were highly political farces. If it was going to be used responsibly then using it against the current President is certainly worthy of consideration (but so were a number of Presidencies in the past).
On the other hand I am not that unhappy it was not used. You must remember that this would just elevate Cheney to the Presidency.
bad hammy wrote:Impeachment as a tool has been used just twice, and both times were highly political farces.
Are you counting Nixon? Articles of Impeachment were drawn up before he resigned, were they not? That's hardly a political farce.
Nixon was in fact not impeached. Only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton hold that distinction. Nixon would have been had he not resigned - the Articles were in the making but not finalized or voted on yet. That would have been a much more righteous impeachment.
Marlow wrote: Menny, you are beginning to scare me - any back-slidin' going on?
If only. OH you mean that kind. Oh no, I'm at work and entertaining everyone. Just a little prep period.....
NOW - TO put a smile on da faces of y'all, may I say this reminds me of BUSH:
A cabbie picks up a Nun. She gets into the cab, and notices that the VERY handsome cab driver won't stop staring at her. She asks him why he is staring. He replies: 'I have a question to ask, but I don't want to offend you.' She answers, ' My son, you cannot offend me. When you're as old as I am and have been a nun as long as I have, you get a chance to see and hear just about everything. I'm sure that there's nothing you could say or ask that I would find offensive.' 'Well, I've always had a fantasy to have a nun kiss me.' She responds, 'Well, let's see what we can do about that: #1, you have to be single and #2, you must be Catholic.' The cab driver is very excited and says, 'Yes, I'm single and Catholic!' 'OK' the nun says. 'Pull into the next alley.' The nun fulfills his fantasy with a kiss that would make a hooker blush. But when they get back on the road, the cab driver starts crying. 'My dear child,' said the nun, 'Why are you crying?' 'Forgive me but I've sinned. I lied and I must confess; I'm married and I'm Jewish.'
The nun says, 'That's OK. My name is Kevin and I'm going to a Halloween party
Nice to see that the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on nut jobs!
Are you implying that Fein is left wing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein wrote:Fein served as an associate deputy attorney general from 1981 to 1982 and as general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission. In 1987, he served as the minority (minority party) research director of the committee in the United States House of Representatives that investigated the Iran-Contra Affair.
Fein has authored numerous articles on constitutional issues for The Washington Times, Slate.com, The New York Times, Legal Times, and is considered an authority on civil liberties. He has also worked for the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, both conservative think tanks, as an analyst and commentator.
Mennisco wrote:One of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years.
And that, my friends, is why we can't have this board open year-round. I don't even like Bush, but I sure as hell won't have my sitting President referred to as that.
Why???
What if he is "one of the biggest criminals in the last 100 years"? Shouldn't people be allowed to say so. I'm not saying it's the case but in the land of free speech I don't see why anyone should be offended by someone simply voicing there opinion about the President.
I think Americans in general are far too deferential over the office of President. You have good presidents and bad ones, saints and skanks, law abiding and criminal. Just because someone has reached the highest office in the land it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be as accountable for their actions as everybody else and respect shouldn't just be given to someone because they happen to be in charge they should have to earn it.
Lots can be said about your monarchy . . .shall I begin?
Bush may be many things, but he is not a criminal. If he were, that makes 99.999999% of Americans complicit in the crime, because we have not stopped him and put him behind bars. That makes us criminals also. Is that really how you think of us? If so, you are not welcome in our country, and should have nothing to do with ANY Americans, because we will just infect you with our moral malaise.
Marlow wrote: If he were, that makes 99.999999% of Americans complicit in the crime
Now you are beginning to understand the European angle on this election.
Why would we care what you think of the monarchy? Or are you talking about before the figure head days? Certainly Charles can get a little hysterical over things he knows nothing about. But I'm not sure that would warrant him behind bars.
bad hammy wrote:Impeachment as a tool has been used just twice, and both times were highly political farces. If it was going to be used responsibly then using it against the current President is certainly worthy of consideration (but so were a number of Presidencies in the past).
Here's a better question: Why wasn't Reagan impeached? In his role as Commander-in-Chief, he willfully sent ships to the Persian Gulf in direct defiance of a congressional order to not do so. Big-time impeachment grounds going back to a foundational section of the Constitution designed by the Founding Fathers to keep a US president from assuming the powers of a monarchy.
The answer--cynics gear up, here--is that Reagan was late in his second term, the quintessentional lame duck, and the Democrats (and others) believed impeaching another president so soon after Nixon would not be in the best interests of the country. To those who just came in, this was back when terms like The Common Good was still relatively real among legislators (see Locke, Jefferson, et. al).
And given Reagan's popularity with the US citizenry, plus the ability of the GOP to "market" the move as an anti-American/partisan action toward a patriotic president trying to protect the interests of the country overseas, doing so might backfire politically for the Dems in the '88 election. Reagan wasn't known as The Teflon President for nothing.
Beyond Reagan, it is always harder to muster domestic support regarding controversial international affairs. Impeachments pretty much have to be cut-and-dried US affairs: Nixon lies about Watergate, Clinton lies about his fling, etc. Anything happening beyond our shores usually finds the general populace siding with the people in charge (and politicians falling in line) until further notice. Present Iraqi war, for example.
My point is that impeachment, for many reasons both selfless and selfish, is never attempted lightly. Even when cut-and-dried, as it was with Reagan, for example.
Lots can be said about your monarchy . . .shall I begin?
Go ahead I don't care and neither would the vast majority of British citizens. Most of what you say would probably be correct. We don't hold them in such esteem that it's somehow forbidden to critisize them if necessary.
Marlow wrote:Bush may be many things, but he is not a criminal. If he were, that makes 99.999999% of Americans complicit in the crime, because we have not stopped him and put him behind bars. That makes us criminals also. Is that really how you think of us? If so, you are not welcome in our country, and should have nothing to do with ANY Americans, because we will just infect you with our moral malaise.
This makes no sense at all all. You've just insisted that no one should be allowed to call you President a war criminal and yet suggest that if he is one and the American people have done nothing about it then they are complicit in his crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Marlow wrote:Bush may be many things, but he is not a criminal. If he were, that makes 99.999999% of Americans complicit in the crime, because we have not stopped him and put him behind bars.
I don't think that all of us are complicit in W's crimes, just the ~ 59 million Americans who reelected him.
bad hammy wrote:Impeachment as a tool has been used just twice, and both times were highly political farces. If it was going to be used responsibly then using it against the current President is certainly worthy of consideration (but so were a number of Presidencies in the past).
Here's a better question: Why wasn't Reagan impeached? In his role as Commander-in-Chief, he willfully sent ships to the Persian Gulf in direct defiance of a congressional order to not do so. Big-time impeachment grounds going back to a foundational section of the Constitution designed by the Founding Fathers to keep a US president from assuming the powers of a monarchy.
The answer--cynics gear up, here--is that Reagan was late in his second term, the quintessentional lame duck, and the Democrats (and others) believed impeaching another president so soon after Nixon would not be in the best interests of the country. To those who just came in, this was back when terms like The Common Good was still relatively real among legislators (see Locke, Jefferson, et. al).
And given Reagan's popularity with the US citizenry, plus the ability of the GOP to "market" the move as an anti-American/partisan action toward a patriotic president trying to protect the interests of the country overseas, doing so might backfire politically for the Dems in the '88 election. Reagan wasn't known as The Teflon President for nothing.
Beyond Reagan, it is always harder to muster domestic support regarding controversial international affairs. Impeachments pretty much have to be cut-and-dried US affairs: Nixon lies about Watergate, Clinton lies about his fling, etc. Anything happening beyond our shores usually finds the general populace siding with the people in charge (and politicians falling in line) until further notice. Present Iraqi war, for example.
My point is that impeachment, for many reasons both selfless and selfish, is never attempted lightly. Even when cut-and-dried, as it was with Reagan, for example.
Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war and initiate funding laws. The President has the Constitutional duty of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The U.S. has a global military presence and repositioning of military assets, whether Congress agrees or not, is not a "cut and dried' high crime or misdemeanor.
Mennisco wrote:One of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years.
And that, my friends, is why we can't have this board open year-round. I don't even like Bush, but I sure as hell won't have my sitting President referred to as that.
Why???
What if he is "one of the biggest criminals in the last 100 years"? Shouldn't people be allowed to say so. I'm not saying it's the case but in the land of free speech I don't see why anyone should be offended by someone simply voicing there opinion about the President.
I think Americans in general are far too deferential over the office of President. You have good presidents and bad ones, saints and skanks, law abiding and criminal. Just because someone has reached the highest office in the land it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be as accountable for their actions as everybody else and respect shouldn't just be given to someone because they happen to be in charge they should have to earn it.
You are ill informed and might try to get to know more about the U.S. from places other than media sources. Most people in the U.S. aren't deferential to any politician or political office. Name one crime Bush was convicted of while serving as President. I'd defend my neighbor as well as a politician if some idiot called him "one of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years" even if convicted of no crimes. Marlow, if I remember correctly, also served as a USN Officer. He quite understandably would hold the office in higher esteem.
The additional obvious implication is that Americans must be too stupid to notice that he should have been 'deposed' long ago. He was a good man, in way over his head, who trusted his advisors and his own cowboy mentality far more than he should have.
Who's butt am I kissing??!! I thought I was the guy that everyone sees as being on the wrong side of everything!!! 
