USA - Finally! Impeach Bush is Here!

[Beanfondler]

No Swibf didn't miss the point. He isn't affiliated with a party and wouldn't be caught dead doing so. Swiy makes assumptions that have nothing to do with this no matter if they were correct. There aren't two parties. Its the same side of the same coin, they don't even switch it up. Even suggesting that there is a comparison between the impeachment brought against Clinton and Bush is ridiculous.

The system is only fucked beyond recognition because the people are fucking clueless and therefore cannot hold their leaders accountable. It is not effective to say that one should not attempt to fill in this lack of oversight by the populous because there is the problems of the current situation, when that problem is a result of the lack of oversight by the populous. Nay sayers whining about the corrupt/hopeless nature of the system are simply perpetuating the problem when they tear down those who would seek to remedy the situation.

Everyone's fucked, agreed. You need not take it lying down or suggest others do the same.

[Panthers007]

Woody always assumes it's about party-affiliation. I'm a democratic-socialist (mostly) that believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If that goes - so should the USA. That's all the world needs: A Nazi regime with nuclear weapons.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

Woody always assumes it's about party-affiliation. I'm a democratic-socialist (mostly) that believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If that goes - so should the USA. That's all the world needs: A Nazi regime with nuclear weapons.

Panthers,

When people blame Bush and make him the sole source of our current crop of problems, it tells me that there is a significant intellectual impass that prevents them from identifying the REAL problem.

In that way, a rabid Liberal is truely charachteristic of a person suffering a mental disorder because unless they are somehow "assisted", they will NEVER find the integrity to publicly impugn a member of their own tribe.

Originally Posted by Beanfondler

...The system is only fucked beyond recognition because the people are clueless and ...cannot hold their leaders accountable.

That's exactly why I site Liberal Democrats a significant cause of the problem, something which few (if any) others choose to do.

Liberals have been whining about impeaching Bush ever since he took office, literally from DAY #1!!!
It got old after the first six months. Here we are EIGHT YEARS later, and they still want to impeach him. Wow, what a surprise!

Bush is only a symptom of a much larger illness, and impeaching him would do nothing to cure the illness; it would be like having a brain tumor that causes you a headache, then treating only the headache by dosing with bunch of painkillers. When the pain killers wear off, you're still left with a brain leathal tumor that will be fatal if left untreated.

So, after blaming Bush for all of the countries woes, the next step is usually to bash Republicans as a whole or celebrate characteristics (usually manifested in a particular candidate) in a manner that commends liberal Democrats. I'm just sick of the game, and feel it's long overdue for things to be put into a proper perspective.

The system is broken and EVERYONE is being screwed!

Blame Bush and the Republicans, yes, but at least have the courage to blame Clinton and the Liberal Democrats as well.

[Beanfondler]

Originally Posted by Woodman

When people blame Bush and make him the sole source of our current crop of problems, it tells me that there is a significant intellectual impass that prevents them from identifying the REAL problem.

Correction when SOME people blame Bush they do this. When THOSE people genuinely calling for his impeachment they do so based on what he has merited HIMSELF.

And drop the political party bullshit, no one else here could give a rats ass. Swibf is a REPUBLICAN based on principal leaning toward Libertarian, he can't stand democrats to be quite honest.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Beanfondler

And drop the political party bullshit, no one else here could give a rats ass.

The point I am making is that BOTH parties are screwing the American people, and regardless of your opinion, some people DO give a shit.

I find it interesting that the person who declared that if Bush were not impeached it would set a "precedent", ...is the same person who would willfully ignore any precedent that was established when Bill Clinton was not impeached.

Originally Posted by Beanfondler

... If Bush isn't impeached the precedent that will be set in the face of complete disregard for the oath taken and the law will be a shame on the entire population of the US.

(Again: Wow, what a surprise!)

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that "president" was already established long before Bush even took office.

This is just the same shit on a different day.


Deal!

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by Woodman

The point I am making is that BOTH parties are screwing the American people, and regardless of your opinion, some people DO give a shit.

Too true. It's the elites who finance the politicians who are screwing the people, as they have always done.

[Beanfondler]

Swibf never said that it was irrelevant that both parties are screwing Swius, he agreed. He simply said it was an irrelevant reason to downplay this impeachment. Simply because the system is too corrupt for it to actually succeed does not make it any less of a requirement.

[Woodman]

Sorry beanfinder, but it's already kind of irrelevant because liberals have chanting that mantra for so long that it has become cliché.

YEARS AGO, I warned people on this forum to exercise intellectual discourse instead of getting carried away with political dogma, or risk losing credibility (strangely enough, on this very topic).

No one is trying to downplay the issue. It is simply brought up so frequently that for whatever legitimate reason you might have, now, it becomes obscured by all of the ridiculous demagoguery of the past.

To exaggerate that NOT impeaching Bush would somehow set a precedent just seams like more of the same hysteria.

I'm sure some other issues will surface, and someone else will feel compelled to once again "Impeach Bush".

If any precedent was made it was established when Liberal Democrats refused to impeach Bill Clinton.

At least Republicans had enough integrity back in 1974 to boot Nixon out of office, but times have changed.

During the Clinton regime, liberals put party loyalty above personal integrity, and political dogma became more important than the rule of law.

THAT'S the REAL precedent that was set.

Now that a Republican is in office, he's screwing the people and his own party cannot muster the courage to kick him out. The liberals who wanted to give Clinton a free pass are going nuts over George Bush, and for however legitimate their reason might be to have him impeached, it is NOT going to happen because they’ve already set the standard.

It is my opinion that all the people who are bitching now, should have paid more attention when Clinton was in office.

If they had done the right thing at that time they would certainly have more credibility in calling for Bush’s impeachment, and we might not be stuck with the shithead-for-a-president that we have, now.

[Lunar Loops]

Whilst I understand your point Wodman and it is well made, I fail to see how that standpoint helps anyone or anything.

Are you really saying that because a precedent was set in not impeaching Clinton that nobody should try and impeach anyone else? Some of the characters involved may well be two-faced on this issue, but that does not mean that they are wrong in this case.

You can't alter the past, but you can attempt to alter the present and influence the future.

[Woodman]

Lunar,

I'm trying to say that whether the issue is brought before congress, just brough up as a topic in drugsforum, it's pretty much DOA.

This is just the new "most important reason" to impeach Bush.

Liberals have been chanting this for so long that it sounds more like rant than reason.

I think there probably IS enough factual evidence to get bush impeached, but there will never be enough public groundswell, nor unified political effort in congress, to make this happen.

Originally Posted by Lunar Loops

Are you really saying that because a precedent was set in not impeaching Clinton that nobody should try and impeach anyone else?

No!

I'm saying that liberals lost credibility every time they exaggerated an issue to use it as a reason to call for the impeachememnt of Gorge Bush.

I'm saying that a precedent was established with Clinton:

Originally Posted by Woodman

During the Clinton regime, liberals put party loyalty above personal integrity, and political dogma became more important than the rule of law.

THAT'S the REAL precedent that was set.

I don't know how I can make my position any clearer.

If you're asking: "How do we make this important enough to where we can actually GET Bush impeached?" I say, you don't. You can't; at least not with what you've got on him, now.

He would have to fuck-up so terribly that it would make people want to storm the Whitehouse and throw him out, and I don't see that happening.

[Lunar Loops]

Okay, but that is not a position that offers anything.

Any attempt to impeach may well be DOA, as you say, but does that mean that people should not try to even discuss the matter? It would be a VERY quiet world if we all only opened our mouths when we had something to say that was guaranteed to have a positive impact on society and of unquestionable integrity.

You obviously agree that there are grounds to impeach, so what would you propose as a course of action? Sit back and argue the toss about any form of action being doomed to failure and therefore not worth the effort? Give up before you start, because this course of action should have been taken in the past against previous incumbents? Wait for someone who you do feel has integrity to raise the flag?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Righto!

[Beanfondler]

Originally Posted by Lunar Loops

Okay, but that is not a position that offers anything.

Swibf's point exactly.

[Woodman]

Hmm, that's interesting considering that I NEVER said this should not be discussed, nor did I suggest that you should "give-up before you start".

If that's what you interpret from my posts, then you do so entirely of your own volition.

This is clearly an issue with several hurdles in front of it. Too many people in this fast-food culture expect quick fix answers to complex problems, and the simple fact is that there are NONE to be found, here.

Is it an issue that has been raised in perpetuity? ...YES!

Has this repetitious bombarment caused apathy? ...YES!

If you're looking for solutions, this obviously changes the issue because now we have a topic that has REAL obsticles, and an array of new questions:

1.) How was this apathy created?

2.) Who created it, and why did they do it?

3.) How do we lift social consciousness from the atmosphere of indifference that plagues this issue in order to move ahead?

My course of action is to answer these questions and clear the obsticles in order to make way for real progress to take place.

Of course, there is still the HUGE obsticle of the "Clinton Precedence" that needs to be overcome.

4.) In an atmosphere of such intense political polarization, how do you convince people that the rule of law is more important loyalty to ones' political party?

These are the problems that have to be resolved before any significant progress can take place.

I don't mean to try to change the issue, and that's not what I'm doing here. There are simply no quick fix answers, and I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people who read this by posting one.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Woodman

Hmm, that's interesting considering that I NEVER said this should not be discussed, nor did I suggest that you should "give-up before you start".

If that's what you interpret from my posts, then you do so entirely of your own volition.

Okay, you may not have used those exact words, but statements like:

Originally Posted by Woodman

I'm trying to say that whether the issue is brought before congress, just brough up as a topic in drugsforum, it's pretty much DOA.

and

Originally Posted by Woodman

Still, I think there's little point in implementing the process if it there is not a good chance it will result in convicion.

certainly seem to indicate such a sentiment on your part.

Regardless of that, Panthers makes the same point as I was (probably very poorly) attempting to make. If you sit back now and continue to do nothing you are merely serving to perpetuate the situation. As I said before, you can not change the past (and yes, I take your point it has to be examinied to see what mistakes were made), but you can attempt to influence the future.

All you are doing is making statements about things that were not done as they should have been in the past and that there is no point in doing anything unless you are certain of a positive outcome. If everyone adopted that approach we'd still be living in caves.

[Panthers007]

"4.) In an atmosphere of such intense political polarization, how do you convince people that the rule of law is more important loyalty to ones' political party?"

Actually, as I am conducting my field-taxonomy in the Untied Snakes, I am finding the so-called 'polarization' to be vanishing. The American people are uniting under one banner: We Hate Bush.

Bon chance, Msr. Woodie.

[Panthers007]

Whether or not Mr. Bush is escorted to prison in handcuffs isn't really the point. The point is to undo the precedent being set by his regime: The Constitution and Bill of Rights are antiquated documents of little or no significance in today's America. This sends a message across the world in line with one of his noteworthy statements. When he addressed the issue of terrorism and terrorists, he stated: "Bring it on!"

[jux]

while i agree that he should be impeached (actuall it should have started years ago) , i dont see how it will change the policies he set forward during his presidancy...maybe it will send a message, but will that message make a difference?

i mean did anything change after they attempted to impeach nixon? we still have illegal wiretapping, election scandal, and illegal secret military activities....

did johnsons impeachment stop shady hiring and firing practices by the president?

after clinton was impeached, did we see a drop in sex scandals and perjury?

perhaps i am a bit cynical, but i dont see anything changing even if he does get impeached...however, if he gets convicted, that could be a major turning point for the country...if that were to happen, i can see policies and appointments to office getting reversed...real change.....but without a conviction i fear that impeachment will be an impotent act, allowing the politicians to wash the blood off their hands and pay lip service to the american public without actually changing anything.

[purplehaze]

pay lip service to the american public

Thats one thing bush definitely cant handle.

[Woodman]

Jux,


What you say is true.

Like many other Americans I often make the mistake assuming an impeachment conviction is actual impeachment when the two are NOT the same.

Still, I think there's little point in implementing the process if it there is not a good chance it will result in convicion.

[Panthers007]

Woodie:

Put down the boddle-o-shine and go do sumthin' else. We have to use legal resources to stop Bush the III from popping-up. You talk/write like someone who loves the United States. If you truly do - you will support any action that will stop this sort of illegality from becoming "standard operating procedure."

The kids are cynical, and pissed-off, enough. If people like us don't stand up and stop this shit here and now, then, in my honest opinion, we are the problem. Let alone the opinion of the rest of the world - which USA Today cares zilch about. Why?

We rebuilt the economies of Europe and Japan following WWII. But we didn't really bother to adopt a government program regards our own nation. We didn't need to. We had the A-Bomb! Who could fuck with us? And that's where we are today: We have the H-Bomb. Do as we say - or we'll blow you into a shadow on a broken sidewalk.

It's time we walked side-by-side with the rest of the world. Instead of playing re-runs of "Walking Tall" with Sheriff Buford Pusser.

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

We rebuilt the economies of Europe and Japan following WWII. But we didn't really bother to adopt a government program regards our own nation. We didn't need to. We had the A-Bomb! Who could fuck with us? And that's where we are today: We have the H-Bomb. Do as we say - or we'll blow you into a shadow on a broken sidewalk.

It's time we walked side-by-side with the rest of the world. Instead of playing re-runs of "Walking Tall" with Sheriff Buford Pusser.

Only an American would say that! I think the Iraqis know the meaning of being rebuilt by the US

The Europeans had been slaughtering each other and exploiting the world for centuries. Britain and France suffered the results of their own arrogance,as did the Japanese and Germans. But back on topic....

[Swift Serenity]

how about stop complaining all the damn time, and deal with what? 5 months? jesus its not like he is the only president that does something bad

[Panthers007]

5 months? Try history books yet to be written explaining to future generation how this mess came about. 5 months? Try 500 years. Minimum.

[Swift Serenity]

oh ok well its not like its gonna stop.. every president will usually get what he wants..

[Panthers007]

Now, now Lunar. Your words are at least as powerful as mine. Keep on truckin'!