So you don't take stock in any polls then? Since every poll is only a sample of the population...
Come on ... you seem like a pretty smart person on this board, usually. You really can't see the difference between an internet poll and a carefully controlled scientific one?
Really?
I could give the same on-line poll to a group of gung-ho, pro-war Republicans and say 100 percent of them don't want Bush impeached.
What would that prove?
I'm not trying to argue somehow Bush is popular or something. He's not. Most *scientific* polls reflect that. I'm just arguing that the poll you are citing, like all Internet polls, is for entertainment purposes only.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I think it goes back to the "illegal war" thing... If people believe that the war is an illegal one, then they believe that the President is guilty of high crimes.
The congress authorized this president to go to war, I just can't see them then claiming that the war was illegal...
Exactly. Congress gave him carte blanche. Looking back, it was a mistake. But it's not an impeachable offense to use the authority Congress granted you.
Frankly, it's not an impeachable offense to tell bold-faced lies to the American people, so long as you aren't under oath. If you are under oath, then it becomes perjury, which is what they got Clinton on (which in itself was ridiculous).
To my knowledge, I don't think Bush has ever testified to anything under oath.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Exactly. Congress gave him carte blanche. Looking back, it was a mistake. But it's not an impeachable offense to use the authority Congress granted you.
Frankly, it's not an impeachable offense to tell bold-faced lies to the American people, so long as you aren't under oath. If you are under oath, then it becomes perjury, which is what they got Clinton on (which in itself was ridiculous).
To my knowledge, I don't think Bush has ever testified to anything under oath.
Don't you take an oath when you take office? I guess that is meaningless.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's it.
It's largely ceremonial. There's nothing in there really to "impeach" under.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Being in charge of the armed forces and sending them to invade a country based on lies isn't just an impeachable offense-its a war crime.
Not really.
Because, again, you'd have to prove that the president knew he was lying. And I'm not sure you could prove that.
All he has to do is say, "I did what I thought was best for the country, with the approval of Congress."
Again, there's a larger legal standard at work here than, "I think this guy is a fucking liar." You have to be able to prove that he knowingly broke federal law.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's it.
It's largely ceremonial. There's nothing in there really to "impeach" under.
So complete bullshit just like everything else about our government. And I think he as violated the Constitution.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So complete bullshit just like everything else about our government.
I guess if you want them to add, "I shall not tell a lie," that would be great. But we'd be impeaching every single member of the government every day of the week.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Because, again, you'd have to prove that the president knew he was lying. And I'm not sure you could prove that.
All he has to do is say, "I did what I thought was best for the country, with the approval of Congress."
He would also have to account for the deliberate propaganda campaign that led up to the invasion. A deliberate campaign of lies.
Also money is appropriated for the CIA that has specific clauses, such as 'this money is not to be used for covert propaganda', which can mean a few things, but what the Bush admin specifcally did was send out a few thousand individuals with "opinions" about the invasion-they were all told what to say (this info is from a US senator by the way).
Also the lack of dissenting opinon in the media is pretty hard to believe. Of the 250 or so most watched media broadcasters a total of 4 were against the war at the time.
It all points to a deliberate covert propaganda program.
He would also have to account for the deliberate propaganda campaign that led up to the invasion. A deliberate campaign of lies.
Also money is appropriated for the CIA that has specific clauses, such as 'this money is not to be used for covert propaganda', which can mean a few things, but what the Bush admin specifcally did was send out a few thousand individuals with "opinions" about the invasion-they were all told what to say (this info is from a US senator by the way).
Also the lack of dissenting opinon in the media is pretty hard to believe. Of the 250 or so most watched media broadcasters a total of 4 were against the war at the time.
It all points to a deliberate covert propaganda program.
Well, No. 1 -- propoganda isn't illegal. And, No. 2 -- you'd have to be able to prove that it was the President personally orchestrating this stuff to have him impeached, and frankly, I don't think he's that smart.
I honestly believe that he believed everything he was selling to the American people in the run-up to the war. I think he's just an incurious soul who believed everything the Cheney cabal told him without question. I honestly believe that Bush was a shocked as anybody that we didn't find WMD in Iraq.
That makes him a bad president. But it doesn't make him eligible for impeachment.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Well, No. 1 -- propoganda isn't illegal. And, No. 2 -- you'd have to be able to prove that it was the President personally orchestrating this stuff to have him impeached, and frankly, I don't think he's that smart.
I honestly believe that he believed everything he was selling to the American people in the run-up to the war. I think he's just an incurious soul who believed everything the Cheney cabal told him without question. I honestly believe that Bush was a shocked as anybody that we didn't find WMD in Iraq.
That makes him a bad president. But it doesn't make him eligible for impeachment.
eh, it was ultimately his decision that led to the deaths of 4000 US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
War should be the last resort for anyone. It was Bush's first. Seems that one way we can get that idea across is through an impeachent process, in this case.
If we impeach Bush then Cheney would be running the country...
That's even worse.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
eh, it was ultimately his decision that led to the deaths of 4000 US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
War should be the last resort for anyone. It was Bush's first. Seems that one way we can get that idea across is through an impeachent process, in this case.
But again ... under the constitution, being wrong isn't an impeachable offense. You have to prove he broke the law. And I don't know how you do that, especially when Congress gave him the authority to do what he did. That's my point.
As I said before, you can't legally impeach a president just because you suspect them of being a liar, or disagree with something he did.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
But again ... under the constitution, being wrong isn't an impeachable offense. You have to prove he broke the law. And I don't know how you do that, especially when Congress gave him the authority to do what he did. That's my point.
As I said before, you can't legally impeach a president just because you suspect them of being a liar, or disagree with something he did.
And I'm sure the argument would be, as it was for FDR and other war-time presidents, that the act of being at war expanded the scope of his powers. Wiretapping without a warrant was necessary to protect the homeland from some clear and present danger. I'm not saying it's right, but that would be the argument and -- given past wartime precedent -- he'd probably win.
Don't you think if the Democrats thought they could impeach Bush, someone serious would bring it forward (no offense to Kucinich supporters)? It hasn't gained much traction because it's just too hard to prove.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
And I'm sure the argument would be, as it was for FDR and other war-time presidents, that the act of being at war expanded the scope of his powers. Wiretapping without a warrant was necessary to protect the homeland, or what not. I'm not saying it's right, but that would be the argument and -- given past wartime precedent -- he'd probably win.
Don't you think if the Democrats thought they could impeach Bush, someone serious would bring it forward (no offense to Kucinich supporters)? It hasn't gained much traction because it's just too hard to prove.
And I'm sure the argument would be, as it was for FDR and other war-time presidents, that the act of being at war expanded the scope of his powers. Wiretapping without a warrant was necessary to protect the homeland, or what not. I'm not saying it's right, but that would be the argument and -- given past wartime precedent -- he'd probably win.
Don't you think if the Democrats thought they could impeach Bush, someone serious would bring it forward (no offense to Kucinich supporters)? It hasn't gained much traction because it's just too hard to prove.
LOL. You think the Democrats are any kind of opposition party? They are as much invested in the war, profitting from it and psying illegally as Bush and the Republicans. It's a perfect means from them to maintain power.
Well, according to that story "legal scholars" apparently = some professor at Portland State.
Who is he? What is his expertise? Does he have an axe to grind? Could he be some liberal egghead looking to make a name for himself? Did George W. Bush give him a wedgie in grade-school, and he's held a grudge ever since?
If some dude at Portland State claimed I robbed a bank, would I automatically be guilty?
It would be one thing if it were a federal court or Congress or someone accusing Bush of law-breaking ... but it's some dude in an office in Portland. That was my point about the story (which I've read before). It seems awfully one-sided and poorly sourced.
Also, a lot of this stuff falls in a gray area that has been disputed between the executive branch and the other branches for decades.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I wonder if they go by IP address or MAC address. The latter is permanent and unchanging.
In any event, 30% of all/most societies are psychopaths...which approximately explains Bush's following.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
LOL. You think the Democrats are any kind of opposition party? They are as much invested in the war, profitting from it and psying illegally as Bush and the Republicans. It's a perfect means from them to maintain power.
And I'm sure the argument would be, as it was for FDR and other war-time presidents, that the act of being at war expanded the scope of his powers. Wiretapping without a warrant was necessary to protect the homeland from some clear and present danger. I'm not saying it's right, but that would be the argument and -- given past wartime precedent -- he'd probably win.
Don't you think if the Democrats thought they could impeach Bush, someone serious would bring it forward (no offense to Kucinich supporters)? It hasn't gained much traction because it's just too hard to prove.
Yeah, because the Democrats have been so quick to stop Bush and call him on all the rest of his crap. They go right along with him every time it real counts like giving him the power to go to war, refunding it, the patriot act, supporting the destruction of Lebabon in 06....
Impeach Bush? What is wrong with you people? Tell me, what laws has he broken? Hmm??
Gimme a break.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Impeach Bush? What is wrong with you people? Tell me, what laws has he broken? Hmm??
Gimme a break.
haha there's always one person. Welcome to 2008. Fasten your seatbelt and put your tray table in the upright position.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
Come on ... you seem like a pretty smart person on this board, usually. You really can't see the difference between an internet poll and a carefully controlled scientific one?
Really?
I could give the same on-line poll to a group of gung-ho, pro-war Republicans and say 100 percent of them don't want Bush impeached.
What would that prove?
I'm not trying to argue somehow Bush is popular or something. He's not. Most *scientific* polls reflect that. I'm just arguing that the poll you are citing, like all Internet polls, is for entertainment purposes only.
for the least they could possibly do
Exactly. Congress gave him carte blanche. Looking back, it was a mistake. But it's not an impeachable offense to use the authority Congress granted you.
Frankly, it's not an impeachable offense to tell bold-faced lies to the American people, so long as you aren't under oath. If you are under oath, then it becomes perjury, which is what they got Clinton on (which in itself was ridiculous).
To my knowledge, I don't think Bush has ever testified to anything under oath.
for the least they could possibly do
Don't you take an oath when you take office? I guess that is meaningless.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Taking the "oath of office" and being "under oath" in the legal, court-of-law sense are two different things.
for the least they could possibly do
so what is the oath of office for then?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Here's the oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's it.
It's largely ceremonial. There's nothing in there really to "impeach" under.
for the least they could possibly do
Not really.
Because, again, you'd have to prove that the president knew he was lying. And I'm not sure you could prove that.
All he has to do is say, "I did what I thought was best for the country, with the approval of Congress."
Again, there's a larger legal standard at work here than, "I think this guy is a fucking liar." You have to be able to prove that he knowingly broke federal law.
for the least they could possibly do
So complete bullshit just like everything else about our government. And I think he as violated the Constitution.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I couldn't possibly comment.
I guess if you want them to add, "I shall not tell a lie," that would be great. But we'd be impeaching every single member of the government every day of the week.
for the least they could possibly do
Also money is appropriated for the CIA that has specific clauses, such as 'this money is not to be used for covert propaganda', which can mean a few things, but what the Bush admin specifcally did was send out a few thousand individuals with "opinions" about the invasion-they were all told what to say (this info is from a US senator by the way).
Also the lack of dissenting opinon in the media is pretty hard to believe. Of the 250 or so most watched media broadcasters a total of 4 were against the war at the time.
It all points to a deliberate covert propaganda program.
Well, No. 1 -- propoganda isn't illegal. And, No. 2 -- you'd have to be able to prove that it was the President personally orchestrating this stuff to have him impeached, and frankly, I don't think he's that smart.
I honestly believe that he believed everything he was selling to the American people in the run-up to the war. I think he's just an incurious soul who believed everything the Cheney cabal told him without question. I honestly believe that Bush was a shocked as anybody that we didn't find WMD in Iraq.
That makes him a bad president. But it doesn't make him eligible for impeachment.
for the least they could possibly do
Sure you could...but always keep in the back of your mind 'fuck em'
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
War should be the last resort for anyone. It was Bush's first. Seems that one way we can get that idea across is through an impeachent process, in this case.
Oh, don't worry, that's usually the first thing on my mind.
That's even worse.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
But again ... under the constitution, being wrong isn't an impeachable offense. You have to prove he broke the law. And I don't know how you do that, especially when Congress gave him the authority to do what he did. That's my point.
As I said before, you can't legally impeach a president just because you suspect them of being a liar, or disagree with something he did.
for the least they could possibly do
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
He broke the law.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Say "legal scholars."
And I'm sure the argument would be, as it was for FDR and other war-time presidents, that the act of being at war expanded the scope of his powers. Wiretapping without a warrant was necessary to protect the homeland from some clear and present danger. I'm not saying it's right, but that would be the argument and -- given past wartime precedent -- he'd probably win.
Don't you think if the Democrats thought they could impeach Bush, someone serious would bring it forward (no offense to Kucinich supporters)? It hasn't gained much traction because it's just too hard to prove.
for the least they could possibly do
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
LOL. You think the Democrats are any kind of opposition party? They are as much invested in the war, profitting from it and psying illegally as Bush and the Republicans. It's a perfect means from them to maintain power.
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles06/Starr-BushConstitution-3-06.htm
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, according to that story "legal scholars" apparently = some professor at Portland State.
Who is he? What is his expertise? Does he have an axe to grind? Could he be some liberal egghead looking to make a name for himself? Did George W. Bush give him a wedgie in grade-school, and he's held a grudge ever since?
If some dude at Portland State claimed I robbed a bank, would I automatically be guilty?
It would be one thing if it were a federal court or Congress or someone accusing Bush of law-breaking ... but it's some dude in an office in Portland. That was my point about the story (which I've read before). It seems awfully one-sided and poorly sourced.
Also, a lot of this stuff falls in a gray area that has been disputed between the executive branch and the other branches for decades.
for the least they could possibly do
In any event, 30% of all/most societies are psychopaths...which approximately explains Bush's following.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It would seem to me impeaching the president would be a good way to gain more power. But what do I know?
for the least they could possibly do
Yeah, because the Democrats have been so quick to stop Bush and call him on all the rest of his crap. They go right along with him every time it real counts like giving him the power to go to war, refunding it, the patriot act, supporting the destruction of Lebabon in 06....
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=281230
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280866
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280150
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=279682
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=278223
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
How so? It doesn't mean he's replaced with a Dem so what do they care? Plus it strips them of those same abuses of power once they take office.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Gimme a break.
-Reagan
haha there's always one person. Welcome to 2008. Fasten your seatbelt and put your tray table in the upright position.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")