Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Should Bush be impeached?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11868		 Page 3 of 5
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
iand93 wrote:
He shouldn't be impeached. He only has *checks T-Minus W* 479 days, 56 minutes, and 37 seconds left in office. It would just be a waste o' time.

:-(
Can't we add a couple hundred days to that? Just to make the people with those bumper stickers mad?
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Bush has a higher approval rating than Congress


I Drew This had something to say about that.

- Kef
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Bush has a higher approval rating than Congress


I Drew This had something to say about that.

- Kef

That IS true, too.

However, the voters "cleaned house" this time and gave the democrats control of the congress on Pelosi's promise of the 1st hundred hours. You know, that time they took off for the National Championship football game?

Regardless, though, 33% > 25%, and any excuse people come up with for that still doesn't disprove the fact that congress is less liked than the president. If Dubya's approval rating was 60%, then the "people only vote for one representative" thing would hold a little more weight, however, with 33%, Dubya set the bar awfully low for them.
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
The point is, though, it's "apples and oranges": there's no use trying to compare the two, because they measure different things. Saying "Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush" is kind of meaningless no matter what the numbers are.

- Kef
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't agree that it's Apples and Oranges, though.

While it's not the same thing, I'd say it's more Red Delicious and Fuji than Apple and Oranges.
Author:  Sarge [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:45 am ]
Post subject:  Impeach that sonna of gun!
Of course he should be impeached. If Clinton could be impreached for lying about doing the nacught with MS Lewinsky, then how come Bush gets off scott-free for lying about why he took you guys to war?

Remember the WMDs? There weren't any, but Bush kept saying that was the reason you yanks had to invade. Yep, and Al-Quedia was supposed to be being supported by Iraq, but they weren't, and you guys were supposed to be "greeted as liberators" but the Iraqis decided it was more fun to plant roadside bombs and shoot at each other instead so they could "Welcome" y'all by destroying a lot of you. And then there was that whole "Mission Not Accomplished" thing where he made it look like he landed a plane on the deck of an aircraft carrier when really it was the guy sitting beside him who was the pilot. (Bush was in the Air National Guard, not the Navy. He knows squat about carrier aviation, much less how to land on the deck of a carrier without getting killed. In case you didn't know, landing on the deck of a carrier is one of the toughest jobs a pilot can do.)

Now, I understand he had the Republicans playing "hear no evil, see no evil for a while" while they occupied the Congress, but now the Dems are in control there and can impeach Bush. I think they're afraid that The Dick Cheney would be even worse, which may be a valid point, but I say impeach them BOTH and make it clear that you'll impeach any Neocon who is in line for the succession. Hung presidency? Perhaps so, but at least Bush would be somewhere where he can't do anymore damage. Like prison.

That's my two cents.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:10 am ]
Post subject: 
The conclusion about WMD's was based on bad intelligence. That's already been established.

Have you actually talked to people who have served in Iraq? It is true that some insurgent groups are terrorizing both the military and the civilians there, but the civilian population for the most part appreciates not being under a REAL dictator, one who gas-bombs his own people. I'm not claiming I support the war - I never did - but the handful of terrorists do not represent the entire population of that nation.

Also, you might want to review Rule Six sometime. I seriously doubt the Admins will appreciate your favorite nickname for Vice President Cheney.
Author:  Sarge [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
The conclusion about WMD's was based on bad intelligence. That's already been established.

Have you actually talked to people who have served in Iraq? It is true that some insurgent groups are terrorizing both the military and the civilians there, but the civilian population for the most part appreciates not being under a REAL dictator, one who gas-bombs his own people. I'm not claiming I support the war - I never did - but the handful of terrorists do not represent the entire population of that nation.

Also, you might want to review Rule Six sometime. I seriously doubt the Admins will appreciate your favorite nickname for Vice President Cheney.

Actualy, it's been clearly established that Bush already had his conclusions before he ever asked for any intelligence. He cherry-picked the reports that seemed to support his desired outcome, even though the CIA was telling him that the reports he liked were obviously false. Later, he blamed it on the CIA with yet more lies about how it was their fault.

http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflect ... _wmd_.html
Author:  Sarge [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Also, you might want to review Rule Six sometime. I seriously doubt the Admins will appreciate your favorite nickname for Vice President Cheney.

Not my fault his name is Dick. He is The Dick. Just like the president is The George.

Didymus wrote:
Have you actually talked to people who have served in Iraq?


Oh, yeah, like the grunts on the ground know what's really going on.
Go talk to some Iraqis if you wanna know the real situation. See how much they like what the US did to their country. Bush knew that there would be a civil war if he invaded and that he couldn't do enough to stop the warring factions from fighting if he invaded, but he went ahead anyways, with not enough troops, before finishing the job in Ahfghanistan. Brilliant. Is it any wonder we call him a Moron up here in Canada?

Look, I actually know refugees who fled Iraq, both before and after the Bush war machine rolled in (the first Bush War time AND the second Bush War) and let me tell that if they didn't hate America before,they sure do now. Saddam may have been a brutal son of a sheep turd, but he at least knew how to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from killing each other. Now, thanks to President Moron, it's a free-for-all over there. Sure you toppled Saddam, but you apparently didn't give any thought to what would happen with Saddam gone. So it collapsed the country into chaos. Apparently, you all figured that everyone would be so happy to have Saddam gone that they'd all ignore the fact that they'd been invaded by a a bunch of people they'd been taught to distrust. Way to misunderstand the situation, America. You just HAD to go and invade Iraq, didn't you? Couldn't have let the situation take care of itself like it would have eventually. Oh no. Bombing the hell out of everything ALWAYS solves the problem. Yeah...
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sarge wrote:
Oh, yeah, like the grunts on the ground know what's really going on.
Umm, I think they do. You know why I think that, because they are there walking the streets of Baghdad. They see what's going on as much as the Iraqi citizens.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not to mention the civilian relief efforts as well. They are not only there, but they interact with and conduct business with the citizens of Iraq as well. Civilian contractors, like the grandson of one of my members, are a valuable source of information about what's really taking place there now, whereas those who fled the country before or during the heat of the conflict are probably not the most accurate sources of information.

Incidentally, while I disagreed with it at the time, we did actually have an obligation during the First Gulf War. If you'll remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and as one of our official allies, we had a legal and moral obligation to defend them.

But in either case, people who left that country 15 years ago are much less reliable as sources than people who are there right now.

Quote:
Way to misunderstand the situation, America. You just HAD to go and invade Iraq, didn't you? Couldn't have let the situation take care of itself like it would have eventually. Oh no. Bombing the hell out of everything ALWAYS solves the problem. Yeah...

You might notice that a great many of us did not support this war. Myself included. Before the invasion, I recognized that the intelligence was faulty, and that the president's decision was hasty. I also believed that, if our goals had anything to do with WMD's at all, we could accomplish our goals without full-scale invasion and occupation. And unlike the First Gulf War, we didn't have a legal obligation to become involved at all.

And yes, a tiny percentage of the population is violently resisting our presence there, even though at this stage, we're only trying to rebuild what was destroyed. But guess what: there's always been violence there. There still is in places like Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. But you don't hear about that as much these days; the news agencies tend to focus more on what's going on in occupied Iraq. Why is that?
Author:  Kristanni X [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Bush has made mistakes: what president hasn't?

Y'know, those were my thoughts exactly. He's a human being. Is it against the law to be flawed? I'm a member of Youtube and I got a note in my inbox saying that "You defending the president is bringing this country (USA) down." or something like that.

I don't know what wrong he done and unless I just proof, I not bashing on the president. Wait, scratch that. I should NEVER bash on the president. He's only trying to do his job.
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
How about starting a war on false pretenses? Yeah, yeah, I know that he had some misinformation, etc., but he does not have a good track record in that regard. We know that he wanted to start a war anyway before he ever heard of these alleged WMDs. In addition, we're talking about a guy who fires people who don't tell him what he wants to hear, no matter whether or not it's the truth.

- Kef
Author:  Sarge [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
:ahem:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02418.html
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," "[they] went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." Paul R. Pillar, CIA national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

I'll let that speak for itself, but there's plenty more background on this if you just Google for it.
Author:  WonderMike [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:35 am ]
Post subject: 
I said it's not that simple. I think i'm right for three reasons

1. The phrase "President Cheney" is a sign of the apocolypse

2. There would be no more humor in the Oval Office

3. We have a few months left with him. If we impeach him, it's good. but hey, Then cheney will be president and the dumbos are going to elect him for 8 more years!!!!

Actually, There are also numerous reasons to say yes,

1. oil

2. dead soldiers

3. idiocy

4. THE MAN TALKS LIKE :coachz: FOR *insert religious preferance""S SAKE!
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
WonderMike wrote:
3. We have a few months left with him.


I wouldn't consider 14 a few.
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Ju Ju Master wrote:
WonderMike wrote:
3. We have a few months left with him.


I wouldn't consider 14 a few.


Well, actually we have roughly a year. And I thought with the Dems now in control, Cheney would probably not be able to stand a chance, especially if we vote AGAINST him on winning by voting someone else. Well, he might win, but I certainly hope the odds are against him.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:49 am ]
Post subject: 
And as Didy said, an impeachment isn't necessarily like a court-martial where they kick him out. Congress just goes "Shame on you, Mister President!".
Author:  Didymus [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:49 am ]
Post subject: 
WonderMike, you will refrain from referring to people whose political views differ from your own as "dumbos". Kindly refer to Rule 2 of the Forum Rules, please.
Author:  WonderMike [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
WonderMike, you will refrain from referring to people whose political views differ from your own as "dumbos". Kindly refer to Rule 2 of the Forum Rules, please.


Agknowleged. I apologize if the message caused any offense to the opposite political party. And yeah, I know "Dumbo" was not the best name in the book (like it matters). I still do think, though, that Bush should be impeached and if we (as a country) do impeach him, It will only create confusion, mayhem and BURNINATION throughout america.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:01 am ]
Post subject: 
CaptainPastHisPrime wrote:
Ju Ju Master wrote:
WonderMike wrote:
3. We have a few months left with him.


I wouldn't consider 14 a few.


Well, actually we have roughly a year. And I thought with the Dems now in control, Cheney would probably not be able to stand a chance, especially if we vote AGAINST him on winning by voting someone else. Well, he might win, but I certainly hope the odds are against him.


...Que?

1. President is inaugurated in january, so that's about 14 months

2. Cheney's not running in 2008. Cheney was brought up because he'd become president if Bush were to be impeached.
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Ju Ju Master wrote:
CaptainPastHisPrime wrote:
Ju Ju Master wrote:
WonderMike wrote:
3. We have a few months left with him.


I wouldn't consider 14 a few.


Well, actually we have roughly a year. And I thought with the Dems now in control, Cheney would probably not be able to stand a chance, especially if we vote AGAINST him on winning by voting someone else. Well, he might win, but I certainly hope the odds are against him.


...Que?

1. President is inaugurated in january, so that's about 14 months

2. Cheney's not running in 2008. Cheney was brought up because he'd become president if Bush were to be impeached.


I thought we were talking about the elections. But either way, in the words of TGS (sans Cheerleader), "The tyranny (will soon be) over!"
Author:  StrongRad [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Ju Ju Master wrote:
CaptainPastHisPrime wrote:
Ju Ju Master wrote:
WonderMike wrote:
3. We have a few months left with him.


I wouldn't consider 14 a few.


Well, actually we have roughly a year. And I thought with the Dems now in control, Cheney would probably not be able to stand a chance, especially if we vote AGAINST him on winning by voting someone else. Well, he might win, but I certainly hope the odds are against him.


...Que?

1. President is inaugurated in january, so that's about 14 months

2. Cheney's not running in 2008. Cheney was brought up because he'd become president if Bush were to be impeached.

Actually, Bush would still be president if he were impeached.

A lot of people don't get it.
Impeach does not equal "remove from office".

It didn't remove Clinton.
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:13 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Actually, Bush would still be president if he were impeached.

A lot of people don't get it.
Impeach does not equal "remove from office".

It didn't remove Clinton.


It doesn't? Then why is it called impeachment? I thought that's how impeachments worked. Or is there something I'm missing? And didn't that ALMOST remove Nixon?
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Grr, removed from office, whatever. I knew that.

This is why you don't make R&P posts when you're tired. Stupid daylight savings...

EDIT: Impeachment is just the first step in removal from office. Nixon was going to be impeached and then removed from office, but he resigned before the impeachment actually happened.
Author:  WonderMike [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:17 am ]
Post subject: 
Okay, i know this has nothing to do with the topic, but lets stop focusing on the quotes and get back to the subject.
Author:  Didymus [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Impeachment is essentially a criminal trial. In order for it to have any effect on the administration, they'd have to secure a conviction. Then and only then could they hope to push for forcible removal from office.
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:20 am ]
Post subject: 
WonderMike wrote:
Okay, i know this has nothing to do with the topic, but lets stop focusing on the quotes and get back to the subject.


We're... not off-topic... this thread is about Bush's, imepachment, we're talking about impeachments
Author:  WonderMike [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:52 am ]
Post subject: 
sorry. What i essentially meant was that people were using EXTREMELY large amounts of quotes in thier posts.
Author:  Rusty [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:06 am ]
Post subject: 
WonderMike wrote:
sorry. What i essentially meant was that people were using EXTREMELY large amounts of quotes in thier posts.


Stop posting here (here meaning R&P).


Bush SHOULD be removed from office. Unfortunately, there is no legitimate reason for him to be removed. He has not broken any laws, by the book. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. And I do believe this has been brought up before, but, oh well.

Also, don't get me wrong, I'd love for the Bush Administration to not exist anymore. But that's not the way things work in the good ol' US of A.

North America? What's..South America? What are you talkin' about? We're the only America there is. United States of. Ain't no Northy Southy to it.
Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/