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

Should Bush be impeached?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11868		 Page 4 of 5
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Rusty wrote:
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.


Well, if you ask me, it's a crime the way he's been treating everyone these days.
Author:  Rusty [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Um...yeah. Basically what I said was, he's been a horrible president, but hasn't TECHNICALLY done anything to deserve impeachment.
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rusty wrote:
Um...yeah. Basically what I said was, he's been a horrible president, but hasn't TECHNICALLY done anything to deserve impeachment.


Well, I think he deserves it.
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
CaptainPastHisPrime wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Um...yeah. Basically what I said was, he's been a horrible president, but hasn't TECHNICALLY done anything to deserve impeachment.


Well, I think he deserves it.


Thinking he "deserves it" doesn't matter. What did he do to "desrve it"? It doesn't matter what you think, unless you have something with which to back it up, it's a moot point.
Author:  Didymus [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's like saying, "OJ Simpson deserved to go to jail for murder." Without ample evidence to convict him in a court of law, what's the point?
Author:  HHFOV [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, although I agree with you I'd say that's an invalid comparison, as O.J. was excruciatingly painfully obviously guilty.

But, yeah. Saying "wel bushh sux soo hi shud b impuch" doesn't hold any water. Impeachment requires actual violation of some stuff.
Author:  Rusty [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, yeah, unlike you, I don't like Bush, so I think he should be removed from office. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, because there's no legitimate reason for it.
Author:  HHFOV [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:42 am ]
Post subject: 
But that's just the thing: "because" you "don't like him" is NOT valid grounds for removal from office. And I also don't like Bush, but I hold some pride in carrying out the democratic system as it was intended by the Constitution.
Author:  Rusty [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:49 am ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
But that's just the thing: "because" you "don't like him" is NOT valid grounds for removal from office.


That's what I'm saying.
Author:  HHFOV [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:56 am ]
Post subject: 
ohok
Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Should Bush be impeached?
In a word, no. To say yes would be ignorant unless you can back it up. I'm sick of people who keep saying "impeach" when he's out of office in two months, and he hasn't done anything to get himself impeached.

The worst thing of all is when people say they want him impeached simply because "He's stupid and I hate him" No one's gonna impeach him to cater to your stupid little needs.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Should Bush be impeached?
clever_dan wrote:
In a word, no. To say yes would be ignorant unless you can back it up. I'm sick of people who keep saying "impeach" when he's out of office in two months, and he hasn't done anything to get himself impeached.

The worst thing of all is when people say they want him impeached simply because "He's stupid and I hate him" No one's gonna impeach him to cater to your stupid little needs.
Uh, thats not until next year.
Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Oh crap. You're right. I thought it was January 08...
Author:  HHFOV [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Uh, even then it would be more than two months...
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Uh, even then it would be more than two months...

Not really...
January of 08 is 2 months from now...
It's November of 07...
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Uh, even then it would be more than two months...

Not really...
January of 08 is 2 months from now...
It's November of 07...
...Until the election, Radd.
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Uh, even then it would be more than two months...

Not really...
January of 08 is 2 months from now...
It's November of 07...
...Until the election, Radd.

Clever_Dan said "Oh, I thought it was January 08".
HHFOV said "even then it would be more than two months..." (and I interpreted that as "January 08 is more than 2 months away)

That's why I said that.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Uh, even then it would be more than two months...

Not really...
January of 08 is 2 months from now...
It's November of 07...
...Until the election, Radd.

Clever_Dan said "Oh, I thought it was January 08".
HHFOV said "even then it would be more than two months..." (and I interpreted that as "January 08 is more than 2 months away)

That's why I said that.
Image

IN OTHER NEWS:

Someone on my Friendslist posted this, along with several pictures calling Cheney a <censored>, and several pictures portraying just that.

Quote:
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has literally just left the floor of the
House of Representatives where he introduced HR 333-- the bill
calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney on charges
of lying to the American public regarding the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Now that his bill has been entered into the Congressional Record, the
House has two days to decide what to do with it. Will it be tabled?
Will impeachment proceedings begin? These next 48 hours will grant
YOU the power to let your voice impact the course of history, and the
future direction of our country.

Take a moment to call the Capitol switchboard right now at (202)
224-3121 or go to http://www.house.gov and enter your ZIP Code to
find your local member of Congress, and then tell them the following:

"I urge the Representative to VOTE TO START IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS as outlined in HR 333."
Rep Dennis Kucinich just presented HRes 333 (Impeachment of Richard B. Cheney) on the floor of Congress, under a special procedure called Privilege. Apparently the speaker now has to schedule it for a vote, and even decide if it's allowed under privilege...I just called Nancy Pelosi's office in support at 1-800-828-0498. You can call her and Sullivan at that number, or any one of the other spineless idiot.

We need to jam the phone lines!
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Someone on my Friendslist posted this, along with several pictures calling Cheney a &%$@, and several pictures portraying just that.

When reasonable discussion doesn't work, just use ridicule.

RIDICULE: 183% More Effective than Reason!
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should Bush be impeached?
clever_dan wrote:
In a word, no. To say yes would be ignorant unless you can back it up. I'm sick of people who keep saying "impeach" when he's out of office in two months, and he hasn't done anything to get himself impeached.

The worst thing of all is when people say they want him impeached simply because "He's stupid and I hate him" No one's gonna impeach him to cater to your stupid little needs.


Well, look at all the wrong he has done: he neglects helping out people in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, he is OBSESSED with an unwinable war in Iraq and he will have absolutely NOTHING to do with our country giving up its dependency on oil. Don't you think that's grounds for at least some severe consequences? He's been an awful president as of late.
Author:  Casimir III the Great [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should Bush be impeached?
CaptainPastHisPrime wrote:
clever_dan wrote:
In a word, no. To say yes would be ignorant unless you can back it up. I'm sick of people who keep saying "impeach" when he's out of office in two months, and he hasn't done anything to get himself impeached.

The worst thing of all is when people say they want him impeached simply because "He's stupid and I hate him" No one's gonna impeach him to cater to your stupid little needs.


Well, look at all the wrong he has done: he neglects helping out people in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, he is OBSESSED with an unwinable war in Iraq and he will have absolutely NOTHING to do with our country giving up its dependency on oil. Don't you think that's grounds for at least some severe consequences? He's been an awful president as of late.


Oh boo hoo, do police go around arresting people because they have been awful as of late?

Impeachment is for breaking criminal law during his term, which bush has not done.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
1. Katrina took place nearly 3 years ago. And from my understanding, there has been federal involvement in the recovery process. You can't just snap your fingers and everything magically be back to the way it was.

2. First of all, as someone who did not support the invasion, I have to say that you are ignoring the moral responsibility we have to secure that nation before we simply pull out. If we just pack our bags and hit the road, the terrorists will be back in charge in no time. And as it is, the results are more positive than the news makes it out to be at times. All we see are the occasional suicide bombs intended to disrupt our work there - our work of REBUILDING, mind you. What you don't see on the news are those citizens who are grateful not to be under Saddam's oppressive terrorist government - they don't have to worry about him gas-bombing them anymore - who are grateful for our efforts there to try to make the place better than it was when we came in.

So, while I did disagree with the invasion, I do not concur with your assessment that our presence there is merely "obsession with a war we cannot win."

Quote:
he will have absolutely NOTHING to do with our country giving up its dependency on oil.

Do you drive? Or if you're not old enough yet, do your parents? If so, then my question for you is this: what are YOU doing to decrease our nation's dependence on oil? We can talk all day long about how those in authority ought to do something about our dependence on petroleum, but this is really something only citizens can do, not the president. If you use petroleum, then you are the problem, not the president.

Quote:
Don't you think that's grounds for at least some severe consequences? He's been an awful president as of late.

The way you say it, Captain, it still comes across as, "I don't like him, so let's get rid of him." And as we've been telling you all along, impeachment does not work like that. Impeachment can only occur when there is presented convicting evidence of criminal behavior.

What you're talking about did happen once: back in the 1800's with President Johnson. Certain people decided they didn't like Johnson's policies, so they attempted, not just once, but twice, to impeach him. Both resulted in miserable failure. And in the end, what they disliked him for was for going against some of their own legislation which he deemed unconstitutional (and his assessment was confirmed in later court cases). So just because you don't like something someone does, it does not give you the right to demand their removal from office. If you're old enough, then vote against them in the following election. That's how the democratic process works here.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
The guy replied back, and do you know what he said?

READER DISSCRESSION ADVISED
Quote:
[size=0]you are a total Funk crap. eat a <penis> fool.[/size]


Not even a formulated response. Just goes to show much of an idiot people are today.

QUOTE IT TO READ.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
You might want to censor that, Cola.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
You might want to censor that, Cola.
I think what I did now might work, but I dunno.
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should Bush be impeached?
CaptainPastHisPrime wrote:
Well, look at all the wrong he has done: he neglects helping out people in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans,

WRONG!
2 things: First, it's been 3 years and the government of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana are the ones that dropped the ball (and continue to do so).
The role of the federal government in a recovery situation is to ASSIST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, not do everything, including the things the local gov't neglects to do, choosing instead to point fingers at the feds.

Second: Contrary to popular belief, New Orleans was not hit as heavily as other areas.
Compared to places like Pass Christian, Bay St. Louis, and Gulfport, New Orleans made it off pretty lightly. The failures of the local and state government to accept federal help in evacuating citizens magnified what was a bad (but not terrible) situation.

I could go on and on about how the feds stepped up, but people that needed "help" wasted federal housing aid on strippers, football tickets, and plasma TVs, but what's the point. The Blame Bush First crowd doesn't want to hear it.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
So basically you're saying the federal government did everything it could do, but was hindered because the local government did nothing to assist in its own recovery? Pretty much my assessment of what took place.

And keep in mind, Captain, I would know. My district's HQ is in New Orleans. Have you been to New Orleans since Katrina? I have. A couple of times, in fact.
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
he will have absolutely NOTHING to do with our country giving up its dependency on oil.

Do you drive? Or if you're not old enough yet, do your parents? If so, then my question for you is this: what are YOU doing to decrease our nation's dependence on oil? We can talk all day long about how those in authority ought to do something about our dependence on petroleum, but this is really something only citizens can do, not the president. If you use petroleum, then you are the problem, not the president.


Well, haven't you ever heard of hybrids, fuel efficiency or even cars run by electricity or solar power? And the president can certainly help out. Maybe he can't do it alone, but he can certainly help. And another thing, haven't you ever heard of fuel-efficient cars?
Author:  The Noid [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Every time I hear the word "hybrid", I think of the South Park episode where Kyle's family moves to San Francisco because his Dad gets a hybrid and is too smug for South Park.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:06 am ]
Post subject: 
You just repeated yourself, Prime; in the process you're also dodging the question. Image
Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/