Rep. Kucinich introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush
-
Oakman wrote:
Lie about WMD so he can invade Iran and secure a large supply of cheap oil for the US?
Out of curiosity, when are we gonna get the large supply of cheap oil from Iraq? Just saying...
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Out of curiosity, when are we gonna get the large supply of cheap oil from Iraq? Just saying...
Any day now. After all Cheney said that Iraq oil would pay for the cost of the war, right?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Philadelphia Enquirer: Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House[^]
Fine by me. There is nothing I want more than for the democrat party to take responsibility for rendering the commaner in chief impotent to defend the nation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Lie about WMD so he can invade Iran and secure a large supply of cheap oil for the US?
Fine - prove it. Go for it, please.... (Actually that would be a good reason to invade, I wish it were true, it would make me feel better about voting for him.)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Yes, these online polls really are way off. ;P
That's certainly a possibility to keep in mind. But on the other hand, if that one wasn't way off then you're even more hopelessly left than even I could have imagined. That's scary, don't you think?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
(you are outclassed, just walk away)
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fine - prove it.
The innocent proclaim their innocence. Only the guilty hide behind "can't prove it!"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Only the guilty hide behind "can't prove it!"
Then it shouldn't be hard to get a conviction. Go ahead, I dare ya...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Only the guilty hide behind "can't prove it!"
Then it shouldn't be hard to get a conviction. Go ahead, I dare ya...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then it shouldn't be hard to get a conviction. Go ahead, I dare ya...
You're preaching to the choir. I figger that unless Bush goes with the blanket pardon there may be as many convictions coming out of the present Administration as there were from the Nixon crowd.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then it shouldn't be hard to get a conviction. Go ahead, I dare ya...
You're preaching to the choir. I figger that unless Bush goes with the blanket pardon there may be as many convictions coming out of the present Administration as there were from the Nixon crowd.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I honestly doubt it. This has all been nothing but political gamesmanship from the very beginning. The Democrats know full well that Bush and Co. have not done anything that will stand up in court, and will not pursue charges once they are in power. The consequencies for thier own leadership would be too risky. Only a moron would actually believe that a course of action which has verifiably resulted in reduced terrorism should be brought to trial. But, hey, there is nothing I would love better than for the dems to do so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:10 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then it shouldn't be hard to get a conviction. Go ahead, I dare ya...
You're preaching to the choir. I figger that unless Bush goes with the blanket pardon there may be as many convictions coming out of the present Administration as there were from the Nixon crowd.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I figger that unless Bush goes with the blanket pardon there may be as many convictions coming out of the present Administration as there were from the Nixon crowd.
for example?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I honestly doubt it. This has all been nothing but political gamesmanship from the very beginning. The Democrats know full well that Bush and Co. have not done anything that will stand up in court, and will not pursue charges once they are in power. The consequencies for thier own leadership would be too risky. Only a moron would actually believe that a course of action which has verifiably resulted in reduced terrorism should be brought to trial. But, hey, there is nothing I would love better than for the dems to do so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:10 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
The Democrats know full well that Bush and Co. have not done anything that will stand up in court,
I think they've got as much on Cheney, Libby and Rove as the Republicans had on Clinton. I think there's good reason to believe the blanket pardon route is being discussed in the East Wing. But I hope the Administration isn't worried. They'll do a poorer job of covering their tracks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
I figger that unless Bush goes with the blanket pardon there may be as many convictions coming out of the present Administration as there were from the Nixon crowd.
for example?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The Democrats know full well that Bush and Co. have not done anything that will stand up in court,
I think they've got as much on Cheney, Libby and Rove as the Republicans had on Clinton. I think there's good reason to believe the blanket pardon route is being discussed in the East Wing. But I hope the Administration isn't worried. They'll do a poorer job of covering their tracks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Except that we are not talking about blow jobs now. We are talking about national defense. There is a lot more on the line. If the dems win, there will be no reason to take the chance on suddenly finding themselves vulnerable to even more charges of being soft on protecting the nation. If they put the Bush administration of trial for how it has conducted its military efforts, and that is followed by another major terrorist attack, what do they do? If Bush's efforts were responsible for crippling terrorist activities, they won't be able to use them. Public perception is everything.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I don't think we've heard the last of the outing of Valerie Plame.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I don't think we've heard the last of the outing of Valerie Plame.
possibly, but were I the judge I'd throw that out of court. She was a desk bound analyst, not an under cover operative. Hardly worth debating but it will be interesting to watch it play out.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
I don't think we've heard the last of the outing of Valerie Plame.
possibly, but were I the judge I'd throw that out of court. She was a desk bound analyst, not an under cover operative. Hardly worth debating but it will be interesting to watch it play out.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
She was a desk bound analyst, not an under cover operative. Hardly worth debating but it will be interesting to watch it play out.
That would have been the argument they should've advanced right away, but instead they appear to have entered into a conspiracy to hide the truth from the special prosecutor (as well as the public, but that's par for the course, regardless of whose in office.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
you're even more hopelessly left than even I could have imagined
Have you ever accused anyone of being too far to the right for your taste? George Lincoln Rockwell, maybe?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
George Lincoln Rockwell, maybe?
Hmmm, an oblique reductio ad Hitlerum.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Me blog, You read
-
Except that we are not talking about blow jobs now. We are talking about national defense. There is a lot more on the line. If the dems win, there will be no reason to take the chance on suddenly finding themselves vulnerable to even more charges of being soft on protecting the nation. If they put the Bush administration of trial for how it has conducted its military efforts, and that is followed by another major terrorist attack, what do they do? If Bush's efforts were responsible for crippling terrorist activities, they won't be able to use them. Public perception is everything.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Bush's efforts were responsible for crippling terrorist activities, they won't be able to use them. Public perception is everything.
I certainly agree with that last thought, but along those lines, I think the Dems will be eager, maybe even anxious, to find all the justifications for getting out of Iraq that they can. The more of a stink they can raise about how the war was entered into and/or conducted, the more righteous they can appear in closing it down.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
George Lincoln Rockwell, maybe?
Hmmm, an oblique reductio ad Hitlerum.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Me blog, You read
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
She was a desk bound analyst, not an under cover operative. Hardly worth debating but it will be interesting to watch it play out.
That would have been the argument they should've advanced right away, but instead they appear to have entered into a conspiracy to hide the truth from the special prosecutor (as well as the public, but that's par for the course, regardless of whose in office.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That would have been the argument they should've advanced right away
agreed.
Oakman wrote:
but that's par for the course, regardless of whose in office
and once again, agreed.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Bush's efforts were responsible for crippling terrorist activities, they won't be able to use them. Public perception is everything.
I certainly agree with that last thought, but along those lines, I think the Dems will be eager, maybe even anxious, to find all the justifications for getting out of Iraq that they can. The more of a stink they can raise about how the war was entered into and/or conducted, the more righteous they can appear in closing it down.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I actually hope you're correct, but I honestly believe most of them are too smart to do that. I'm at the point of being willing to accept harm to my country in order to inflict damage to my real enemy - the left. But then, they have been doing the same thing, so who cares? They have been very successful at obfuscating their true agenda for a long time now, but if they want to voluntarily end the farce, thats fine by me.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Hmmm, an oblique reductio ad Hitlerum.
oblique? I thought it was acute reference :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface