Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Kucinich Forces Impeachment Vote


Guest American Woman

Recommended Posts

It's part of the Canadian pseudo-superiority complex.

What you mean is: "It would be part of the Canadian pseudo-superiority complex. Though, as the presence of the chip has not yet been established, I will refrain from making definitive judgments."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know the impeachment movement can gain if the media ever printed about the Bush/Cheney story to stay in Iraq and not bring the soldiers home. The people want change and they want out of this war and this news will certainly not help McCain .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason why an impeachment case against George Bush never had a chance is not because there is no case -- if you can get past looking at Dennis Kucinich's odd appearance, the case he makes for impeaching the President is more compelling than the one against Clinton -- the two-fold problem is that the Democratic Party is afraid of possible blowback since they would have been trying to impeach the president during a time of undeclared war, and Democratic strategists in Congress made the cynical assessment that leaving George Bush in office to create one disaster after another would give them a big advantage in congressional elections.

On the Republican side, I thought Chuck Hagel was going to at least make a theoretical case for impeachment, but he started backing off when he was still actively looking for a road to the Whitehouse.

Bob Barr has been one of the few Republicans to call bullshit right from the start of the War On Terror. He was an early critic of the Patriot Act, and his predictions of how this legislation endangers civil rights in general, have been right on target! And Bob Barr payed the price politically, in an autocratic party that suppresses dissent! But, since he was the point man in the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, he should have been the first one to advocate impeaching George Bush -- in his commentaries since the WOT started, he has provided enough reasons to make the case for impeachment. It's a shame that although Barr put integrity ahead of political ambition by his criticism of the Bush Administration policies, he has chosen to run as a third party candidate and only offers muted condemnations of Bush and the backstabbers in the Republican Party who kicked him to the curb for speaking out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know the impeachment movement can gain if the media ever printed about the Bush/Cheney story to stay in Iraq and not bring the soldiers home. The people want change and they want out of this war and this news will certainly not help McCain .

You can't impeach a US president for not "bringing the troops home". The "people" can vote for change every 2 years....how did that work out after the 2006 mid-terms? How about those Democrats! :lol:

What the people really want is more cheap gas!

Link to post
Share on other sites
A precedent has already been set...so President Bush will not be impeached.

..

Won't happen...Democrats lack the support and gonads/ovaries. Plus it is an election year. Clinton didn't leave office until January 2001.....he was a two term president.

..

Sure, as soon as you try PMs Chretien, Blair, Chirac, and Schroeder on "War crimes". Don't forget Clinton too. Good luck.....

When will you stop apologizing for them? Yeah sex is impeachable while war crimes are not. See this is the sad state of your Amurika phuck YEH.

Sure, we should throw Cretien, Blair, Chriac, Schroeder, and many many more into the mix. Something I agree with you, but you choose to do nothing about it. Oh it is because you can't? Apologetic and self-defeatist at the same time. But this is the status quo you are comfortable about. You support the lies and hypocracy. You might as well just lie down.

It is like a look into schizophrenia.

HEY LOOK CHEAP GAS !!!!.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Barr has been one of the few Republicans to call bullshit right from the start of the War On Terror. He was an early critic of the Patriot Act, and his predictions of how this legislation endangers civil rights in general, have been right on target! And Bob Barr payed the price politically, in an autocratic party that suppresses dissent! But, since he was the point man in the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, he should have been the first one to advocate impeaching George Bush -- in his commentaries since the WOT started, he has provided enough reasons to make the case for impeachment.

Hell, Bush himself has provided plenty of evidence to support his own impeachment.

It's a shame that although Barr put integrity ahead of political ambition by his criticism of the Bush Administration policies, he has chosen to run as a third party candidate and only offers muted condemnations of Bush and the backstabbers in the Republican Party who kicked him to the curb for speaking out.

Integrity should win over political ambition, but too many people sell out right away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When will you stop apologizing for them? Yeah sex is impeachable while war crimes are not. See this is the sad state of your Amurika phuck YEH.

I love it when you pout! :lol:

Sure, we should throw Cretien, Blair, Chriac, Schroeder, and many many more into the mix. Something I agree with you, but you choose to do nothing about it. Oh it is because you can't? Apologetic and self-defeatist at the same time. But this is the status quo you are comfortable about. You support the lies and hypocracy. You might as well just lie down.

Actually, I am quite comfortable with it, preferring only to point out your inconsistency and cognitive dissonance, while also living large in the wild wild West. It must make for a helluva brain knuckle, huh?

It is like a look into schizophrenia.

HEY LOOK CHEAP GAS !!!!.

How about diesel too! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I am quite comfortable with it, preferring only to point out your inconsistency and cognitive dissonance, while also living large in the wild wild West. It must make for a helluva brain knuckle, huh?

Inconsistant? Cognitive? Wild wild west? At least try to live in this century.

Yes I know you are comfortable with lies and hypocracy of your leaders. If you support it, then I am going to draw the conclusion that you are a hypocrite and a liar as well. Please tell me if I am wrong here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inconsistant? Cognitive? Wild wild west? At least try to live in this century.

Yes I know you are comfortable with lies and hypocracy of your leaders. If you support it, then I am going to draw the conclusion that you are a hypocrite and a liar as well. Please tell me if I am wrong here.

You are SO not wrong!!

But, hey at least BC is the 'what ya see is what ya get' kinda guy - that way one doesn't have to waste time on him.

As far as Kucinich's impeachment - it won't go anywhere - Bush will escape the courts, never pay for his crime and probably retire to some south american country just like war criminals of the past. I wonder -will Kissinger be joining him?

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I know you are comfortable with lies and hypocracy of your leaders. If you support it, then I am going to draw the conclusion that you are a hypocrite and a liar as well. Please tell me if I am wrong here.

Of course you are wrong....if it looks like dog crap, smells like dog crap, and tastes like dog crap...then it is probably dog crap. I have a theory that people like you don't understand reality because of leash laws and pooper scoopers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A precident needs to be set, and those idiots need to be made an example, and accountable to their actions. No one is above the law. If it does not happen now, it will never happen again for future presidents. This means they can abuse the power without reprocussions.

Start the process anyways. Clinton was in the impeachment process in his last year of his only term. So it is never too late.

If Bush cannot be impeached in time, then try him on war crimes when he is out of office. He will have less to protect him after he is out of office.

There is a high bar for impeaching a president. Bush made very bad decisions. Bush exagerated the case for war. Bush did nothing to meet the test for impeachment.

If the US constitution had something like a recall vote, then yes, go ahead and have a recall election. I really wish there was a legal way to impeach him, but there isn't. (it DEEPLY pains me to take this side of the argument)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course you are wrong....if it looks like dog crap, smells like dog crap, and tastes like dog crap...then it is probably dog crap. I have a theory that people like you don't understand reality because of leash laws and pooper scoopers.

Well Bush told us there was dog crap, he thought he smelled dog crap, but yet unable to find dog crap in Iraq. But you know that is not even the reason anymore. So those leash laws and pooper scooper no longer apply, because there was no dog poop.

Good comparison though, maybe for a gradeschooler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Bush told us there was dog crap, he thought he smelled dog crap, but yet unable to find dog crap in Iraq. But you know that is not even the reason anymore. So those leash laws and pooper scooper no longer apply, because there was no dog poop.

Good comparison though, maybe for a gradeschooler.

You don't get it (mangled the metaphor)....but that's OK. You're the one with the tortured brain knuckle and moral lesions. And in my best Alice's Restaraunt mocking tone....there aint'a gonna be no impeachment of President Bush.

So please just wait until January '09, and we will provide somebody new for you to worry about....from afar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's alot of Bush Derangement Syndrome on evidence in this thread. (Note to Sufferers: He's president. Under the US Constitution, he was chosen twice. Get over it. As they say, move on.)

Little something on your chin there August... jeeeez.
Bambino and I have a history.
Which brings me to my point: I didn't say the United States isn't exceptional, I said the ability for a member of parliament to call for the removal of the head of state was not unique to the US, and hence that is not something that makes the country special. If you think Canadian - or British, or Jamaican, or Australian - parliamentarians are too afraid to call for the removal of the head of state, you can only be living in the 18th century; perhaps around 1776?
Look, if I call for the removal of the Head of State, I am called a republican. If an American calls for the removal of the Head of State, even an elected deputy in the central parliament, he just doesn't like Bush. I see a big difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't get it (mangled the metaphor)....but that's OK. You're the one with the tortured brain knuckle and moral lesions. And in my best Alice's Restaraunt mocking tone....there aint'a gonna be no impeachment of President Bush.

So please just wait until January '09, and we will provide somebody new for you to worry about....from afar.

Actually I do get it. I will worry about your next leader from afar, but it is you that will be affected first. And yes my leaders are idiots as well. They are all idiots. You would rather be lead by idiots. Unless you are not as smart as those idiot leaders, then I cannot see/understand the reasons for supporting those idiots. But I have a feeling you are smarter than a 5th grader. I have a feeling you have more of a spine that what you portray here.

August

Bush Derangement Syndrome is a right wing republican smear term. The one that suffers most from that is Bush himself. Also by electing him again (and those elections seemed real shady) you just put up with more abuse and more bullsh!t. If you love being screwed in the ass, then please continue on down this path.

Look, if I call for the removal of the Head of State, I am called a republican. If an American calls for the removal of the Head of State, even an elected deputy in the central parliament, he just doesn't like Bush. I see a big difference.

I think you would be called a patriot. I have only heard a couple members of congress/senate throw impeachment into the ring , but I have heard plenty of regular folk saying impeachment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I do get it. I will worry about your next leader from afar, but it is you that will be affected first. And yes my leaders are idiots as well. They are all idiots. You would rather be lead by idiots.....

This leaves you with few options, and the root cause of your anxiety is revealed. OTOH, I am always skeptical of someone who broadly claims that others are idiots, if only because said "idiots" have managed to run circles around your moral fantasies.

I think you would be called a patriot. I have only heard a couple members of congress/senate throw impeachment into the ring , but I have heard plenty of regular folk saying impeachment.

They also say they want cheap gas.....go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This leaves you with few options, and the root cause of your anxiety is revealed. OTOH, I am always skeptical of someone who broadly claims that others are idiots, if only because said "idiots" have managed to run circles around your moral fantasies.

Well I always point out Bush is an idiot. Then you always point out other leaders who have done simliar actions, which enables me to draw the conclusion that all leaders are idiots. Most of those idiots do know how to run, or what a circle is. But even people running circles around me can get tripped up if I put my foot out. OH, wait but you will say they will just run over it and keep on going. I am always skeptical of the person who says 'everything is fine'.

My morals are sound, and consistant. Can't say that for those 'smart' leaders.

They also say they want cheap gas.....go figure.

I don't see cheap gas anywhere. Which makes me glad I do not own a vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, if I call for the removal of the Head of State, I am called a republican. If an American calls for the removal of the Head of State, even an elected deputy in the central parliament, he just doesn't like Bush. I see a big difference.

So, you're embarassed to be a republican? I don't blame you.

BTW, you can call for the removal of the head of state and not be a republican.

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I always point out Bush is an idiot. Then you always point out other leaders who have done simliar actions, which enables me to draw the conclusion that all leaders are idiots. Most of those idiots do know how to run, or what a circle is.

They do or don't....make up your mind please.

But even people running circles around me can get tripped up if I put my foot out. OH, wait but you will say they will just run over it and keep on going. I am always skeptical of the person who says 'everything is fine'.

Please put your foot out at once....nobody will notice but you, but that's all that counts (I guess).

My morals are sound, and consistant. Can't say that for those 'smart' leaders.

Enjoy them, because they can only matter to you in the end.

I don't see cheap gas anywhere. Which makes me glad I do not own a vehicle.

Gas is cheaper than Diet Coke!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I always point out Bush is an idiot.
BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). According to you, GH, an idiot is president. How does it "feel" to you that Americans chose an idiot for president? (Hint: Live with it. I live with the CBC.)
So, you're embarassed to be a republican? I don't blame you.

BTW, you can call for the removal of the head of state and not be a republican.

I suppose that technically, if I call for the removal of my head of state, I'm calling for her son to become head of state.

More generally though, if I call for the removal of my head of state, it means calling for a revolution, a regime change.

----

Bambino, you just don't get it. If I question Queen Elizabeth, I am questioning the system that made her Queen. If Kucinich questions George W. Bush, well he's just questioning some guy who happens to be president now.

In the very, very long run, which system is, with educated people, is likely to work best and lead to a civilized society?

But I'll remain to my point: in how many countries in the world today can a member of the central parliament openly contest the head of state?

In too many countries of the world, if a deputy did this, he would lose his apartment/housing and he'd lose his car/driver. His children would lose many advantages. His wife would be shunned. He would be an outcast.

Aming others, this would happen in all countries of the Middle East (except Israel) and Africa (except maybe South Africa).

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

August

BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). According to you, GH, an idiot is president. How does it "feel" to you that Americans chose an idiot for president? (Hint: Live with it. I live with the CBC.)

I live without the CBC. But that is a personal choice. Bush is an idiot. That is not hard to see. And I am not sure they really choosed him as President. The courts claimed he was the victor in the 2000 elections. Remember the debacle that was Florida? Recount, recount, recount, then discounted and ignored other ballots. Those great 'unhackable' Diebold voting machines.

Bambino, you just don't get it. If I question Queen Elizabeth, I am questioning the system that made her Queen. If Kucinich questions George W. Bush, well he's just questioning some guy who happens to be president now.

I hope you understand the Queen of England is a figure head and holds no power at all. She got there by being born into the Monarchy. Today she is nothing but a symbolic figurehead that has no power. Where the President of the US has power and can/has/will use that power.

And you don't get to be president if you are an average citizen. You are born into it, but in a different way from a Queen. In the US, you are born into wealth and power. We can go back to Prescott Bush (GWBs grandfather) who dealt with the Nazi's during WWII. Prescott was a banker a very wealthy man. When you have wealth, you have power. Then we see George Bush SR. and now Bush Jr. as Presidents.

But I'll remain to my point: in how many countries in the world today can a member of the central parliament openly contest the head of state?

Every single one of them has the ability to do it. But again the reprocussions are what are on peoples minds.

In too many countries of the world, if a deputy did this, he would lose his apartment/housing and he'd lose his car/driver. His children would lose many advantages. His wife would be shunned. He would be an outcast.

Could you classify that as extortion? Bribery? And it happens all over the world in all countries. If you are not one of the good ol boys, or don't support the good ol boys then you will be maginalized.

Again, this is the state of FEAR that the powers that be want you to remain in. FEAR FEAR FEAR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
August

Remember the debacle that was Florida? Recount, recount, recount, then discounted and ignored other ballots. Those great 'unhackable' Diebold voting machines.

Yes...it seems that counting the votes was not as important this time around for the Democrats.

....Where the President of the US has power and can/has/will use that power.

Most definitely....damn any one who doesn't.

And you don't get to be president if you are an average citizen. You are born into it, but in a different way from a Queen. In the US, you are born into wealth and power. We can go back to Prescott Bush (GWBs grandfather) who dealt with the Nazi's during WWII. Prescott was a banker a very wealthy man. When you have wealth, you have power. Then we see George Bush SR. and now Bush Jr. as Presidents.

Gee...many other presidents want to know about the wealth they never had. Where is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose that technically, if I call for the removal of my head of state, I'm calling for her son to become head of state.

More generally though, if I call for the removal of my head of state, it means calling for a revolution, a regime change.

Bambino, you just don't get it. If I question Queen Elizabeth, I am questioning the system that made her Queen. If Kucinich questions George W. Bush, well he's just questioning some guy who happens to be president now.

I get that you're confusing matters for yourself. You started off by asserting that the US system is amazing for uniquely allowing a member of parliament to openly call for the removal of the head of state. In response to my rebuttal that a parliamentarian can do the same thing here, you said that when you call for the removal of the head of state you're called a republican. Besides the point that I don't know if you're a parliamentarian or not, this all seems to say that you believe the only path to a new head of state in a constitutional monarchy is through regime change, unlike in the US. That belief is unfounded.

You, and parliamentarians in Canada, are free to call for a new head of state, whether through a new constitution or simply an act of parliament, despite the fact that Canada does not have an American system of government.

In the very, very long run, which system is, with educated people, is likely to work best and lead to a civilized society?

Well, I don't know for sure, but the British system has lasted a hell of a lot longer than the American one, and a very civilised society flourished under it.

But I'll remain to my point: in how many countries in the world today can a member of the central parliament openly contest the head of state?

Aming others, this would happen in all countries of the Middle East (except Israel) and Africa (except maybe South Africa).

However many it is, it's probably too few. It's interesting to note, though, that almost all the counties in the areas you mention are republics, many using the same presidential system as the US. Not one is a constitutional monarchy (except Jordan, I think).

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you understand the Queen of England is a figure head and holds no power at all. She got there by being born into the Monarchy. Today she is nothing but a symbolic figurehead that has no power. Where the President of the US has power and can/has/will use that power.

And you don't get to be president if you are an average citizen. You are born into it, but in a different way from a Queen. In the US, you are born into wealth and power. We can go back to Prescott Bush (GWBs grandfather) who dealt with the Nazi's during WWII. Prescott was a banker a very wealthy man. When you have wealth, you have power. Then we see George Bush SR. and now Bush Jr. as Presidents.

Well, the Queen of England has no power because she doesn't exist; there hasn't been a Queen of England for some three hundred years. I'll assume, though, that you're talking about the Queen of Canada. In reality, she holds all the power in Canada, but doesn't use it without minsterial direction unless its a dire situation, per convention - that's what makes this country a constitutional monarchy as opposed to an absolute one.

That said, in some ways, the presidential system, such as that in the US, puts one person into a position very similar to that of an absolute monarch; both head of state and head of government, holder of full executive power yet still active in policy making and foreign affairs, all while being unaccountable to the elected legislature, and, generally, always a person of wealth and privilege. It's an elite; only one that is less benign. I'd rather keep the impartial constitutional monarch who generally leaves the exercise of political power to those responsible to the elected lower house of parliament.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...