A nonscientific poll on a hypothetical impeachment of GWB.

[evident_enigma]

I just thought that this sort of thing should be done if it hasn't been done already. Have at it gang.

Detailed posts would be appreciated.

[Choobus]

If the supreme court decide he exceeded his authority then he should definately be impeached. If he had the legal right to issue the orders he did then, loathesome assclown though he may be, he should not be impeached.

Sad thing is, he chose the chief fucking justice! Looks like Bushy ain't going nowhere

[Cap'n Awesome]

If the supreme court decide he exceeded his authority then he should definately be impeached. If he had the legal right to issue the orders he did then, loathesome assclown though he may be, he should not be impeached.

Sad thing is, he chose the chief fucking justice! Looks like Bushy ain't going nowhere
Except Choobus, that Congress has the sole power of impeachment, the supreme court doesn't have anything to do with impeaching a president.

[a different tim]

Impeach him anyway. I'm sure we can find some kind of ludicrous fucking side issue to whip up some kind of moral frenzy about.

Not that Congress, that august body, would ever consider introducing such ridiculous trivia into the democratic process.

[GodlessHeathen]

As long as Republicans control Congress, no - he won't be impeached. If Democrats take control of one or more houses of Congress next year, it's a definite possiblity.

[Ponderer]

Come on! When has George ever done anything serious enough to be impeached?

(Like get a blow job.):)

[Philboid Studge]

In 1970, then Rep. Gerry Ford said: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Which is worse, jizzing on an intern or taking a steamer on the Constitution? This is another reason why a parliamentary system might be the superior form of government -- an occasional Vote of Confidence would put the king on notice that he can't jizz all over the Constitution just because he has a royal boner and he's gotta jizz on something. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor)

This weekend, John Kerry said: "If we win back the House [in 2006], I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

It was a frigging joke -- he was speaking at a fundraiser at "Finn McCool's bar" in D.C. fer chrissake. But of course the RNC got their knickers in knots over it. Communications Director Brian Jones: “With his impeachment advocacy last night, John Kerry once again showed how out of touch he is with American people and how in step he is with the far left fringes of the Democrat party. For one of the leaders of the Democrat party to begin a push for presidential impeachment, in seriousness or jest, on the eve of the Iraq elections is both foolish and shortsighted.”

Hey Brian Jones (I thought you were dead?): Blow me.

[Ponderer]

I hope he is never impeached. The absolute worst thing that could happen to this country is "President Dick Chaney".:(

[Philboid Studge]

JibJab's Year-End Round Up (http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx) is High-larious. (The Tide commercial in the beginning is pretty funny too)

[Daniel]

Which is worse, jizzing on an intern or taking a steamer on the Constitution?
I thought Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury.

If anyone has actual proof that GW Bush did something instead of just accusations, then of course he should be impeached.

[Choobus]

If the supreme court decide he exceeded his authority then he should definately be impeached. If he had the legal right to issue the orders he did then, loathesome assclown though he may be, he should not be impeached.

Sad thing is, he chose the chief fucking justice! Looks like Bushy ain't going nowhere
Except Choobus, that Congress has the sole power of impeachment, the supreme court doesn't have anything to do with impeaching a president.
Yes, but the impeachment will be without merit if the president didn't actually exceed his authority, and that can only be decided by the supreme court

[Ponderer]

Which is worse, jizzing on an intern or taking a steamer on the Constitution?
I thought Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury.

If anyone has actual proof that GW Bush did something instead of just accusations, then of course he should be impeached.
You are correct. And he was aquitted (Rightfully so) for these charges. However, the whole thing started over something that has nothing to do with the office of the President. This is not the case with Bush.

[Philboid Studge]

Yeah. Anyway (as Daniel well knows) the 'perjury' and 'obstruction' was over intern-jizzing, something that was never anybody's business. (Actually, I think chubby was not even an intern at the time.) Aren't you glad that tens of millions of a taxpayer bucks went into showing that the Prez would lie over extra-marital spooge squirting?

Meanwhile, I do agree that accusations alone are not enough to launch impeachment proceedings, though it now appears that the First Monkey himself has admitted to a criminal act. As long as he keeps claiming this crime is legal (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1421011), I'm sure he'll be fine.

I wish some conservertarians would assure me that the millions spent on Jizzgate was warranted, and that illegal government wiretappin' is compatible with 'getting the government off our backs,' but I don't hear from them so much these days. :(

[Ponderer]

Yeah. Anyway (as Daniel well knows) the 'perjury' and 'obstruction' was over intern-jizzing, something that was never anybody's business. (Actually, I think chubby was not even an intern at the time.) Aren't you glad that tens of millions of a taxpayer bucks went into showing that the Prez would lie over extra-marital spooge squirting?

Meanwhile, I do agree that accusations alone are not enough to launch impeachment proceedings, though it now appears that the First Monkey himself has admitted to a criminal act. As long as he keeps claiming this crime is legal (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1421011), I'm sure he'll be fine.

I wish some conservertarians would assure me that the millions spent on Jizzgate was warranted, and that illegal government wiretappin' is compatible with 'getting the government off our backs,' but I don't hear from them so much these days. :(
Well said my friend!:)

[Choobus]

Don't you think it's a serious matter that the president of the united states, the so-called leader of the free world and the commander in chief of the most powerful army ever to have existed can't get some better quality poontang than this?

http://www.dancingmonica.com/imagefile/dm3onblack.gif



Like maybe some of this


http://www.dancingmonica.com/imagefile/mondanceani.gif

[Another brick in the wall]

If we're comparing Bush and Clinton, Clinton is hands down the better president. He managed get re-elected after raising taxes and that takes some serious politicking. He masterfully handled the Balkans crisis. And of course, how could anyone not have a soft spot for someone who said "it depends on the meaning of the word is."

[Ponderer]

If we're comparing Bush and Clinton, Clinton is hands down the better president. He managed get re-elected after raising taxes and that takes some serious politicking. He masterfully handled the Balkans crisis. And of course, how could anyone not have a soft spot for someone who said "it depends on the meaning of the word is."
He had a very valid point with that statement. But, that's for another time and thread.:)

Can someone tell me why Bush should be impeached? (Just for argument's sake)

[Choobus]

Know you presidents: can you tell the difference between bush and Clinton?
Take this quick test and see if you can match the following to Shrub or Bill


first surplus since WWII
biggest deficit EVER

A bit of fun in the oval orofice
violation of US citizens civil right

Likes to play the sax
likes to play the fool

Signed Nuclear non-proliferation treaties with Russians
Can't say the word nuclear

Elected for two terms, served two terms
Elected for one terms, served two terms

Unfairly impeached
unfairly not impeached

Worked closely with Britich PM Tony Blair
Regularly performs sodomy on Tony Blair

Initiated "don't ask don't tell" policy for gays in the miltary
Prays to Jesus for gays to burn in hell (or Iraq)

Intelligent and charismatic
So dumb it must be a trick

Authorised asassination of Osama Bin Laden
(up to sept 10) Osama who what now?

[Another brick in the wall]

I guess there isn't really a comparison. I would like to point out though that I think Bush (or at least his advisors) are very savvy, otherwise he would not have won. I think his aura of cluelessness is put down to a degree. One of the main reasons I think he won out over Gore was that he didn't come off as a pompous douche-bag. And of course he probably got some help in Florida. I think the biggest reason the Democrats can't get it together is that the try to hard to be like the opposition. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats are nothing more than Republican Lite.

[Choobus]

ABW, be sure to start a thread and let everyone know if/when you have an original thought, so we can congratulate you on your accomplishment

[Ponderer]

Know you presidents: can you tell the difference between bush and Clinton?
Take this quick test and see if you can match the following to Shrub or Bill


first surplus since WWII
biggest deficit EVER

A bit of fun in the oval orofice
violation of US citizens civil right

Likes to play the sax
likes to play the fool

Signed Nuclear non-proliferation treaties with Russians
Can't say the word nuclear

Elected for two terms, served two terms
Elected for one terms, served two terms

Unfairly impeached
unfairly not impeached

Worked closely with Britich PM Tony Blair
Regularly performs sodomy on Tony Blair

Initiated "don't ask don't tell" policy for gays in the miltary
Prays to Jesus for gays to burn in hell (or Iraq)

Intelligent and charismatic
So dumb it must be a trick

Authorised asassination of Osama Bin Laden
(up to sept 10) Osama who what now?
This must be the easiest test in history!:lol:

I guess there isn't really a comparison. I would like to point out though that I think Bush (or at least his advisors) are very savvy, otherwise he would not have won. I think his aura of cluelessness is put down to a degree. One of the main reasons I think he won out over Gore was that he didn't come off as a pompous douche-bag. And of course he probably got some help in Florida. I think the biggest reason the Democrats can't get it together is that the try to hard to be like the opposition. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats are nothing more than Republican Lite.

I agree to an extent. However, I think this is true for both parties.:)

[Ponderer]

ABW, be sure to start a thread and let everyone know if/when you have an original thought, so we can congratulate you on your accomplishment
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Another brick in the wall]

Oops. That should read "put on" and not "put down." Why do I keep subsituting "down" everywhere?

[Ponderer]

Oops. That should read "put on" and not "put down." Why do I keep subsituting "down" everywhere?
Either way, It's true!:)

[Another brick in the wall]

ABW, be sure to start a thread and let everyone know if/when you have an original thought, so we can congratulate you on your accomplishment
Original, huh? You mean like "society is structured so that the underclass can't advance . . . .

much later . . . .

The only thing workers of the world have to lose are their chains. Victory to the proletariat!"

You're a funny guy but every time you talk about economics you sound like the vice president of the Che Guevara fan club. :P But I guess I should defer, lest I have you wagging your crooked old finger at me. Hopefully you won't be waving a crooked old anything-else at me.

[Choobus]

Another prick, google "republican lite" and see how original your sentiments are.

I think you need to realize that you came up against me, you lost, and therefore you are now my bitch. I see more cogent economical arguments floating in the toilet bowl after a huge dump than I have seen from you. All you know how to do is repeat neo-con fools like Bill O'reilly and all the other retards at for news. You are kind of like a hobo who finds a week old newspaper and has nothing to do for days but read it, and who then goes up to all the other hobo's and claims to know what is going on in the world. If youweren't so hateful and nasty I would pity you. I guess I do feel a bit sorry for you since you were assfucked by your alcoholic uncle.

[WITHTEETH]

If Bush has a blow job in the Oval Office, THATS where I draw the line..........

Are you feeling my deep sarcasm?Whether you believe in his impeachment or not, does a man have to get a blow job in the Oval office to get one? This standard is now ludicrous.

[Ponderer]

If Bush has a blow job in the Oval Office, THATS where I draw the line..........

Are you feeling my deep sarcasm?Whether you believe in his impeachment or not, does a man have to get a blow job in the Oval office to get one? This standard is now ludicrous.
If Bush wants a blowjob I say let him have it. He needs it. It doesn't matter if it's in the office or not. It's none of anyone else's business.

[Another brick in the wall]

Another prick, google "republican lite" and see how original your sentiments are.

I think you need to realize that you came up against me, you lost, and therefore you are now my bitch. I see more cogent economical arguments floating in the toilet bowl after a huge dump than I have seen from you. All you know how to do is repeat neo-con fools like Bill O'reilly and all the other retards at for news. You are kind of like a hobo who finds a week old newspaper and has nothing to do for days but read it, and who then goes up to all the other hobo's and claims to know what is going on in the world. If youweren't so hateful and nasty I would pity you. I guess I do feel a bit sorry for you since you were assfucked by your alcoholic uncle.
I'm hateful and nasty, eh? Do a search on Raving Atheist for "cunt" and see how many times your name pops up. I tried to be nice and concede defeat gracefully, but you seem hell-bent on taking me down. Loosen up a little. For the record, I think Bill O'Reilly is a loathsome character. Much like you, he is a self-righteous dunce who lectures on things he knows nothing about.

I may be a young man, but I've had a variety of experiences. So far I've worked in:

1) Factory

2) Farm

3) Restaurant

4) Warehouse

You refuse to discuss your work experiences, which leads me to conclude that you're either embarrassed to talk about it or you haven't had much. Are you so old that you can't remember working crap jobs for chicken feed?

Bill O'Reilly? Do you think he favors the legalization of marijuana? Or getting the government out of the marriage business?

[Choobus]

Another prick, google "republican lite" and see how original your sentiments are.

I think you need to realize that you came up against me, you lost, and therefore you are now my bitch. I see more cogent economical arguments floating in the toilet bowl after a huge dump than I have seen from you. All you know how to do is repeat neo-con fools like Bill O'reilly and all the other retards at for news. You are kind of like a hobo who finds a week old newspaper and has nothing to do for days but read it, and who then goes up to all the other hobo's and claims to know what is going on in the world. If youweren't so hateful and nasty I would pity you. I guess I do feel a bit sorry for you since you were assfucked by your alcoholic uncle.
I'm hateful and nasty, eh? Do a search on Raving Atheist for "cunt" and see how many times your name pops up. I tried to be nice and concede defeat gracefully, but you seem hell-bent on taking me down. Loosen up a little. For the record, I think Bill O'Reilly is a loathsome character. Much like you, he is a self-righteous dunce who lectures on things he knows nothing about.

I may be a young man, but I've had a variety of experiences. So far I've worked in:

1) Factory

2) Farm

3) Restaurant

4) Rent Boy

5) Warehouse

You refuse to discuss your work experiences, which leads me to conclude that you're either embarrassed to talk about it or you haven't had much. Are you so old that you can't remember working crap jobs for chicken feed?

Bill O'Reilly? Do you think he favors the legalization of marijuana? Or getting the government out of the marriage business?
:lol::lol::lol: :o

This is what you call graceful? You really are a cunt aren't you! You crack me up with your foolishness. I'm not at all surprised that you're a farm boy. I don't have any inclination to discuss my work with an assclown like you for many reasons.


1) you are too dumb to understand it

2) I really don't care what you "think" anyway

3) you are way to dumb to understand it

4) I don't want to confuse you.


I'll tell you this much though, I have taught in Universities that you could never hope to get into on account of your incredible stupidity. I see you more as a clown college guy (or maybe assclown college :lol::lol:)

Keep em coming another prick, you're mildly amusing!

[Another brick in the wall]

What is your Phd in? Underwater kazoo playing? You may be educated but I certainly don't see any sign of it. It's telling that you continue to ignore my arguments. More insults and smiley faces huh? I expected as much. The only science topic you seem to latch on to is physics, so I'm guessing that's your area of expertise. Yeah, I'm a farm boy, but I suppose in your mind that disqualifies me from being able to render an informed opinion on poverty and social class.

When I argue to Philboid or Ten, even if they think I'm completely off base, the give me the courtesy of addressing my arguments. I've known lots of smart people. The ones I admire best are those who are self-effacing and will take the time to explain why I'm wrong. The worst kind of jerk is the elitist smart-ass who won't even bother to talk to you. You have a serious case of Ivory Tower syndrome. Are you working on the next phase of artificial intelligence? stem cell research? GUT? Do you have a Nobel Prize?

I appreciate you taking time out of your busy day to ignore me. I'm sure you're busy tutoring under-priveleged innner city children since you care so much about the plight of the lower classes.

[Choobus]

Hey now little boy, I asked you to lay out your "Argument" so we could debate it properly but you refused, then you started giving me shit so fuck you assclown. I don't have 1% of the patience of tenspace or philiboid and if I did I wouldn't waste it on someone with your gross ignorance and refusal to learn.

I don't really know what your position is, all I know is that you periodically spout out some Fox news style bullshit and it is therefore impossible to address your points. I can't even tell if you are a holocaust denying goose stepping skinhead or a fat straw chewing budweiser swilling hick. Both would have similarly vague positions as yours.

I appreciate you taking time out of your busy day of jerking off interstate truck drivers for five bucks a pop to amuse me with your demented tirades. As I said, keep em coming.

[Another brick in the wall]

Wow, what a surprise. You ignore my questions again. It seems like if you were really on to something, you might want to brag about it a little, seeing as you're a big-shot professor deigning to answer the questions of an ignorant farm boy. But I suppose you're working on super-secret-hush-hush-can't-talk-to-civillains stuff.

Oh great Choobus, I imagine your dazzling wisdom would be enough to kill a mere mortal engineering student such as myself. Please show me a glimpse of your glory, no matter how fleeting it may be!

You need to get off your high horse. I'm sure you are quite knowledgeable in your field. However, even with my mere undergraduate knowledge of biology, I'm sure I could run rings around you. I had a wonderful physics professor at the university. Not only was he extremely knowledgeable, he had a wondeful personality. On the last day of class, he played "Pop goes he weasel" on the violin while riding the unicycle. He onced joked that although he wasn't as good a physicist as Einstein, his violin tutor said he played better than him. That particular professor got his Phd from Stanford by the way.

You seem to think that free market = fascism. Oh dear, where to begin? First off, have you ever heard of David Ricardo? He's one of the fathers of classical economics. His Iron Law of Wages stipulates that any attempt to better the working class by forcing employers to raise salaries is doomed to failure. Recently in Florida, there was talk of a minimum wage hike. Naturally, small businesses such as restaurants led the opposition. The motion passed, and the wage was raised. However, the businesses responded by cutting their workers' hours and firing people, so in the end, no one benefited. I suppose there were some "progressives" who felt a fleeting sense of pride for helping people to get people laid off.

[evident_enigma]

I'm curious, who chose none of the above, and why? Just wondering...
ee

[Lurker]

Brick,
One thing you'll learn as you get older -- when to stop talking and just let it go (with a laugh of course) :)

[Another brick in the wall]

I thought we'd buried the hatchet, and then he comes out swinging again. I guess I just enjoy wasting my breath.

[Lurker]

I thought we'd buried the hatchet, and then he comes out swinging again. I guess I just enjoy wasting my breath.
I'd give you some biblical advise but you'd probably think I was taking it out of context. :lol:

[Another brick in the wall]

"A kind word turns away anger, but a . . ." I forget the rest. It's in Proverbs somewhere. At any rate, Choobus has requested that I explicitly spell out my position. I'll open a new thread for that and then he can hammer away at it to his heart's content. Hopefully, that will be the end of it. I know I've been abrasive and illogical at times but can you blame me? I'm a young hot-head with nothing but time.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Yeah. Anyway (as Daniel well knows) the 'perjury' and 'obstruction' was over intern-jizzing, something that was never anybody's business. (Actually, I think chubby was not even an intern at the time.) Aren't you glad that tens of millions of a taxpayer bucks went into showing that the Prez would lie over extra-marital spooge squirting?

Meanwhile, I do agree that accusations alone are not enough to launch impeachment proceedings, though it now appears that the First Monkey himself has admitted to a criminal act. As long as he keeps claiming this crime is legal (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1421011), I'm sure he'll be fine.

I wish some conservertarians would assure me that the millions spent on Jizzgate was warranted, and that illegal government wiretappin' is compatible with 'getting the government off our backs,' but I don't hear from them so much these days. :(
Bush vows to continue wiretapping after the patriot act runs out. Since he was empowered by the patriot act to do those wiretaps then he didn't do anything illegal. If he is involved with a single one after midnight on new years, then that's a whole diffrent story.

Personally the wiretap thing pissed me off something awful, and I'm one of the most conservative people on this board. Luckily it pissed off John Sununu (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901553.html) and a few other liberty minded Republicans in the Senate also, who did the right thing in voting to block it with the Democrats.

Edit: P.S. I also thought that impeaching Clinton was pretty much bullshit. To quote Barry Goldwater "If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government."

[Lurker]

Edit: P.S. I also thought that impeaching Clinton was pretty much bullshit. To quote Barry Goldwater "If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government."
Hey, not such a bad idea.

[Choobus]

Wow, what a surprise. You ignore my questions again. It seems like if you were really on to something, you might want to brag about it a little, seeing as you're a big-shot professor deigning to answer the questions of an ignorant farm boy. But I suppose you're working on super-secret-hush-hush-can't-talk-to-civillains stuff.

Oh great Choobus, I imagine your dazzling wisdom would be enough to kill a mere mortal engineering student such as myself. Please show me a glimpse of your glory, no matter how fleeting it may be!

You need to get off your high horse. I'm sure you are quite knowledgeable in your field. However, even with my mere undergraduate knowledge of biology, I'm sure I could run rings around you. I had a wonderful physics professor at the university. Not only was he extremely knowledgeable, he had a wondeful personality. On the last day of class, he played "Pop goes he weasel" on the violin while riding the unicycle. He onced joked that although he wasn't as good a physicist as Einstein, his violin tutor said he played better than him. That particular professor got his Phd from Stanford by the way.

You seem to think that free market = fascism. Oh dear, where to begin? First off, have you ever heard of David Ricardo? He's one of the fathers of classical economics. His Iron Law of Wages stipulates that any attempt to better the working class by forcing employers to raise salaries is doomed to failure. Recently in Florida, there was talk of a minimum wage hike. Naturally, small businesses such as restaurants led the opposition. The motion passed, and the wage was raised. However, the businesses responded by cutting their workers' hours and firing people, so in the end, no one benefited. I suppose there were some "progressives" who felt a fleeting sense of pride for helping people to get people laid off.
Yawn. You're just getting boring now.

I did like the "I'm sure I could run rings around you..." Based on what exactly? The way I have already beaten you according to an impartial judgement? Your extensive knowledge of vinyl siding and milking cows? Some secret knowledge you picked up as a Wal Mart associate?

If you want a serious debate I'm all for it, but I just can't do it when you don't say what your position is.

I never said anything about raising wages did I? I dislike Wal Mart because they illegally screw their employees. If you have knowledge of economics then you will know that unions most certainly do benefit workers, which is why Wal Mart are so serious about stamping out any attempts to unionize among their employees.

If you want to set up absurd arguments and attribute them to me (free market = fascism) then at least make sure I haven't already explicitly stated the exact opposite! I've said I'm no communist, I am not against capitalism and I don't have a problem with companies making a profit. What I don't like are big companies (like, say, Wal Mart) pushing people around because they can. Did you even look at the links I gave you? It's not some left wing propoganda, it is all sourced information that backs up what I am saying and much more about a systematic program run from the highest levels of management in Wal Mart to maximise profits (not in itself a bad thing) by keeping employee pay and benefits at the absolute minimum.

As for your comments about the poor bringing it upon themselves because they are lazy, well that appears to be nothing short of ignorance. If this is in fact your opinion based on a considered position perhaps you will tell us what these considerations are. Otherwise you just sound like a neo-con idiot.

I can play nice, but if you're going to be a prick about it I can do that too, as you know.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Edit: P.S. I also thought that impeaching Clinton was pretty much bullshit. To quote Barry Goldwater "If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government."
Hey, not such a bad idea.
Ha, are you a closet libertarian lurker? Anarchist desires raging beneath that calm bible quoting do-goodger exterior?

[Another brick in the wall]

I've been real wound-up lately (I guess you noticed). Anyway, you're right, I was being asshole and I'm sorry. You won that debate fair square and I was pretty much all over the place. I'll try to be more respectful and I hope you'll reciprocate. I opened up a new thread; I don't want to pollute this one anymore.

[peepnklown]

“I’m the commander, I do not need to explain why I say things…May be somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation. G.W. Bush

[inkadu]

Bush vows to continue wiretapping after the patriot act runs out. Since he was empowered by the patriot act to do those wiretaps then he didn't do anything illegal. If he is involved with a single one after midnight on new years, then that's a whole diffrent story.
What are you talking about? The Patriot Act does NOT authorize the president to personally authorize wiretapping people outside of the FISA system, a special law and set of courts created for the express purpose of expediting national security warrants under judicial supervision. I think there have been like 1,500 of these warrants issues in the last 30 years, and none of them has ever been turned down.

Alberto Gonzalez, state AG, has been saying that war authorization gave Bush the power because it gave him, "all necessary and appropriate powers" to prosecute the war on terrorism. That's pretty damn week. And in the next breath, Gonzalez says, Congress wouldn't approve this authority, so they wouldn't have passed it in the patriot act.

Jesus, the only reason I suffer Libertarian extremists like yourself is that I know you're going to stick up for civil rights -- or at least explicit government intrusion on civil rights. Bush had absolutely no authorization for what he did. If the Supreme Court determines what he did is legal, we are not on a slippery-slope to dictatorship -- we are already there.

[Philboid Studge]

Ahoy, Cap'n! I believe Inkadu has it about right*. (I've been following the story only marginally, so some of the nuances may escape me; feel free to call me a lazy hippy.) To add one more point: I believe the Patriot Act authorises the prez to obtain a warrant after a search, but in dozens (100s?) of cases, King Monkey couldn't be bothered to do even that.

Anyway, privacy and civil liberties issues are among the few areas hippies and conservaqueerians can circle-jerk, so we should enjoy it while we can.


*Q: If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

Treasure of the Sierra Madre:

DOBBS: If you're the police, where are your badges?

GOLD HAT: 'Badges'? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!

[Cap'n Awesome]

Jesus, the only reason I suffer Libertarian extremists like yourself is that I know you're going to stick up for civil rights -- or at least explicit government intrusion on civil rights. Bush had absolutely no authorization for what he did. If the Supreme Court determines what he did is legal, we are not on a slippery-slope to dictatorship -- we are already there.
Must ......stop........laughing. Well thank you for suffering through us silly Libertarians oh kind and benevolant one! I know that the fate of my livelyhood depends on whether or not you can 'suffer' through the horrible opinions I post on an internet livelyhood.

I don't see how I go on a rant against wiretapping and the patriot act, and then I get Bashed as though I've just spoken in favor of it.

The dictatorship comment is fairly rediculous though, here's the true test if he wants to turn himself into a dictator, is he going to stay for more then his term? If the answer is yes, I'll be the first person to pick up a gun and show just how much I disapprove. However I haven't seen any sign that that is going to happen, so I'll just chill for the moment.

[Choobus]

Bush vows to continue wiretapping after the patriot act runs out. Since he was empowered by the patriot act to do those wiretaps then he didn't do anything illegal. If he is involved with a single one after midnight on new years, then that's a whole diffrent story.
What are you talking about? The Patriot Act does NOT authorize the president to personally authorize wiretapping people outside of the FISA system, a special law and set of courts created for the express purpose of expediting national security warrants under judicial supervision. I think there have been like 1,500 of these warrants issues in the last 30 years, and none of them has ever been turned down.
IO heard on NPR that there had been 1600 FISA warrants issued LAST YEAR! At least I think I did, I was soldering a circuit board at the time and may have got it wrong

[Daniel]

Yeah. Anyway (as Daniel well knows) the 'perjury' and 'obstruction' was over intern-jizzing, something that was never anybody's business. (Actually, I think chubby was not even an intern at the time.) Aren't you glad that tens of millions of a taxpayer bucks went into showing that the Prez would lie over extra-marital spooge squirting?

Meanwhile, I do agree that accusations alone are not enough to launch impeachment proceedings, though it now appears that the First Monkey himself has admitted to a criminal act. As long as he keeps claiming this crime is legal (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1421011), I'm sure he'll be fine.

I wish some conservertarians would assure me that the millions spent on Jizzgate was warranted, and that illegal government wiretappin' is compatible with 'getting the government off our backs,' but I don't hear from them so much these days. :(
Actually, Mr. Studge, I agree with you concerning the wire-taps. When I first heard of it, that didn't sit well with me. I certainly hope there is an investigation and if Mr. Bush is found guilty of overstepping his bounds then naturally I would support an impeachment.

As for your other point about Clinton, here's the charge:

"Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article III


In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. "

It comes from here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm


I don't see anything about "jizz" or "blowjob" or "chubby" anywhere in it. Since Clinton did break the law, and since I don't like the idea of our head of state breaking any laws, regardless of how you feel about those laws, I'm glad the House impeached him. Or are we not governed by a system of laws anymore?

[Philboid Studge]

Thanks, Daniel. So we agree on both points, then? Or is there something in Article I or III not related to the prez squirting man-juice over Monica and the subsequent lying over said spooge-fest? Nuthin? All of it was over a blow job?

Cool. Now what to make of your statement "Since Clinton did break the law ... "?

He was acquitted, wasn't he? What happened to your original statement back in post #10, about 'accusations'? Or does your outrage only extend toward heterosexual activity?

[Choobus]

I did not see the words hummer, chubby-chaser or spooge anywhere in those articles of impeachment. Are you sure they are the right ones?

[Daniel]

Thanks, Daniel. So we agree on both points, then? Or is there something in Article I or III not related to the prez squirting man-juice over Monica and the subsequent lying over said spooge-fest? Nuthin? All of it was over a blow job?

Cool. Now what to make of your statement "Since Clinton did break the law ... "?

He was acquitted, wasn't he? What happened to your original statement back in post #10, about 'accusations'? Or does your outrage only extend toward heterosexual activity?
So are you claiming he was acquitted because he didn't commit perjury or obstruction of justice? They were more than just accusations.

And, by the way, you sound like George W. Bush. After all, if he committed a crime by wire-tapping, or domestic spying, he is saying now that he did what he did to protect American citizens. Since that is a perfectly honorable motive, (even though it was a crime), and since Clinton only did what he did because it was just a blow-job (even though perjury and obstruction of justice is a crime), then it shouldn't matter that our executive branch thinks it can do what it likes while the rest of us peons have to follow the rules.

[Viole]

Hold on a moment!

I don't support impeachment for frivolous purposes, or because of a rumor, but you also have to recognize that an impeachment isn't a trial in itself. The trial takes place before the senate.

So, considering that Bush performing illegal wiretaps is a pretty damn serious issue, I've no problem with impeaching him now. I've actually been supporting the Impeach Bush movement for years. I'd say we had reason to impeach him when accusations we found out he used fake intelligence to get us into Iraq.

While we're at it, we should impeach any remaining Justice of the Supreme Court who voted to hear Bush vrs. Gore back in 2000, since it was clearly a state issue and beyond their jurisdiction.

[Philboid Studge]

So are you claiming he was acquitted because he didn't commit perjury or obstruction of justice? They were more than just accusations.
Ah, I think I understand your confusion. Impeachment is nothing more than an official accusation (maybe I should have pointed that out back in your original post). Unfortunately, the word also means 'removal from office,' but of course Clinton was not impeached in that sense. So, how -- if he was acquitted (which, happily has only one definition) -- was his impeachment any more than just accusations?

However, when you said, “If anyone has actual proof that GW Bush did something instead of just accusations, then of course he should be impeached.” -- here you were using the other definition, i.e., ‘removed from office.’

Your confusion is totally understandable.

On the other hand, I’m at a loss to explain your confused state here:

“And, by the way, you sound like George W. Bush. After all, if he committed a crime by wire-tapping, or domestic spying, he is saying now that he did what he did to protect American citizens. Since that is a perfectly honorable motive, (even though it was a crime), and since Clinton only did what he did because it was just a blow-job (even though perjury and obstruction of justice is a crime), then it shouldn't matter that our executive branch thinks it can do what it likes while the rest of us peons have to follow the rules.”

I don’t think it was anyone’s business who Clinton was squirting jizz on (except perhaps Hillary’s). And remember, even his so-called ‘crimes’ were contingent on being asked questions that no one had any business asking! Fortunately for the republic, he was acquitted, and so is as innocent of any crime as, say, Robert Blake.

But in Bush’s case -- if he indeed circumvented the Constitution -- his very act demolishes basic civic protections that I for one hold dear, and therefore his good intentions (even if really has them) are besides the point. Of course, now that we do have serious questions worth asking, they won’t be, since the President’s party controls both Houses of Congress.

[Daniel]

So are you claiming he was acquitted because he didn't commit perjury or obstruction of justice? They were more than just accusations.
Ah, I think I understand your confusion. Impeachment is nothing more than an official accusation (maybe I should have pointed that out back in your original post). Unfortunately, the word also means 'removal from office,' but of course Clinton was not impeached in that sense. So, how -- if he was acquitted (which, happily has only one definition) -- was his impeachment any more than just accusations?

However, when you said, “If anyone has actual proof that GW Bush did something instead of just accusations, then of course he should be impeached.” -- here you were using the other definition, i.e., ‘removed from office.’

Your confusion is totally understandable.

On the other hand, I’m at a loss to explain your confused state here:

“And, by the way, you sound like George W. Bush. After all, if he committed a crime by wire-tapping, or domestic spying, he is saying now that he did what he did to protect American citizens. Since that is a perfectly honorable motive, (even though it was a crime), and since Clinton only did what he did because it was just a blow-job (even though perjury and obstruction of justice is a crime), then it shouldn't matter that our executive branch thinks it can do what it likes while the rest of us peons have to follow the rules.”

I don’t think it was anyone’s business who Clinton was squirting jizz on (except perhaps Hillary’s). And remember, even his so-called ‘crimes’ were contingent on being asked questions that no one had any business asking! Fortunately for the republic, he was acquitted, and so is as innocent of any crime as, say, Robert Blake.

But in Bush’s case -- if he indeed circumvented the Constitution -- his very act demolishes basic civic protections that I for one hold dear, and therefore his good intentions (even if really has them) are besides the point. Of course, now that we do have serious questions worth asking, they won’t be, since the President’s party controls both Houses of Congress.
I think it was the business of certain people to ask because he was on trial:

"In the Beginning...

Paula Corbin Jones filed suit in 1994, alleging that Bill Clinton propositioned her and exposed himself to her in a Little Rock hotel room three years earlier, when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a low-level state employee.

From the start, Clinton denied any wrongdoing. He accused Jones of being an opportunist who went public with her story to make money and harm him politically.

In May 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed Clinton's attempt to delay the trial until he leaves office. The court said it was unlikely the case would burden Clinton's time.

In June 1997, Clinton offered a $700,000 settlement payment to charity, but Jones said she also wanted an apology.

Lawyers on both sides of the lawsuit engaged in a brutal legal and public-relations battle during February and March, with the Jones team filing hundreds of pages of unprecedented, fascinating and often tawdry legal documents.

But U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ultimately sided with the Clinton's team motion for a "summary judgement" throwing out the case before it could come to trial.

Even if Clinton did make a crude proposition, Wright wrote that it would not constitute sexual assault and that there was no proof Jones was emotionally afflicted or punished in the workplace for rebuffing him.

"There are no genuine issues for trial in this case," she wrote.

Nevertheless, Jones filed an appeal and both parties began a second round of settlement talks.

The case was a multiple precedent shatterer. Never before had a president's sex life come under such scrutiny. Clinton's videotaped deposition on Jan. 17 was the first time a sitting president was interrogated as a defendant in a court case.

And allegations of perjury in that deposition are among the 11 possibly impeachable offenses that Starr outlined in his September report to Congress. (For more information, see the Clinton Accused Special Report.) "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/pjones.htm

It was more than just accusations. Therefore, Clinton's good, bad, adulterous (whatever) intentions are also beside the point. The point is that he broke the law.

[Daniel]

Here's a little take on Dubya from here:

http://sirrealswordsofwisdom.blogspot.com/

All the extreme loony lefties might have gotten their wish. If, as it appears, George Bush illegally spied on people in the U.S. he might very well be impeached.

I don't think our president is wasting his time reading my goofy e-mails. But the problem is not what motive this president has (fighting terrorism), nor how he's using his power (unless it is found to be creepy and reprehensible). The problem is even if George Bush is an angel in the way he's using these domestic spying techniques, it doesn't mean everyone else will be who would be able to use the same arguments and same techniques as he does.

The reason for our open democratic institutions is to be able to hold the government accountable for its actions. It might be inconvenient and annoying to have to go through our maddeningly slow legal process, but I think most Americans would prefer freedom over the ability of the executive to become a tyrant. And if it is found that Bush ignored the law for his own convenience, even if the reason was to protect our citizens, then he should be impeached.

But there is one problem I foresee. The Bush administration is citing its "use of force authorization" as a defense. They are claiming that Congress gave him the right to go after terrorists in such a way by its authorization after 9/11. Here's the resolution:


"107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.
Attest:
Secretary.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. "

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

I'm not a lawyer, but this does seem pretty vague. I can see how they can use this as a defense. I think there should be an investigation into what went on to be able to determine if Bush abused his power. I'm not making any conclusions yet, but from my initial take it does seem bad. And I just do not sit well with allowing my president to secretly spy on people in our country without any kind of oversight by either the public or another government institution. We'll see.



http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=fundLaunches&storyID=2005-12-19T225913Z_01_SPI957096_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-SECURITY-1.xml

[Philboid Studge]

The point is that he broke the law.
Daniel, until you work out the difference between committing a crime and being acquitted of one, I'm not sure I can help you. Good luck, though!

[Daniel]

The point is that he broke the law.
Daniel, until you work out the difference between committing a crime and being acquitted of one, I'm not sure I can help you. Good luck, though!
Philboid, until you admit that perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes and stop trying to weasel out of it, I'm not sure I can help you. It's sad that you've gotten rid of your other god and made Bill Clinton your deity.

All Hail the Church of Slick Willie!!!!

:D:D:D:D

[inkadu]

Must ......stop........laughing. Well thank you for suffering through us silly Libertarians oh kind and benevolant one! I know that the fate of my livelyhood depends on whether or not you can 'suffer' through the horrible opinions I post on an internet livelyhood.
Excellent. I'm glad we understand each other.

I don't see how I go on a rant against wiretapping and the patriot act, and then I get Bashed as though I've just spoken in favor of it.
Yeah, well, I was on my way to work, and since I can't find anyway actually supporting these wiretaps, I had to settle for someone misinformed.

The dictatorship comment is fairly rediculous though, here's the true test if he wants to turn himself into a dictator, is he going to stay for more then his term?
I'd say my comment is only faintly ridiculous, not fairly ridiculous. Bush's legal argument seems to be that in a time of war, I can do whatever the hell I want. That completely wrecks the checks and balances. I don't see anything STOPPING a dictatorship if that's the legal standard (with all due respect towards your firearm).

Second, the point of the Bush/Rove project is not to keep Bush in power, but to keep the Republican party in power. For that, unchecked presidential power can be helpful in winning campaigns and intimidating enemies. In a Democracy, you don't have to kill your enemies to have nigh-absolute power, you just have a stable majority in both houses and the presidency.

[GodlessHeathen]

The point is that he broke the law.
Daniel, until you work out the difference between committing a crime and being acquitted of one, I'm not sure I can help you. Good luck, though!
Philboid, until you admit that perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes and stop trying to weasel out of it, I'm not sure I can help you. It's sad that you've gotten rid of your other god and made Bill Clinton your deity.

All Hail the Church of Slick Willie!!!!

:D:D:D:D
Man, I wish he would've just looked into the camera and said "yes, I fucked that woman. I fucked her nine ways to Sunday."

There would've been an outcry, but we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I can't help but shake my head when all conservatives can do when Dubya's crimes are pointed out is point to Clinton. Since when do two wrongs make a right, anyway? Is that seriously the best you guys can do?

[snap crafter]

Ya know what, I think this thread has divided us atheists, I read through these and see such anger.

We must not forget the real enemy, the christians.

[evident_enigma]

Godlessheathen:
'Man, I wish he would've just looked into the camera and said "yes, I fucked that woman. I fucked her nine ways to Sunday."'

:lol:

I think that some people would have found some way to impeach WJC even if he said THAT. Some way, some how.
ee

[inkadu]

We must not forget the real enemy, the christians.
By the way, who is your avatar? Looks a bit reminscent of Frank Miller's Bruce Wayne.

[Ponderer]

Godlessheathen:
'Man, I wish he would've just looked into the camera and said "yes, I fucked that woman. I fucked her nine ways to Sunday."'

:lol:

I think that some people would have found some way to impeach WJC even if he said THAT. Some way, some how.
ee
I completely agree. They were desperate.

[snap crafter]

We must not forget the real enemy, the christians.
By the way, who is your avatar? Looks a bit reminscent of Frank Miller's Bruce Wayne.
Alexander Anderson, from the anime hellsing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellsing

Our mission is t' punish any heretic who would deny the word of God! We will crush yer unholy body and salt th' earth w' yer dust! Amen!

[Philboid Studge]

The dictatorship comment is fairly ridiculous though, here's the true test if he wants to turn himself into a dictator, is he going to stay for more then his term? If the answer is yes, I'll be the first person to pick up a gun and show just how much I disapprove. However I haven't seen any sign that that is going to happen, so I'll just chill for the moment.
I'm inclined to disagree with the Cap'n on this one, quelle surprise. Actually, it is rather a surprise since I assumed you'd be a little more hostile to threats to civil liberties. I think that the erosion of rights happens slowly and subtly -- there's no Rubicon moment when you wake up and realize you're in a police state. What's happening is that the president and his crack legal team are either interpreting laws to suit their purposes or passing legislation under the guise of 'protecting the citizenry' or waging an ill-defined 'war' on terror (as if such a thing were possible); those are the ostensible reasons for suspending habeas corpus or dispensing with search-warrant requirements. A happy side-effect is that the Executive Branch of the gov't is consolidating power (always a concern when one party is in control of all branches, I suppose.) The effect on the populace is a slow numbing: we are becoming more and more used to the abridgment of rights -- very basic rights that libertarians I know used to give a damn about. (Which bothers you more, a restriction on your right to own a handgun, or the secretive monitoring of your communications or activity?)

Whose communications have been monitored (without warrants) so far? Anti-war protestors, radical environmentalists, gay and lesbian groups, college students writing term papers on Mao ... and really: who the hell knows who else? I do know that the police are secretly monitoring (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?ei=5094&en=c298d636b33c8c10&hp=&ex=1135227600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) my very dangerous bicycling activities. This, by definition, is a police state. By the time it's officially a dictatorship, perhaps no one will notice much difference.

[inkadu]

I think that the erosion of rights happens slowly and subtly -- there's no Rubicon moment when you wake up and realize you're in a police state. What's happening is that the president and his crack legal team are either interpreting laws to suit their purposes or passing legislation under the guise of 'protecting the citizenry' ...
I agree and disagree. I agree that as far as people's awareness of the police state, it comes gradually. But I disagree that there are no red-lines to be crossed. Bush has not, as you state, interpreted law, nor has he passed restrictive laws through congress. He has openly broken the law for no good reason except to establish a legal precedent that he, as president, does not have to follow the laws. Now he is going on television proudly stating that HE decides what needs to be done to protect this country, and that no law can bind him in pursuit of this sacred duty.

That, my fungal friend, is a bright red shining line. Not only has he broken the law, he is telling us the law does not apply to him, that in order to be safe, he must be given absolute, unchecked authority. The congress can pass all the laws it wants to, the president can break each and every one to protect us, even if he is not only defying congress, but the constitution itself. This is a qualitavely different move than an attempt to skirt the law. This is the first brick in the wall.

Yes, there are things that come after this moment. The slow rounding up of opposition voices, starting with the communist left fringe, the PETA's, anti-war protesters, civil-rights folks, the slow rotting of the Democrat's party's activist, the silencing of the press, shutting down blogs, closing the borders -- all these things could be done by the president in order to keep America Safe, all based on the legal principle he is asserting:

America must be free.

The president is above the law.

America must be safe.

[GodlessHeathen]

I'm curious, who chose none of the above, and why? Just wondering...
ee
It was me. I don't believe he'll ever be impeached with a Republican-controlled Congress. If Dems take control of the House, there is a possibility he will be impeached.

[inkadu]

Alexander Anderson, from the anime hellsing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellsing
Our mission is t' punish any heretic who would deny the word of God! We will crush yer unholy body and salt th' earth w' yer dust! Amen!
Bitchin'!

Now I just have to clear 2.3 gigabytes of hard drive space.

[Philboid Studge]

"But I disagree that there are no red-lines to be crossed. Bush has not, as you state, interpreted law, nor has he passed restrictive laws through congress."

Inky, I think a prudent default position for you would be to simply agree with me on all counts. Patriot Act isn't restrictive? AG Alberto Gonzalez (former White House Counsel, big frigging surprise) and former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo have been manufacturing tortuous legal opinions to cover the Monkey King's ass from jump. Learn (http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Max_Castro&otherweek=1135231200), little fella.

[inkadu]

"But I disagree that there are no red-lines to be crossed. Bush has not, as you state, interpreted law, nor has he passed restrictive laws through congress."

Inky, I think a prudent default position for you would be to simply agree with me on all counts. Patriot Act isn't restrictive? AG Alberto Gonzalez (former White House Counsel, big frigging surprise) and former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo have been manufacturing tortuous legal opinions to cover the Monkey King's ass from jump....
I agree with Philboid on all counts, simply and unequivocally.

I was referring to the "red line" only in the most recently disclosed incidents of wiretaps. Going outside of the legal framework is a pandora's box.

[Cap'n Awesome]

I'm inclined to disagree with the Cap'n on this one, quelle surprise. Actually, it is rather a surprise since I assumed you'd be a little more hostile to threats to civil liberties. I think that the erosion of rights happens slowly and subtly -- there's no Rubicon moment when you wake up and realize you're in a police state. What's happening is that the president and his crack legal team are either interpreting laws to suit their purposes or passing legislation under the guise of 'protecting the citizenry' or waging an ill-defined 'war' on terror (as if such a thing were possible); those are the ostensible reasons for suspending habeas corpus or dispensing with search-warrant requirements. A happy side-effect is that the Executive Branch of the gov't is consolidating power (always a concern when one party is in control of all branches, I suppose.) The effect on the populace is a slow numbing: we are becoming more and more used to the abridgment of rights -- very basic rights that libertarians I know used to give a damn about. (Which bothers you more, a restriction on your right to own a handgun, or the secretive monitoring of your communications or activity?)

Whose communications have been monitored (without warrants) so far? Anti-war protestors, radical environmentalists, gay and lesbian groups, college students writing term papers on Mao ... and really: who the hell knows who else? I do know that the police are secretly monitoring (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?ei=5094&en=c298d636b33c8c10&hp=&ex=1135227600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) my very dangerous bicycling activities. This, by definition, is a police state. By the time it's officially a dictatorship, perhaps no one will notice much difference.
Phil, I wasn't endorcing his use of wiretaps, and police state wasn't what was claimed. What was claimed was that we are in, or fast on our way to a dictatorship. Now what are the qualities of dictatorship? 1 person has absolute power. Have you seen Bush get his way that many times lately? The patriot act is fast on it's way to failing, his first supreme court nominee was bitchslapped away from him (By conservatives, I might add) It very well looks like stem cell research will pass with enough force to override his veto. We're talking about a president who hasn't vetoed anything, not exactly dictator material.

The second quality of a dictator is that their term is for life. Your theory is that the next presidential canidate will be so similar to Bush that it's just an extension of his term. Now you can really test that theory in the next 6 months or so, when we'll pretty much know who all the Republican Nominees will be. But looking at the list of people planning to run right now. Rudi Giuliani, Matt Romney, Chuck Hagel (Cap'n Awesome endorses Chuck Hagel for President, for what it's worth), John McCain. The one who is closest ideologically to Bush is McCain, (You know, the one who just cocksmacked the whitehouse into including anti-torture legislation into the defense bill) and he's been the person about the most critical of Bush of anyone. Hell, Hillary Clinton is more similar to Bush then some of those people. Now if names like Jeb, or Bill start popping up with a 30 point lead and a 100 million dollar campaign chest behind them, then it's cause to be concerned.

Oh, right, your question. Well, obviously I don't want my actions to be secretly monitored, but if we really live in a police state that is becoming a dictatorship, I'd sure as hell like to have as many guns as possible. Your fear is the whole reason we have a 2nd amendment. I just find it odd that the people who accuse us of living in a police state are the same people who want to hamstring our ability to fight it.

[Clara Listensprechen]

In the mean time, dealing with the Congress we have and not the Congress we wish to have, Barbara Boxer is pushing to pressure Arlen Specter into investigating Bush's bad moves in any case. There's a petition to sign:

http://ga4.org/campaign/wiretaphearings/d78bxe4f5xm63w?

[inkadu]

Phil, I wasn't endorcing his use of wiretaps, and police state wasn't what was claimed. What was claimed was that we are in, or fast on our way to a dictatorship. Now what are the qualities of dictatorship? 1 person has absolute power. Have you seen Bush get his way that many times lately? The patriot act is fast on it's way to failing, his first supreme court nominee was bitchslapped away from him (By conservatives, I might add) It very well looks like stem cell research will pass with enough force to override his veto. We're talking about a president who hasn't vetoed anything, not exactly dictator material.
I know you're not talking to me, but I agree that "dictatorship" may be sloppy terminology. We agree that things are moving away from a liberal democracy and towards a regime where one party has a strong advantage and the populace is easily cowed with fear. Not a dictatorship, but remember Mexico was a "democracy" for several decades with only one party. I think the United States will always technically be a democracy, but the devil is in the details. What term would use for a government run by one party, in collusion with religious groups and powerful corporations, with broad unchecked powers to move against any individual citizen? If you could give me the word for that, then we can agree that's what we're moving toward.

Oh, right, your question. Well, obviously I don't want my actions to be secretly monitored, but if we really live in a police state that is becoming a dictatorship, I'd sure as hell like to have as many guns as possible. Your fear is the whole reason we have a 2nd amendment. I just find it odd that the people who accuse us of living in a police state are the same people who want to hamstring our ability to fight it.
I'm not sure how well an armed struggle would work, honestly. If a mass of us armed with guns and rifles marched on Washington, we'd get the shit shot out of us by trained troops with howitzers, tanks, and air support. In a struggle against an organized government, a pistol doesn't seem like much of a tactical advantage. There would be other ways. Like blowing bridges, stopping traffic, sabotage, etc. I think that'd be more effective, personally.

[Clara Listensprechen]

The NRA membership have always been of one mind on overthrowing a possible US dictatorship should one occur. Where did all those guys disappear to, I wonder, I wonder?

[Ponderer]

What term would use for a government run by one party, in collusion with religious groups and powerful corporations, with broad unchecked powers to move against any individual citizen?
Assuming you're speaking of the Republican party, the term woud be dicktatorship.

[Just Add Fire]

Just to remind everybody that posted 'yes', this isn't a "Do You Hope GWB will get impeached" or "Does GWB Deserve To Get Impeached" poll, but a "Will He " One

[evident_enigma]

GodlessHeathen:
"It was me. I don't believe he'll ever be impeached with a Republican-controlled Congress. If Dems take control of the House, there is a possibility he will be impeached."

Thanks for the N-fo.

Now another question for the masses, what are the chances of the republicans loosing 'the hill' in the upcoming elections? (-edit forgot my question mark *slaps self*)

Please think, discuss.
ee

[Clara Listensprechen]

As time goes by, the chances get better, and there's plenty of time between now and November 2006.

Big question--lose it to whom? The Democrats what supported 'em? Aye, there's the rub. A strong independent candidate could knock the both of 'em on their arses.

[Baphomet]

if the democratic party wants to win, they need better candidates.

[peepnklown]

Does it really matter who wins? Democratic or Republican, I was hoping for more of a choice.

[Another brick in the wall]

Hopefully, one of the major parties will borrow an idea or two from a third party. At least, that's what's happened in the past.