zagijimzoo 0 #1 February 3, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk&feature=related listen to Bush's huge face to the Nation lie at the end! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #2 February 3, 2008 Quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk&feature=related listen to Bush's huge face to the Nation lie at the end! Can someone please translate this statement? I only speak english. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #3 February 3, 2008 "I poop too much." -Beavis.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #4 February 3, 2008 This isn't news. The PNAC plan has been public for almost a decade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #5 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuote"I poop too much." -Beavis. Maybe you're lactose intolerant My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #6 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote"I poop too much." -Beavis. Maybe you're lactose intolerant No, no. I POOP TOO MUCH. Then I get tired.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 February 4, 2008 All that "proof" and no impeachment... must not be very convincing, except to the 'true believers', that is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #9 February 4, 2008 And the tin foi "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #10 February 4, 2008 QuoteAll that "proof" and no impeachment... must not be very convincing, except to the 'true believers', that is. Yup - that's what the Constitution says. You can be as incompetent as you want to be, start devastatingly costly wars for bogus reasons, and mismanage just about everything. Policy and competence are no reasons for impeachment. Swipe a lollipop at a convenience store, however, and make a "high misdemeanor" out of it and you got yourself a reason for being impeached. See ... the Constitution always works ... Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #11 February 4, 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>>I only speak english. However true that may or may not be, he wrote that, he didn't speak it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #12 February 4, 2008 QuoteAll that "proof" and no impeachment... must not be very convincing, except to the 'true believers', that is. - Prosecutions are at the discretion of the prosecuting body, civil, criminal and administrative. - It would benefit the R's if the D's impeached. You are willing to sarifice GW Bush's outstanding record to ensure 4 more years of maggots, I'm not willing to risk that for the thrill of a Bush impeachment and neither are the D's in the House. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteAll that "proof" and no impeachment... must not be very convincing, except to the 'true believers', that is. Yup - that's what the Constitution says. You can be as incompetent as you want to be, start devastatingly costly wars for bogus reasons, and mismanage just about everything. Policy and competence are no reasons for impeachment. Swipe a lollipop at a convenience store, however, and make a "high misdemeanor" out of it and you got yourself a reason for being impeached. See ... the Constitution always works ... Cheers, T You don't think it makes sense that political decisions are unimpeachable? That's why we didn't do it to Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs or for getting us started in Vietnam or for "letting" the Soviets build the Berlin wall. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #14 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote***Quote"I poop too much." -Beavis. Maybe you're lactose intolerant No, no. I POOP TOO MUCH. Then I get tired. I'm mostly going to be doing the slots...... There's so many slots in Vegas you won't know where to begin My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #15 February 4, 2008 Yawn. I assure you there are plans to invade Canada somewhere there professor tinfoil. It's called wargaming. There is probably some Lieutenant in a basement somewhere all excited because he just figured out the strategic defense against FSM with a platoon of water purification specialists. You guys kill me. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #16 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteAll that "proof" and no impeachment... must not be very convincing, except to the 'true believers', that is. Yup - that's what the Constitution says. You can be as incompetent as you want to be, start devastatingly costly wars for bogus reasons, and mismanage just about everything. Policy and competence are no reasons for impeachment. Swipe a lollipop at a convenience store, however, and make a "high misdemeanor" out of it and you got yourself a reason for being impeached. See ... the Constitution always works ... Cheers, T You don't think it makes sense that political decisions are unimpeachable? That's why we didn't do it to Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs or for getting us started in Vietnam or for "letting" the Soviets build the Berlin wall. too bad I'll be too busy to discuss - but this should be the start of a whole new thread - namely, that the concept of having a "president" is really an outdated one. The 'strong man' with little political accountability (within 4 years), dominating an entire branch of government, unifying head of state and chief executive in one person (thus confusing competence and popularity) is an 18th century concept that may still work for third wold and emerging countries but it is hardly adequate for 21st century, highly developed country. The function was conceived in a time when not much was known about various other democratic forms of government and amidst people who wanted George Washington to become some sort of constitutional king. Impeachment is a crutch that never was good for anything, other than being a symptom of greater flaws. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 February 5, 2008 Quotenamely, that the concept of having a "president" is really an outdated one. Then feel free to go start your own country.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #18 February 5, 2008 Quote Then feel free to go start your own country. I suppose you'd say the same thing if the US was a monarchy - thanks for the insight tho. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 February 5, 2008 QuoteThe 'strong man' with little political accountability (within 4 years), dominating an entire branch of government, unifying head of state and chief executive in one person (thus confusing competence and popularity) How would you duggest dealing with it otherwise? Political accountability in the immediate sense would mean like Ross Perot suggested with electronic town halls. Pure Democracy. A nice thought, but little would get done and the things that would get done would tend to be those things that abuse the rights of minorities. We knew that. Meanwhile, we've got a system where the Chief Executive gets four years. Then, if he's agreeable, he gets another four years. Bush's daddy didn't do a good enough job and was out in 4 years. Carter didn't do a good enough job and was out in four years. So they bring someone else in. The president's power is supposed to be checked by the Congress and the courts. And it usually works that way. Example? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080205/sc_afp/usmilitaryenvironmentwhales_080205163752 A U.S. District Court judge has just told Bush "You can't do that." Bush wanted to override environmental laws to allow the Navy to run exercises with sonar that environmentalists believe can kill whales. So Bush overrode the law citing national security. A Judge said, "Homey don't play day." (Well, it's not an exact quote. She actually said that a POTUS overriding an injunction is "constitutionally suspect.") I actually like the system of checks and balances. All that is really needed is for Congress to get a little anatomy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #20 February 9, 2008 QuoteQuotenamely, that the concept of having a "president" is really an outdated one. Then feel free to go start your own country. well how about this then... would you get in a plane who pilot was elected by popular vote of the passengers? there was a point in time (ages ago) when those who voted and those who were running were at least vaguely informed and qualified...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #21 February 9, 2008 Quote The president's power is supposed to be checked by the Congress and the courts. And it usually works that way. its far easier to find instances of the Executive 'stacking the deck'____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 February 9, 2008 QuoteQuote The president's power is supposed to be checked by the Congress and the courts. And it usually works that way. its far easier to find instances of the Executive 'stacking the deck' It's even easier to find recent examples of Congress having absolutely no balls whatsoever. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #23 February 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote The president's power is supposed to be checked by the Congress and the courts. And it usually works that way. its far easier to find instances of the Executive 'stacking the deck' It's even easier to find recent examples of Congress having absolutely no balls whatsoever. Unfortunately under Bush Congress had the balls and Bush did not, 1 veto in 6 years = pathetic. Now they do have balls and his veto pen has found life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #24 February 12, 2008 You took mine!!!! I was going to use that!!!!!! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
