The U.S. and Iraq
Pages
| Author | Topic: The U.S. and Iraq |
|---|---|
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, March 25 2007 12:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:January 20, 2009. Mark the date. —Alorael, who is terribly disheartened by the whole impeachment process. For every misdemeanor Clinton committed Bush has at least one high crime. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Canned
Member # 8014
|
written Sunday, March 25 2007 12:55
Profile
Actually, Bush will get kicked out in 2008 or below! -------------------- I can transform into almost anything, though not sanity. Muffins n' Hell. Note that revisions of the first part is down the list. Posts: 1799 | Registered: Sunday, February 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Sunday, March 25 2007 12:57
Profile
Homepage
I just tried to post something, but some thing about "flood protection" stopped me. What in the heck is flood protection? -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, March 25 2007 13:01
Profile
Homepage
To prevent double posts (which it does occasionally) and spamming (which it doesn't), you have to wait a minute between posts. Dikiyoba has also discovered this includes private messages as well as actual posts. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Sunday, March 25 2007 18:01
Profile
quote:WWUD? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 02:17
Profile
quote:When Vlish conquer the earth, these boards will be preserved forever as holy writ. This very message will be cited frequently in explanation. These last sentences will support the institution, as fulfilled prophecies. There. It feels good to have gotten in another shot at immortality, even if it's a bit of a long one. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Canned
Member # 7704
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 06:24
Profile
Why do you blame bush ? he is a puppet after all. Do all presidents have to be blamed for being scape goats? -------------------- You can jump off a bridge, fire a gun in your mouth, drink poison,or going in to the tiger's pit but you will still end up dead it's a mater of time and how . Posts: 312 | Registered: Sunday, November 26 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 08:39
Profile
Yes. The buck stops with them. They were the ones elected, so they are the ones who are answerable. [ Monday, March 26, 2007 09:09: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 09:14
Profile
quote:A majority of the party leadership isn't necessarily the same as the majority of the voters. Would you say the same about a one-party system? E.g., if you can't get the support of the Communist Party of China, you are undemocratic and should shut up. :P quote:Voters can swing to sufficiently popular platforms, too, at least this has happened in other democracies. I appreciate your realism, but "disdain for democracy" is a bit too much. Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 09:38
Profile
quote:A corrupt government coupled with a strong military is a cause for concern, of course. When it comes to ordinary citizens, I think the differences are subtle. A bit more Bible-thumpers and militarists than here in Europe, I'd say. Somewhat less racism. Let's not forget the utterly pathetic "allied" governments who - against public opinion - sent cowardly token forces to Iraq, with similar motives, such as turning away concern from domestic problems towards the idiotic "war on terror" and justifying a police state. Even some politicians in (relatively) peaceful Sweden try to pull this crap. :mad: quote:There's no need to generalize and exaggerate like that. Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 10:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:In the American political system, the candidates from major parties are elected in primary elections, rather than appointed by party leaders. A lot of candidates in these elections are critical of party leadership and some of them do quite well anyway. (For example, Dean on the Democratic and McCain on Republican side in recent presidential elections.) So the responce to your toungue-in-cheek comparison to a single-party system is that if that single-party chose its candidates the same way American parties do, it would be equivalent to a no-party-system, because anybody could be elected as that party's representative. (A fun historical note: USA origninally had a no-party system, but political parties formed very quickly, to the dismay of some of the country's founders.) -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 10:12
Profile
quote:I would humbly submit that neither of them were on the ticket in November for that exact reason. They needed DNC and RNC support to get there. Bush and Kerry, although both of them were complete loons, had locked up the party core and thus made the final ticket. Same goes for Buckley (if you want to compare McCain) since the DNC has this asinine belief that vice-Presidents somehow deserve the Presidency. The Peter principle is alive and well in America folks. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 11:56
Profile
quote:The crucial thing about having more than one serious party is that every party's leadership has to care about winning elections. The party leadership that follows the majority of the voters gets to run the country; a party leadership that misses this loses even the party leadership. quote:Again, the point is that if you're really going to sway a majority of the whole population, then on the way you're first going to sway a majority of one party. So people who refuse to take this seriously as an intermediate goal must either not be serious about their goals, or not be serious about the requirement to convince a majority of people in order to achieve them. Note that I'm by no means convinced that a strictly two-party system is the only way to run a democracy. It's probably some kind of consequence of the American constitution, with its separate legislature and executive. Parliamentary systems generally tend to have two major parties plus some minor parties that never form governments, but periodically share power in coalitions. I'm just saying that, given the way the American system works, I don't see any good reason not to work within that system. I'm kind of getting interested, actually, in just what parties do in democracies. I think I'll start a separate thread about this. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 12:14
Profile
Homepage
quote:Not unless he's successfully impeached, and I rate the likelihood of that even lower than a formal apology from him for making a mockery of American diplomacy, American law, and the American electoral college system. —Alorael, who should give credit where it is due. The electoral college can make a mockery of itself quite well without any outside help. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 12:43
Profile
Homepage
The problem is, impeachment doesn't mean that you're kicked out of office. Clinton was impeached, but he completed his term. -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 12:45
Profile
Homepage
Assume "impeached and convicted" where you see "impeached." It's pretty standard in casual conversation. Clinton and, er, Andrew Johnson were both impeached but not convicted, so they stayed in office. Nixon was on the verge of impeachment and conviction, so he resigned instead. [ Monday, March 26, 2007 12:46: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 12:58
Profile
Homepage
Yes, but most of the people here know that impeachment doesn't necessarily mean conviction. But Clinton should have been convicted. -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 13:00
Profile
Homepage
EDIT: Blast. Too slow. [ Monday, March 26, 2007 13:01: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 14:28
Profile
Homepage
Conviction requires impeachment. I don't think anyone could get even that far with Bush, although I don't really understand why other than knee-jerk partisan politics. And general gutlessness. —Alorael, who also gives anyone unsuccessful at trying to start an impeachment process four months at most before they get Plamed somehow. Or just sent to Guantanamo. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 15:13
Profile
quote:Why, may I ask? Chris Rock took an interesting stance on this on his Bigger & Blacker album, but I don't want to scare the kittens by posting it. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 303
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 15:20
Profile
quote:What did Clinton really do to deserve impeachment. They couldn't use anything against him from Watergate or pretty much anything else. He's only guilty of having an extra-marital affair and lying about it! What guy isn't gonna lie about if he can? Now Bush on the other hand has done many things deserving of Impeachment, but it's like the country as a majority is too scared to say it. If you say anything against him or most of his policies, you're labeled a traitor and a lover of terrorists (look at the Dixie Chicks, all Natalie Maines said was that she was "ashamed President Bush is from Texas)! :cool: -------------------- My name's Solberg. Pronounced Sol-Berg. Exile/Avernum's Greatest LIVING Archmage! I'm sure you've heard of me at some point. Posts: 385 | Registered: Tuesday, November 20 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Monday, March 26 2007 20:38
Profile
quote:Clinton got impeached because of what the media derisively (but accurately) refers to as the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. The anti-Clinton frothing mania on the behalf of the Republicans was pretty insane in the late 90s; Clinton was impeached over lying under oath while being raked over the coals for his sexual infidelities. That millions of taxpayer dollars were spent by reactionary lunatics to trap Clinton between a rock and a hard-on was completely unacceptable. No countervailing vast conspiracy exists on the left, which explains why, even though the Dems solidly control one house and have a decent lock on the other, there's been no serious talk of impeachment. This is after admittedly waging a war on faulty intellgence - at the very least criminal negligence and at the worst either treason or crimes against humanity, depending on whether you're worried about US or international law. [ Monday, March 26, 2007 22:41: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, March 27 2007 02:59
Profile
Technically, it's illegal to lie to Congress. Don't know if this qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors." The AG will probably be out for it before too long. quote:That's because Clinton wasn't in office during the Watergate scandal. [ Tuesday, March 27, 2007 02:59: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Tuesday, March 27 2007 16:45
Profile
Homepage
Many rumors have been spread about Bill Clinton. But being rumors, they can't be taken seriously (Even though some of them may have a little bit of truth to them). However, I have found illegal activities Clinton did that are backed up by actual evidence and not just rumors. Here is the following: 1. Witnesses stated that while visiting Reno, Nevada, they heard him discuss planting a bomb in Oklahoma City. Not long after, the Oklahoma City bombing occured. 2. Well over a hundred of Clinton's own agents "mysteriously vanished" during his presidency. There isn't actually evidence for this, but that is very suspicious. The only rumor that I somewhat believe is that Clinton was involved in the Waco incident. Even though the FBI murdered the Branch Davidians there, the president is the head of the executive branch, and the FBI is part of the executive branch. And no, I can't give you links because you usually can't find pictures of affadavits on the internet. -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, March 27 2007 16:50
Profile
Homepage
quote:Oh, look. Unnamed "witnesses". The most credible source of all. quote:Uh-huh. Over a hundred people vanished and there's no evidence that they vanished. But we should believe you because you're a random person on the internet and random people on the internet never lie.  [ Tuesday, March 27, 2007 16:51: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |