Impeach NOW!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Donkey Rhubarb, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. train The Wildcard!!!...

    "I have the paddle... passed down from ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to me..."

    :D
  2. Oversoul The Tentacled One

  3. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    You must not have read the section of the constitution dealing with impeachements then...
  4. train The Wildcard!!!...

    The United States was founded before the constitution was written... It was created through retrospect, and to prevent them from dealing with crap they put up with from places like ENGLAND...
  5. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    uhm, you might mean that the land and the colonies were around, or that there was a loose federation of colonies fighting together against england.

    The United States as a Federation didn't exist with a Government untill the Constitution was written.
  6. train The Wildcard!!!...

    You said it yourself - "didn't exist with a government"...

    Actually it existed under the Articles of Confederation for approximately 7 years... Approximately because not all states ratified the constitution at one time... under the articles there was a congress that could pass laws, decide on war, and deal with foreign butt-kissers... but they had no power to enforce laws...

    Under the Articles, entities were known as States of the Union, and the whole of said entities as the United States...

    It's kind of weird to think that at one time - some states were "under" the constitution, while others were still "under" the articles...

    ;)
  7. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Good thing somebody paid attention in American History, and can give a reasonably informed opinion rather than just spouting off.
  8. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I try...

    ;) :cool:

    I remember the names of all my history instructors... it was my second favorite academic class... behind math...

    :D

    -> I failed to mention that this is also where the "Union" and "Confederate" terms stemmed from during the Civil War period... ;)
  9. Bgdawg New Member

    Going back to your original essay of foolishness, concerning the patriot act. You clearly demonstrate you have little knowledge of what actually was in place before 9/11. The tenents of the patriot act in the language we know them today already existed, what the patriot act did was make enforcement of them broader. For instance in the past if the CIA was conducting an investigation and the FBI wanted to conduct an investigation on the same person they could not by law share information now they can. This is the infamous "wall" constructed by the Clintons. Or in the past if the FBI wanted to search your house, place of business and gym locker they had to get 3 seperate warrants now they have only to prove for one warrant to cover all 3. The patriot act does not usurp new ground it simply allows a better flow of information and faster action on existing law.

    Concering your child like rant about the war in Iraq. I had to pick myself up off the floor laughing at you. I am new to this board and have read 2 threads and in both you reference the actions of hitler, what a joke you are. Have you ever heard of the UN? Bush was acting on existing UN authority. ALL, did you see ALL, be sure you understand the word ALL. ALL of the existing intell at the time demonstrated Saddam was in breach of the UN and that the recourse in place was to remove him from power.

    By the way, I wonder if the 6 million Iraqi citizens think we should have left him in place.

    Oh, and since your such an expert on hitler and WWII I'm sure your aware of the actions of the werwolves and the allied response to their actions.
  10. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Once again, let's refrain from the descriptive adjectives and name-calling.
  11. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Most of your post is opinion, and while I can disagree with it on principle, you're entitled to it.

    But this is simply factually incorrect; in fact, Bush blatantly ignored the collective will of the U.N. by invading Iraq.
  12. Reverend Love New Member

    Da-IstanBOOLLS

    What about the collective will of U.N. resolution 1441, demanding Iraq disarm/proof it's disarmed. And if it were to not disarm then it would be forcibly disarmed. If I remember correctly back in January-March timeframe of 2003 Iraq was impeding Hans Blix's team of inspectors. Thus defying 1441.

    A question I'd like to ask you, is to what point should America bend it's knee to the U.N.? There's no question the U.N. does a lot good throughout the world. Providing aid to countries suffering famine, civil war, and acting as an arbiter at times. However their wartime record is laughable at best. The U.S. has certainly missed opportunities to make good in Iraq, but we're nowhere near the U.N. level of bungling. And it'd be naive to think the 5 non-rotating countries on the Security Council aren't looking after their own best interests. It's a tough call as President regardless of party affiliation. While you and I have the clarity of hindsight, President Bush did not. I know, I know I'm jumping around quite a bit, it's just that as President your between a rock and hard place I imagine. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. So do you think we should adhere to the will of the world by U.N. proxy? Or should the U.S. determine it's own best interests and forge ahead?
  13. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    As an addendum to that, should the UN pick up the peacekeeping costs (through manpower, humanitarian aid, infrastructure) after the US invasion or should the aftermath be solely the US's responsibility?
  14. Reverend Love New Member

    Well considering the U.S. supplies 25% of U.N. funding, and formerly 31% of ALL U.N. peacekeeping funding, now down to 25% I don't really see how that's a valid statement. Also considering the fact that the U.S. is without a doubt the military muscle of the U.N. (only the U.S., Britain and to a limited degree France can project power) I don't see how your statement holds water.

    I think your trying to suggest that Europe and handful of Asian nations would clean up our mess financially and militarily in Iraq when:

    A: Financially, it's just not true
    B: Militarily, it's impossible

    EDIT

    Tee-hee, kinda forgot to answer your question.

    No, the U.S. should clean up it's own mess.

    On the flip side of that U.S. companies should have dibs on contracts.
  15. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I think they do already.

    You might have misunderstood my question which you seemed to have corrected in the edit part of your post, but in regards to this, also consider the US is deliberating withholding their portion of UN funding so it comes back to the US is contributing less than they should anyway. And there are plenty of UN peacekeeping missions where the US is neither involved militarily or minorly so, so THAT part doesn't matter either.

    The bottom line in which we seem to agree is that if the US chooses to ignore the UN and goes about a mission alone, it should be expected to complete it alone fully without stepping back afterwards and expecting others to shoulder the burden.
  16. Reverend Love New Member

    I agree whole-heartedly. We certainly shouldn't be entitled to having our cake and eating it too.
  17. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    You guys are all really missing the point. It's debabtable whether by defying the UN to enforce UN resoloutions the USA was wrong. Or that the USA would have been justified had the UN said it was okay. It's really a non-issue.

    Screw the UN, I say. They shouldn't be able to tell us what to do, or what we can't do. We should be able to declare war when we need to because it's the right thing to do. Invading Iraq, however, wasn't the right thing to do. Furthermore, the US corporations that are getting the contracts, Dr Reverand Love, are being paid out of OUR tax dollars. Aren't you a conservative? You obviously aren't if you think your tax dollars should be spent willy nilly without your concent in a foriegn country. Besides that, these companies like Haliburton are taking huge contracts (never mind the fact that they didn't have to make a low bid, they were just GIVEN them, screw capitalism and the competition of a free market, right?), and then subcontracting the work to other companies for half the cost. They're paying other companies half what their getting to do all their work. And their raking all the profits over their heads. And guess what? Every DIME of that comes from OUR TAXES.

    This is pigs feeding at the public trough. If the now "sort of soverign" Iraqi government wants to contract US corporations to do the work, that's fine. But almost every corporation in there has direct ties to the Bush family or his administration. This is corruption on the level of teapot dome.

    I so often hear from the Libertarians and Republicans (the real Republicans, not phoneys like Dr Rev Love), is that Government isn't there to give handouts, it's only there to protect us from getting screwed or strongarmed (hence police, fire dept, etc), and to ensure that our liberties, enshrined within the Bill of Rights and constitution, are upheld.

    Well, doesn't that apply to Corporations just as much as individuals? Why are they getting paid millions of dollars of our taxes, to sit around on their duffs and do nothing, while hiring other companies to do the work THEY'RE supposed to be doing at half the cost?

    Maybe I have old fashioned values, but I beleive that when somebody gets paid, they should darn well EARN what they're paid, like what every other red-blooded American does, or should.
  18. train The Wildcard!!!...

    "Ignoring the will" and "acting on fact" are two different things...
  19. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    But in this case he did neither.

    There never were any WMD's.

    We knew this before the war started when WE HAD INSPECTORS IN THE COUNRTY.

    I think it's hilarious that the news is suddenly catching up with the knowlege that apparently only the protesters were privvy to (which I highyl doubt) that most all of the "intelligence" was crooked, forged, plagerized, or out of date and no longer applicable.

    We knew BEFORE THE WAR. These democrats saying that they'd not have voted to go to war if they'd known is bull****, and they deserve to be voted out of office, for lying. Same as Bush needs to be voted out for lying. WE KNEW BEFORE. No excuses.
  20. It's interesting to see all the replys to this post. Unfortunately it seems as though passions and bias are clearly railroading perspectives into facts.

    My prediction--Dubya will in no way suffer impeachment for his actions or for his supposed lying as some say. Wasn't that the exact reason Bill Clinton was impeached?

    I have a problem with people who believe that President Bush lied only because it appears to reflect sheer bias desparation for Party's sake (read the 9-11 report and connect the dots).

    If I remember correctly, wasn't it resistance to enforce UN resolutions that became the primary catylist for invasion? I remember the President saying in his UN address, that if the UN wouldn't enforce its own demands, the U.S. will. It is fact that Saddam was violating these. Doesn't that mean something in a post 9-11 world?

    It was embarrasing to see the UN resolutions take on the effectiveness of a parent wagging their finger for the 20th time. Perhaps if Saddam wasn't in the pockets of France, Germany, it might have had unanimous support.

    I have to agree with some within the thread however, I do believe we have and will continue to suffer the loss of some privacy rights. I only hope that common sense guides the shaping of future policy. But in the mean time, I think that error on the side of caution benefits us more than hurts us at the moment.

Share This Page