Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by D_N Flay Table, Jul 18, 2007.
No comment. But get ready for comments from the bush apologists.
They'll have their day in court...
Here's something similar:
not how to make americans angry, but how to make us cry. we voted him back into office
yeah, it makes me angry.
angry that there was a majority that voted the shrub back into office.
it makes me angry that blatant lies are killing thousands of innocents.
it makes me angry that no one is going to be punished for lying and we will be paying there pensions till they die.
it makes me mad that i am now perceived by the rest of the world as an idiot.
it makes me mad that our government is so corrupt (even before the twit) and we do nothing, or our actions have very little effect.
But the thing that makes me most angry is that humans still think war is solution; killing our brothers and sisters is acceptable.
now i'm sad.
You sure the thread title is not "How to make non-Americans laugh?"
Speak for yourself, I voted for the other guy. Ya know...the OTHER douchebag.
Is it '08 yet?:redface:
But in all seriousness, these lies have cost over 3000 American lives and God knows how many Iraqi lives....don't people get impeached and thrown in jail for this??
No. Only for fibs over national security issues like blowjobs.
I'm sorry for Bush.
The typical putz-in-the-street hasn't a clue what "impeachment" is for.
So, get out the old Civics 101 books.
The president and legislators are, in a very real though limited sense, above the law. The reasons are based in history. The guys who invented the structure of US government knew their Herodotus, their Plutarch, their Tacitus, their Blackwell, and, after 1776, their Gibbon. The historical weaknesses of representative government were well known.
One such weakness was that one branch could use the law to harrass another branch to the point of nonfunctionality. If the president could send the police to detain the members of congress for some plausible, even if false, charge - crossing the yellow line while on the way to the Capitol, say - then he could prevent one party or the other from turning up to vote on a scheduled measure, or even prevent congress as a whole from achieving a quorum. Similarly, congress could cause the president to miss, say, an important treaty signing by sending the police to arrest him for spitting on the sidewalk. The police, after investigation, would doubtless release him without charge once they investigated and found that he had not spit on the sidewalk, but by then the damage would have been done.
To prevent this, neither the president, not congress while in its chambers or while on the way to or from the chambers, can be apprehended and detained by the police. That is, they're arrest-proof.
That raises another possibility. Suppose that the president walks into congress while in session, pulls out a duelling pistol, and shoots the speaker of the house dead. A farfetched scenario, but not so farfetched then as it would be today. What to do? He can't be arrested. At least, not while he's president. The solution is to remove him from office. After that, the law can take its normal course.
The removal from office is impeachment. Impeachment is not, in itself, a law-enforcement measure. Congress has no law-enforcement powers, and as the courts have reaffirmed, it can't; the separation-of-powers violation should congress play policeman or judge is obvious enough.
Of course the impeachment function was abused almost immediately (well, certainly by Jefferson's term), with the attempted impeachement of one of the Federalists on the Supreme Court, Samuel Chase. I've gone through that story before on these very pages so won't do it again. Chase hadn't taken a shot at anybody; the Democratic-Republicans just wanted to get rid of a Federalist so that Jefferson could appoint a good Democratic-Republican to the bench in his place. The impeachment failed dismally. Sixty-odd years later, an impeachment was launched against Andrew Johnson when congress tried to assert control over the president's office with the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson wanted to fire Stanton, the secretary of war, and congress tried to prevent him from doing so. Stanton actually barricaded himself into his office for a week or so. That impeachment failed dismally also. The Tenure of Office Act was later judged by the Supremes to be unconstitutional, which was handy.
Attempts to use impeachment for mere political gain are an abuse of constitutional government, and we're fortunate that nearly all such attempts have failed.
Yes this topic is interesting reading. The only two Presidents to be impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Well maybe anger has something to do with it.
I had no idea. Makes sense, too.
It makes me feel a bit hopeless actualy, and lose any faith I have in the government.
y' know, to this day, it's a wonder that they haven't replaced him with a higher species of plant life.
If you break into a rival party's headquarters you get an impeachment. If you invade an innocent country and kill thousands of it's citizens you don't even get a slap on the wrist. How fucked up. Have Americans become so docile that they no longer care?
Dick Cheney owns $18 million in Halliburton stock. He was Halliburton's CEO.
Condoleezza Rice owns $241,000 in Chevron stock. She was a former board member
G.W. Bush's family continues to make notoriously vast amounts of money from oil.
If the current administration is full of oil barons and defence contractors, what is their motivation to stop the war? Why are americans allowing this administration to become richer at their expense? Do you yanks have any idea of what this war is costing you? Do you realize how many generations it will take to pay off the massive debt from this war?
An example must be made before these atrocities can be repeated.
"Those weapons of mass distruction have gotta be somewhere." Yeah George. In the US!
Bush must be impeached!
It's not like us Brits would vote in someone that bad!
I didn't vote for Blair! Or Brown either. I'm a neutral (evil) by nature so taking sides is not mah style.
Anyway, I am more and more failing to understand why Americans need complain about Iraq.
Let's put it this way, would most of the people be complaining if Muslims died as easily as Africans do? Heck shooting them or watching them commit genocidal acts is almost worthy of prime-time TV it would seem.If Iraq and Afghanistan were easily subjugated, then most of the "haters" would evaporate.
Also, America depends on it's millitary so much, from an outside point of view, the nation is pretty much a glorified bunch of Vikings.
The millitary (and associated corporations) create huge amounts of employment and bring in lots of money. They are good for the economy and well being of thousands of people with reliable job security packages. The US research and development easily supasses any other civillian field, even in their own specialities! Lasers, electronics, GPS, biological science, health services...the US military easily outdoes anything I've ever even realised existed. If they had a lethal use for the Human genome, it'd probably be sequenced faster as well. The resources at disposal are most impressive.
SO...What is a millitary exist for? Killing the fuck out of things? Think of it this way, war is good for the US economy! If one had no enemies to fight and had lasting peace, thousands would be out of work, technology gains would be stalled and the economy would crash.Anyway, think of how many wars the US has been in the last 40 years, it spells a lot of $$$ for the people backing it, and lives are ultimately disposable with such an agressive (and quite attractive, need I say) recruitment campaign.
If anything, I'm getting more offended that the common person doesn't seem to get much of the financial benefit of this. I wouldn't mind some fuel price decreases now that the oil taps are secure and the population neutralised (if not neutered).