Should Bush be impeached?

[Joesho1]

For being a lying Bastard?


who here will vote for him again?

[sarettah]

lolololololololololol....................

this ought to be fun...........

You really are new here aren't you ??

[Buff]

Originally posted by Joesho@Aug 11 2003, 03:15 PM
For being a lying Bastard?


who here will vote for him again?

Definitely. He said he was a Republican, but his domestic agenda is so far left I think Trotsky is starting to look moderate.

I want a real fiscal conservative in there, like Dr. Ron Paul.

[Joesho1]

Originally posted by sarettah@Aug 11 2003, 01:23 PM
lolololololololololol....................

this ought to be fun...........

You really are new here aren't you ??

Yeah , and it is a good thing too... from what I can see what with Bradshaw, and Serge being the rulers of the roost here... I figured you all need some one intelligent like me to come and save you from the sinking ship of the right wing Nazi Babykillers , that act like they are in the right ...then lie to you to get you to do there dirty work...then turn on you in the end.... us LEFT wingers will never do that to you!

[PornoDoggy]

I think I can safely say I am not the first person board readers around here are going to think of as a GW defender. That being said, talking about impeaching GW because of his "lies" is almost as "whacked out on crack" an idea as Buff's post. You want to talk about putting him out of work next year - I'm very, very down for that. But getting your panties in a knot while talking about impeaching him is pointless, and not really much smarter than the logic that his lies don't matter.

With the possible exception of WWII, America has NEVER been 100% behind a war. In spite of the myths taught in schools, barely half the country was in favor of the damned Revolution itself. Opposition to the War of 1812 was profound and vocal, particularly in New England. Abraham Lincoln was a congressional leader in the opposition to the Mexican War. American entry in WWI was viewed with great suspicion by a great number of people, and there was organized resistance and draft evasion that was brutally put down by Wilson's Attorney General Palmer. Korea was the source of bitter controversies, although not to the extent that Vietnam was.

And even the possible exception - WWII - is an odd case. The political ancestors of the present unilateral interventionists were the WWII isolationists. While they didn't have the stones to oppose the war, they did accuse Roosevelt of variously allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, deliberately provoking the Axis powers, and of being responsible for us being unprepared for war in 1941. The latter is the most laughable, because they had fought him tooth and nail on every possible move to rearmament. They battled him on things like efforts to rebuild the Navy in the late 1930s right up to opposing conscription in 1940) in the naive hope that it would allow us to sit out the war (or the more sinister hope for an Axis victory). Pat Buchannan is still pushing this bullshit idea.

So what Bush did ain't much different than what any President has done when we've gotten ourselves into a war. Do I think that the weapons of mass destruction are the same things to George Bush as the mystery torpedo boats were to LBJ or the Maine to McKinley? You bet your ass I do.

Do I think he did anything that could get him impeached or jailed? Nope. Enough to earn him a one-way ticket back to Kennebunkport, Texas, perhaps.

[Buff]

What's so whacked out on crack about my post? Bush is pushing some of the largest spending increases in history, his tax cut is barely a drop in the bucket, he's increasing tariffs on steel and promoting protectionist trade policies vs most of the world... .

Sounds very leftist to me.

[PornoDoggy]

Buff, when you characterize Bush's "domestic agenda is so far left I think Trotsky is starting to look moderate" you have been smoking something seriously potent.

By your logic Clinton was a powerful moderating force on the Maoist Reagan era?



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Aug 11 2003, 05:20 PM

[SykkBoy]

I'm no big fan of GW, but I'm also of the mindset he didn't do anything so terrible as to be impeached. Voted out next term? You bet. Being impeached? No way.

He did what he felt was best for the country, right or wrong. Sure, there were probably oil interests and maybe he jumped the gun, but what president or politician hasn't had a special interest? What do you think gets them elected?

So often, we forget that politicians are people just like us. They have their own built in agendas, biases, conflicts and ways of getting things done. It would be impossible to expect someone to be 100% perfect and totally without fault.

As a webmaster, don't you send traffic to the guy who pays you the most or treates you the best? Politicians represent one thing: VOTERS. They don't represent people, they represent the people who got them there. It surely wasn't Stanley Whackmadick who sat home on election day or didn't attend a fundraiser.

Poor judgement should not be a reason for impeachment. I felt the same way about Clinton as I do about Bush in that regards. They often have to do things they don't like or want to do. They are often put in a difficult position trying to please everyone.

[Torone]

Originally posted by Joesho@Aug 11 2003, 03:15 PM
For being a lying Bastard?


who here will vote for him again?

Smoking sage again?

[Joesho1]

Originally posted by Torone+Aug 11 2003, 03:25 PM-->