http://gamingtrend.com
July 22, 2014, 05:30:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: House Passes Iraq Pullout Timetable  (Read 3915 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2007, 07:53:40 AM »

Not to mention irrelevant.  If America wanted him to continue running Congress, we wouldn't have voted his cronies out in 2006.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2007, 01:57:27 PM »

Quote from: corruptrelic on March 29, 2007, 02:52:23 AM

Sounds like someone is watching a little too much Fox News..

Bush IS a good example of a president who abuses his powers, and it's not just by ignoring what the American people want in Iraq. His domestic policy is just as bad as his foreign policy especially when it comes to spying on his own citizens. He uses fear tactics to defend his disregard for the constitution.

It's sad to think that there are STILL people out there who truly believe Iraq had WMD's, or that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. That's why we're there now, they tell me. Some of these same people often confuse Osama and Hussein, which is pathetic.

The reason democrats haven't called for an immediate withdrawal (though there are a couple whom have - including a couple republicans) is because Bush plays them out as not supporting the troops by doing that. So they do the next best thing, and stick a timetable in the bill. Since Bush has never been to war before, nor are any of his family fighting over there, the only thing he's got to lose are other people's sons and daughters. This has always been a war of choice, never a war of necessity.
That's why IMO, if it was wrong to go in, we need not stay in and continue having our guys killed over nothing.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to the advice of former military commanders and weapons inspectors who have actually been in Iraq before, than those who watch too much Fox News and tell us what's best for the country.

OMFG!!! It's the 'you watch too much fox news' defense!     How quaint.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2007, 01:58:40 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 07:53:40 AM

Not to mention irrelevant.  If America wanted him to continue running Congress, we wouldn't have voted his cronies out in 2006.

If America wanted him to stop 'running Congress' (which is ludicrous), then they wouldn't have reelected him for a second term.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2007, 01:59:18 PM »

Quote from: Nth Power on March 29, 2007, 07:05:02 AM

It also strikes me as infantile when Bush states he's going to veto any bill containing a pullout timetable.  He won't even consider any other possibilities other than more troops and funding for his war.   And so it's my way or the highway?  It's just seems so closed-minded and immature.

Exercising Presidential veto power provided by the United States Constitution = infantile?   

I can't even understand the way you people think anymore.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2007, 02:48:51 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 01:58:40 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 07:53:40 AM

Not to mention irrelevant.  If America wanted him to continue running Congress, we wouldn't have voted his cronies out in 2006.

If America wanted him to stop 'running Congress' (which is ludicrous), then they wouldn't have reelected him for a second term.

You mean, re-elected him in 2006, right?

I'm just saying, the American people spoke loud and clear in 2006.  The Democratic Congress clearly has all the political capital, so why is he trying to prevent them from spending it?  He used to claim political capital should be spent and how everyone needs to step aside during that time.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2007, 02:58:09 PM by unbreakable » Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15291


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2007, 03:17:28 PM »

Does anyone really think the Democrats will do a better job?

I'm hoping people believe that they will do a 'differen't job. Not a better one.

I hope that that's what people are voting for.

If the Dems get the white house and congress, in another 12 years we'll sweep the republicans back into office.

If the repubs get both branches again, we'll sweep the Dems back in.

Especially since nearlly all (or all?) politicians put their party and not their country first.

It's all so disheartening.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 29, 2007, 04:06:36 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 02:48:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 01:58:40 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 07:53:40 AM

Not to mention irrelevant.  If America wanted him to continue running Congress, we wouldn't have voted his cronies out in 2006.

If America wanted him to stop 'running Congress' (which is ludicrous), then they wouldn't have reelected him for a second term.

You mean, re-elected him in 2006, right?

I'm just saying, the American people spoke loud and clear in 2006.  The Democratic Congress clearly has all the political capital, so why is he trying to prevent them from spending it?  He used to claim political capital should be spent and how everyone needs to step aside during that time.

But 2006 was a congressional election.    The President of the United States does not have to answer to congressional elections unless the Congress has enough votes to hamstring him.    Unfortunately for anti-war people, the OTHER half of the country actually supports the President on this.   
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 29, 2007, 04:29:06 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

But 2006 was a congressional election.    The President of the United States does not have to answer to congressional elections unless the Congress has enough votes to hamstring him.    Unfortunately for anti-war people, the OTHER half of the country actually supports the President on this.   

Try 1/3rd of the country...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003563921

Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #48 on: March 29, 2007, 04:36:22 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

But 2006 was a congressional election.    The President of the United States does not have to answer to congressional elections unless the Congress has enough votes to hamstring him.    Unfortunately for anti-war people, the OTHER half of the country actually supports the President on this.   

Um... no they don't.  A CLEAR minority of the country supports the war.  The ONLY demographic which still supports the war is... Fox News viewers (and that's not a joke).

The GOP lost EVERY seat it ran for in 2006.  Not only that, but their prospects for Congress 2008 aren't looking much better.

If the 2006 election wasn't a referendum for change, I don't know what is.  THAT is what political capital looks like... unlike a non- or narrow victory (like 2000 and 2004, respectively).
Logged
LoneStarSpur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1424


Glad to be old!


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 29, 2007, 05:40:35 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 04:36:22 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

But 2006 was a congressional election.    The President of the United States does not have to answer to congressional elections unless the Congress has enough votes to hamstring him.    Unfortunately for anti-war people, the OTHER half of the country actually supports the President on this.   

Um... no they don't.  A CLEAR minority of the country supports the war.  The ONLY demographic which still supports the war is... Fox News viewers (and that's not a joke).

The GOP lost EVERY seat it ran for in 2006.  Not only that, but their prospects for Congress 2008 aren't looking much better.

If the 2006 election wasn't a referendum for change, I don't know what is.  THAT is what political capital looks like... unlike a non- or narrow victory (like 2000 and 2004, respectively).
Well, let congress override the veto. That's how the system works.
Logged

Fallin' feels like flyin'. For a little while. - Bad Blake
You're a funny drunk. - my wife
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #50 on: March 29, 2007, 05:42:46 PM »

Why do they need to override the veto?  Bush is the one asking for money.

All they need to do is say "you get what we give you, or you get nothing at all".
Logged
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1505


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 29, 2007, 06:54:18 PM »

The supporters of seeing the war in Iraq say that if we withdraw too soon the terrorists are going to follow us home. And fight us here.

I was thinking about this the other day. Don't we have home turf advantage if the terrorists fight here? Wouldn't we be the citizens who don't support the invaders (the terrorists)? Wouldn't the terrorists then have a harder time smuggling arms through borders and not have a sympathetic state nearby to provide them with weapons and training camps?

In short, isn't it time we bring back the concept of a strong America and say "Bring it!" ?

Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 29, 2007, 07:56:11 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on March 29, 2007, 04:29:06 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

But 2006 was a congressional election.    The President of the United States does not have to answer to congressional elections unless the Congress has enough votes to hamstring him.    Unfortunately for anti-war people, the OTHER half of the country actually supports the President on this.   

Try 1/3rd of the country...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003563921



I'm not speaking to current opinion polls which blow like the winds.   I'm talking about the population that voted nearly 50% Republican reps into the Senate and House.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #53 on: March 29, 2007, 07:57:49 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:56:11 PM

I'm not speaking to current opinion polls which blow like the winds.   I'm talking about the population that voted nearly 50% Republican reps into the Senate and House.

What year are you talking about?  2006 wasn't even CLOSE to 50/50.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2007, 07:59:38 PM by unbreakable » Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 29, 2007, 07:58:13 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 05:42:46 PM

Why do they need to override the veto?  Bush is the one asking for money.

All they need to do is say "you get what we give you, or you get nothing at all".

Absolutely true.  Congress controls the funds.   But the original post claimed that Bush was being like a dictator when Vetoing a bill.   This is factually and fundamentally false.   He's using the system.   If the Democrats don't like it -- override him.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 29, 2007, 07:59:36 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 07:57:49 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:56:11 PM

I'm not speaking to current opinion polls which blow like the winds.   I'm talking about the population that voted nearly 50% Republican reps into the Senate and House.

What year are you talking about?

What is the current makeup of Congress?    It's roughly split.... granted with Democrats having more seats at this point than Republicans, but overall it's not overwelming numbers in favor of either party.    That's what I'm saying.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 29, 2007, 08:02:39 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:59:36 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 07:57:49 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:56:11 PM

I'm not speaking to current opinion polls which blow like the winds.   I'm talking about the population that voted nearly 50% Republican reps into the Senate and House.

What year are you talking about?

What is the current makeup of Congress?    It's roughly split.... granted with Democrats having more seats at this point than Republicans, but overall it's not overwelming numbers in favor of either party.    That's what I'm saying.

I'd ask you to look up the +/- results from the 2006 election.

How many seats in the house and senate did the republicans gain?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #57 on: March 29, 2007, 08:16:38 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:58:13 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 05:42:46 PM

Why do they need to override the veto?  Bush is the one asking for money.

All they need to do is say "you get what we give you, or you get nothing at all".

Absolutely true.  Congress controls the funds.   But the original post claimed that Bush was being like a dictator when Vetoing a bill.   This is factually and fundamentally false.   He's using the system.   If the Democrats don't like it -- override him.

I can agree with you on that specific point.  If you are going to accuse him of acting like a dictator, there are plenty of far more valid issues than the one cited.  Threatening to veto a spending bill he asked for... that's almost comical.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 29, 2007, 08:31:20 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 08:16:38 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:58:13 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 05:42:46 PM

Why do they need to override the veto?  Bush is the one asking for money.

All they need to do is say "you get what we give you, or you get nothing at all".

Absolutely true.  Congress controls the funds.   But the original post claimed that Bush was being like a dictator when Vetoing a bill.   This is factually and fundamentally false.   He's using the system.   If the Democrats don't like it -- override him.

I can agree with you on that specific point.  If you are going to accuse him of acting like a dictator, there are plenty of far more valid issues than the one cited.  Threatening to veto a spending bill he asked for... that's almost comical.

No it's not.   There have been countless cases of various Congresses attaching unacceptable amendments to bills in order to 1.  try to gain something they want or 2.  Kill the bill.     The Presidents have in the past vetoed their own bills for just such reasons.    All of this is also just part of the system.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: March 29, 2007, 08:33:10 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on March 29, 2007, 08:02:39 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:59:36 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 07:57:49 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 07:56:11 PM

I'm not speaking to current opinion polls which blow like the winds.   I'm talking about the population that voted nearly 50% Republican reps into the Senate and House.

What year are you talking about?

What is the current makeup of Congress?    It's roughly split.... granted with Democrats having more seats at this point than Republicans, but overall it's not overwelming numbers in favor of either party.    That's what I'm saying.

I'd ask you to look up the +/- results from the 2006 election.

How many seats in the house and senate did the republicans gain?

Gains and losses do not matter.     The fact is that it's unlikely the Congress will shift much from it's current spread.....   even if something happened and it swung back to Republican controlled you're always going to be within a range of split down the middle.     Our country is split right now and for the foreseeable future -- it's as simple as that.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #60 on: March 29, 2007, 08:35:17 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 08:31:20 PM

No it's not.   There have been countless cases of various Congresses attaching unacceptable amendments to bills in order to 1.  try to gain something they want or 2.  Kill the bill.     The Presidents have in the past vetoed their own bills for just such reasons.    All of this is also just part of the system.

A president cannot veto their own bill... since they cannot introduce legislation.

Granted, it's probably semantics: I'm sure you meant to say veto their own request.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 30, 2007, 12:26:25 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 29, 2007, 08:35:17 PM

Quote from: msduncan on March 29, 2007, 08:31:20 PM

No it's not.   There have been countless cases of various Congresses attaching unacceptable amendments to bills in order to 1.  try to gain something they want or 2.  Kill the bill.     The Presidents have in the past vetoed their own bills for just such reasons.    All of this is also just part of the system.

A president cannot veto their own bill... since they cannot introduce legislation.

Granted, it's probably semantics: I'm sure you meant to say veto their own request.

Well yes.... I meant their own proposed agenda.....   or a bill introduced on their behalf 'unofficially' by allies in Congress.
Logged
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3553


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: March 30, 2007, 03:17:42 AM »

And I stand by with what I said.. more and more Bush continues to act like a Dictator. He doesn't seem to give a shit what the American people want and he's already publicly stated he still wouldn't withdraw from Iraq even if his wife was the only one left still supporting him.
Since I'm about to leave for work I don't have time to look up those quotes, but just google it up. You'll find a couple quotes of him also referring to a dictatorship as being "easier".

People seem to forget that the president works for US, not the other way around. Bush clearly ignores popular opinion (since he's the "decider" and all) and when you combine that with his domestic policy of spying on Americans, he makes for one hell of a lousy president.
Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: March 30, 2007, 01:31:34 PM »

Quote from: corruptrelic on March 30, 2007, 03:17:42 AM

And I stand by with what I said.. more and more Bush continues to act like a Dictator. He doesn't seem to give a shit what the American people want and he's already publicly stated he still wouldn't withdraw from Iraq even if his wife was the only one left still supporting him.
Since I'm about to leave for work I don't have time to look up those quotes, but just google it up. You'll find a couple quotes of him also referring to a dictatorship as being "easier".

People seem to forget that the president works for US, not the other way around. Bush clearly ignores popular opinion (since he's the "decider" and all) and when you combine that with his domestic policy of spying on Americans, he makes for one hell of a lousy president.

You apparently have no clue how our government works and was intended to work.

Our founders set this government up in a way that 1.  provides checks and balances (exactly what happened this past election) 2.  allows the people to elect a LEADER who leads to the best of his judgement and abilities.     That's LEADS -- not FOLLOWS the will of the polls.     The built in mechanism in the Constitution to change course is the change in elections..... and in severe cases a forced change via impeachment.       A President was NOT meant to follow the whims of the masses and thus create some sort of psuedo-democracy in which the masses rule.     A President was meant to be elected to lead the country based on HIS judgement.    If at the end of his term the country didn't agree with his judgement, then they were to have the power to change the leadership.

This is not hard to understand.   It's also not hard to understand why it's critical that the President LEAD instead of follow the whims of the masses ala' mob-rule.

The founders said it best --

Quote
"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way... The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."

                                --Fisher Ames

Quote
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."    --John Adams

Quote
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Thomas Jefferson

Quote
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: March 30, 2007, 03:17:56 PM »

I hope you realize you're using a bunch of fake quotations?  It's easy to be confused about them - many political sites will just make shit up in order to convince credulous people of their way of thinking.

http://www.cronaca.com/archives/003038.html

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Here're two actual Thomas Jefferson quotes (with citations).  Note that they contradict the sentiment of your fake quote:

"Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:120

"This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:85

Certainly, the congress has the power to override a veto (and I hope they attempt, though I'm sure they won't be able to).  Fortunately, they also have the power to impeach the president, and if lying about an affair constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor", then god knows the behavior of the current occupant rises far above that bar.

Even state legislatures can initiate federal impeachment proceedings, so perhaps we'll get to see Vermont or Illinois get the ball rolling.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #65 on: March 30, 2007, 03:35:30 PM »

It's amazing how the people claiming that we, as Americans, are required to have serf-like devotion to the president are the same ones who wanted to impeach our last legitimately elected President for essentially nothing.

What I find incredible is the statistics.  Less than 1/3rd of the country supported Clinton's impeachment, and less than 1/3rd of the country supports GWB.  I have no doubt it's not only the same percentage of people... it's very likely it's the exact same people.

The problem right now is the country is NOT working as the founders intended.  They did NOT intend the president to be an overlord.  They DID expect Congress to provide oversight over the Executive branch.  They did NOT intend the president to install his cronies in the Supreme Court.  They did NOT intend the president to use the pardons to commit crimes and get away with it (like Iran-Contra, Watergate, Savings & Loan, and probably Traitorgate and other recent crimes).


If the damn Democrats would quit wimping out and finally impeach and imprison these criminals who have been doing the exact same garbage since Nixon showed them it's possible to get away with anything, America would be way better off.  I see no greater testimony to the rule of law than showing the world that we will even imprison a president for violating the nation's laws.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: March 30, 2007, 04:17:42 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 30, 2007, 03:35:30 PM

It's amazing how the people claiming that we, as Americans, are required to have serf-like devotion to the president are the same ones who wanted to impeach our last legitimately elected President for essentially nothing.

If only George Mason's version of Article II had been approved - it had added "maladministration" to "high crimes and misdemeanors" as possible justifications for the act.
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: March 30, 2007, 06:23:14 PM »

Quote
A President was NOT meant to follow the whims of the masses and thus create some sort of psuedo-democracy in which the masses rule.     A President was meant to be elected to lead the country based on HIS judgement.

kings and generals lead.  the president is the executive, and as the name implies his job is to execute the laws passed by the legislature, based on ITS judgement. 

to counter this with a check, there is executive veto power.  the president doesnt lead, he reacts.  the president doesnt lead - if congress never passed a bill the actual powers of the president would be near-nil (think elizabeth waving her gloved hand on the balcony)

and unbreakable - congress has nearly no oversight powers with the executive.  its another check.  they can conduct hearings.  they can write new laws. they can impeach.  they can withhold funding for executive activities.  but once they pass a law and delegate enforcement it is up to the president to carry it out.  having congress monitor and modify executive behavior directly would allow congress to encroach on executive power.  if things get too out of hand, mandamus can be invoked to require a president to carry out a law.

for example, say congress passes a law that says pollution should be lowered.  to ensure this a congressional committee would monitor and add additional regulations if the president doesnt reduce pollution by enough.  also, congress could can increase and decrease funding dynamically if the results arent satisfactory. 

this law would be struck down by the supreme court in a heartbeat because that kind of oversight is not acceptable to the idea of balance of powers.  in an odd twist of fate, however it IS acceptable for congress to write broad laws like "we must reduce pollution and establish the Board of Pollution to do this."  the law is then executed and the specific regulations are filled in as part of executive enforcement activity.  this has always boggled my mind - i blame the laziness of congress - because it seems like this is executive seizure of legislative powers

civics for the day smile
Logged
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3553


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: March 30, 2007, 07:46:43 PM »

Ms Duncan, the government is here to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, I understand that perfectly, apparently you do not.

Bush is setting a bad image for ALL OF US here at home, and as someone who travels over seas frequently, I wish more people could see that we aren't this evil bully policing the world and set on world conquest as Bush makes us out to be.

I already brought up Senator Chuck Hagel's comments (who is a republican by the way) who brought up the possiblity of impeachment if Bush doesn't listen to the American people.
Do I think it'll happen? Not at all, simply because Bush & Regime play on people's fears in order to further their agenda. People at work (which btw I work for the government) still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Bush finally came out in 05 and admitted there were no links between the two.

Makes me sick that I voted for Bush in '00 (as I've always been a registered republican) but in '04 it was all democrats.
We, the American people, voted for change in this country. Congress and the Senate are just doing what the American people want by sticking a timetable on the HUGE war budget Bush wants from our tax dollars, and as Congress represents the people, it's clear Bush doesn't. (Though in all fairness you did mention that, so at least we can agree on that much.)

I really can't wait till 09 and we get someone who cares about the constituion in power. Wonder how many other countries Bush will invade by then? Will Americans finally say enough is enough?

Bush in his own words:

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

"I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president."

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." —as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." —State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false

 "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

REPORTER: Do you believe it's a civil war [in Iraq], sir?
DUBYA: I can only tell you what people on the ground whose judgment -- it's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a first-hand assessment. I haven't been there. You have. I haven't.
-- In case you were wondering how detached Dubya is from the realities in Iraq (in the beautiful White House), here is your answer. And I guess Dubya has already forgotten spending Thanksgiving with the troops in 2003. White House, Feb. 14, 2007

http://www.dubyaspeak.com

Hard to believe we can have such an idiot for a president.. 
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 07:49:30 PM by corruptrelic » Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #69 on: March 30, 2007, 07:55:50 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on March 30, 2007, 06:23:14 PM

and unbreakable - congress has nearly no oversight powers with the executive.  its another check.  they can conduct hearings.  they can write new laws. they can impeach.  they can withhold funding for executive activities.  but once they pass a law and delegate enforcement it is up to the president to carry it out.  having congress monitor and modify executive behavior directly would allow congress to encroach on executive power.  if things get too out of hand, mandamus can be invoked to require a president to carry out a law.

I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of oversight.  Since Congress can impeach members of the Executive branch, they therefore have oversight over the executive branch.  The problem is that such ability is eroding through not being used, to the point where, today, the executive branch routinely lies to congress, since there is no penalty or repercussions for doing so.

Unless the congress actually exercises their oversight powers, government is not working as it was intended.  And really, six years of "anything goes" demonstrates that quite clearly.  People just voted for a change... I'm just hoping we actually get one.  But sadly, I'm expecting Congress to wimp out as they always do.
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: March 30, 2007, 10:46:23 PM »

Reading some of the posts here and elsewhere, I'm struck by the fact that President Bush must be one bad-ass mofo.

He invades countries for kicks.

He kills innocent women and children with impunity.

He makes 300 million Americans "look bad" (the implication being only he has the power-mojo to make us all "look good").

He regularly dupes the 535 members of Congress into looking the other way whilst he, uh, does whatever it is he does. Probably bad shit.

He's causing the earth to heat up to the detriment of every living thing on it. And apparently doing the same to the rest of our solar system as well.

I am awestruck...



Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #71 on: March 31, 2007, 12:13:22 AM »

It's nothing new: you just started noticing it.

But saying it's simply GWB is oversimplifying, and giving him too much credit.  This has been in the works since Nixon took office (or long before that, depending on what you believe).
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: March 31, 2007, 12:51:13 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 31, 2007, 12:13:22 AM


But saying it's simply GWB is oversimplifying, and giving him too much credit. 

I am in complete agreement with that!
Logged
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3553


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: March 31, 2007, 12:25:29 PM »

Quote
He makes 300 million Americans "look bad" (the implication being only he has the power-mojo to make us all "look good").

Considering more people in Britain view Bush as a greater threat to world peace than Bin Laden, yeah, Bush isn't exactly helping the American image abroad. Most people judge a country by it's leader and I've seen protests (even in western countries) go from pictures of Bush as "#1 Terrrorist" to now just having America as the #1 terrorist.
The American president certainly does have the power to make us look good, and he could start by stop trying to be the world's police force.

Case in point, about a year ago I was at a protest against the Israeli occupation of Palestine, I was one of three Americans there (out of about 500) and many of the palestinians were happy as ever to meet me and talk saying they thought "All Americans supported Israel's aggression and occupation" and I had to tell them that just because our government takes the side of Israel NO MATTER WHAT, doesn't mean all Americans automatically agree with that.
That's just the impression a lot of people get about us - whatever our government does, must mean that they're doing it in the interest of the American people.
That, especially in Bush's case, can be far from the truth. 
Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2991


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: March 31, 2007, 02:59:55 PM »

Quote
Case in point, about a year ago I was at a protest against the Israeli occupation of Palestine,

Nevermind.   It all becomes clear.    I'm not wasting any more time arguing with you.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #75 on: April 01, 2007, 06:34:36 AM »

What if 'they' started an argument, and nobody decided to come?   icon_biggrin
Logged
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3553


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: April 01, 2007, 12:13:20 PM »

Quote
Nevermind.   It all becomes clear.    I'm not wasting any more time arguing with you.

Right.. because clearly if you believe in human rights and stand side by side with an oppressed people, you are an anti-government extremist.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.167 seconds with 97 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.043s, 2q)