Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House of Representatives

We wouldn't have a president because we would have stopped all the candidates from running in the first place. In short, all candidates for president are foolish. What normally adjusted, sane person actually wants that job? Right! Only a fool would want the job of being president. I pity the fool that gets into the oval office.

 

IMO quick opinion. The party system is killing it all. All they are doing is putting a face on the party of who they think will allow them to win. Actual political abilities be damned, win at all costs.

 

Its like the mortgage crisis were in now. Keep putting stupid people in positions they can't handle for the sole purpose of helping your 'cause' and what do you think is gonna happen?

 

Its like... Winning but every time you do, everyone in the country gets kicked in the balls and sheet on. Is winning really worth it then?

 

 

 

Quick list me 3 positive things McCain, Hillary and Obama have already done to improve our country.

Quick list me 3 positive things McCain, Hillary and Obama have already done to improve our country.

Shenanigans

I voted for Bush... twice although my thoughts on the guy have changed greatly in the 8 years he's been in office. But given the opportunity to go back and pick again, I wouldnt change a thing. The only thing worse than GWB would be Gore or Kerry.

Still surprised about the lack of ranting about the Patriot Act in this thread

 

 

EDIT: BOMB JIHAD MOTHERLAND

Edited June 11, 2008 by Atrus

I'm getting sick of elections where I don't like either candidate.

Still surprised about the lack of ranting about the Patriot Act in this thread

EDIT: BOMB JIHAD MOTHERLAND

My earlier comment about Domestic spying, etc, (which was mostly ignored) was basically about exactly that.

 

Oh, and enjoy your P2P while you can. Prison/debt sounds fun:

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4279

Edited June 11, 2008 by Feanore

I don't think anyone really likes any politician. Except I really like Ron Paul, one of the few real republicans left.

My earlier comment about Domestic spying, etc, (which was mostly ignored) was basically about exactly that.

 

Oh, and enjoy your P2P while you can. Prison/debt sounds fun:

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4279

Uncontrolled P2P is unsustainable imo. Technology is becoming more and more accessible (our grandparents using email and facebook now, etc). Compression, bandwidth, hard drive size increasing... Eventually, when a major Hollywood release comes out, one dude will be sitting in the theatre with a camcorder on opening night, wireless streaming it to the rest of the world.

 

$200 million to make a movie that one guy will pay $10 to see in theatre and nobody will rent? So yeah - Unsustainable.

Anyway, I don't think this is a stunt by Kucinich in that I believe he really does want Bush to be impeached. I don't think that he's just doing this to increase his popularity, I think he duly believes it's his responsibility. He is very unlikely to lose his seat in Congress.

 

 

Oh yes it is a stunt.

 

It's not about his congressional seat though. That's what's throwing you off. It's for the benefit of his *nationwide* base.

 

Don't you know for the last few election cycles he's been running for president? This is part of that. He's trying to build up his resume for 2012, since he was such a failure (again) in the 2008 presidential nomination cycle. He wants to be president.

 

You are right though...... he is nutty enough to actually believe impeachment is warranted.

Kucinich knows that the impeachment won't go anywhere, he also knows that he will never be a president. To suggest that he does this to lengthen his already long ultra liberal resume is weak. Why would he need to appeal to his *nationwide* base when its already his? He's well within his American right to question the current administration for what he believes to be true, its just to bad no one has the balls to even debate/investigate the issue. Innocent until proven guilty right?

 

 

 

 

I'm getting sick of elections where I don't like either candidate.

 

word. here's my fix.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/bluedaisee/chihuahuas.jpg

Edited June 11, 2008 by lemontree

bridget is charging her laser eyes for anyone who opposes.

/vote bridget

I welcome our new Chihuahua overlord.

is mike the VP? or possibly chairman of fabulousness?

he'd be the shadowy figure lingering in the background pulling strings.

 

basically the Karl Rove of the administration.

BRIDGET OMG!

Why would he need to appeal to his *nationwide* base when its already his?

 

For a simple reason: A politician can never get too much press.

 

Also, he's got support among the leftist base, sure (and a smokin' hot wife), but so what? Name me ONE politician who has ever decided he could stop courting his base. One. When you have your answer you'll also have a politician who - in a NOT unrelated development - suddenly didn't get reelected.

 

He's well within his American right to question the current administration for what he believes to be true, its just to bad no one has the balls to even debate/investigate the issue. Innocent until proven guilty right?

 

 

Sure he's within his right, but the whole thing's a complete sham. All of the supposed reasons for impeachment have been studied *ad nauseum* (in fact, few things in today's political situation have been debated/investigated more thoroughly) and they're all basically baseless politico-marketing spew.

I'm not saying I agree with Kucinich, I'm saying that what he did, whether it be for whatever reason you want to believe, is what congress should do all the time; Check and Balance. I don't think its a sham until the truth is known. The left would have you think there is something fishy going on with Bush, and the right would have you think that any dissidence to Bush should be immediately discredited. Spew comes from all directions.

Spew comes from all directions.

This.

I'm not saying I agree with Kucinich, I'm saying that what he did, whether it be for whatever reason you want to believe, is what congress should do all the time; Check and Balance. I don't think its a sham until the truth is known. The left would have you think there is something fishy going on with Bush, and the right would have you think that any dissidence to Bush should be immediately discredited. Spew comes from all directions.

 

 

 

Until the truth is known? Did you miss the last 8 years? The truth IS known. It's been known for a long time. About 3 gajillion books have been published on the subject, massive amounts of news hours have been devoted to it, uncountable amounts of furious blogging has been devoted to it, a torrent of leaks from unscrupulous beureaucrats have issued forth - and several congressional investigations have delved into it from various angles... A lack of information is NOT a problem today.

 

The problem today is more along the lines of sorting throught the misinformation for the information - but if you expect a congressional investigation to do that then you're sorely mistaken about what congress actually does and has ALWAYS done. I'll give you an example: the 9/11 commision's findings were a complete joke, and all the 9/11 commision was in the first place was a complicated dog and pony show for the masses and a bunch of CYA for dingbats in congress. Nothing came out of that that wasn't already known, and it was full to the brim with political posturing and useless garbage.

 

What Kucinich did has absolutely NOTHING to do with checking or balancing. Even if it wasn't laughably pathetic in it's effect - even assuming it had widespread support and a snowball's chance of doing what it says - it would still be nothing but Machiavellian power struggling. Kucinich has enough access to information that either he knows damn well that the supposed basis for impeachment is the joke it is.... or he's completely retarded. I've heard him speak - he's not retarded. He simply did this to pad his resume for the 2012 presidential race.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Gilgalad

Yes I've been here, but not letting a bunch of books, bloggers, and the "news" decide for me doesn't mean I haven't paid attention.

 

Id like to think there are those in congress that question the other branches because they believe something wrong has been done. Impeachment or whatever. I never said I agree with him, but I like what he did because I believe him to be sincere.

Edited June 18, 2008 by kashis

I voted for Bush. I didn't vote for him because I was a member of his party. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican and never will be. I voted for him because I thought he'd do the best job last time around. I'm not all that impressed with his leadership since I cast that vote, but it could've been worse I think.

 

I have a hard time trying to understand why folks ally themselves with a particular party. I don't need a group of folks to tell me what to think and who to vote for. I guess I'm just too independent in nature to ever be affiliated with a political party. I think that mindset might have come from growing up here in Texas with parents and a family who are exactly the same way.

I voted for Bush. I didn't vote for him because I was a member of his party. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican and never will be. I voted for him because I thought he'd do the best job last time around. I'm not all that impressed with his leadership since I cast that vote, but it could've been worse I think.

 

I have a hard time trying to understand why folks ally themselves with a particular party. I don't need a group of folks to tell me what to think and who to vote for. I guess I'm just too independent in nature to ever be affiliated with a political party. I think that mindset might have come from growing up here in Texas with parents and a family who are exactly the same way.

In some states you have to affiliate with a party to participate in the election, whether or not you vote along that party's line is an entirely different matter.

I have a hard time trying to understand why folks ally themselves with a particular party. I don't need a group of folks to tell me what to think and who to vote for. I guess I'm just too independent in nature to ever be affiliated with a political party. I think that mindset might have come from growing up here in Texas with parents and a family who are exactly the same way.

Dunno JR, I didn't grow up in Texas and my parents were Democrats, but I don't have any party affiliations either. I'm not religious either. Frankly I find the two equally misguided ways of viewing the world.

 

Oh and Ecth: Taking responsibility for our actions is a fine sentiment and I completely agree with it. However, wouldn't attempting to fix an error by impeachment other means be much more 'responsible' than just saying 'oh well, we screwed that one up pretty badly'?

 

From what I can tell the difference between Nixon and Bush is that Nixon 'broke' the rules, while Bush 'changed' the rules. But meh, who needs privacy anyway?