Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung."

:lol:

[Alizard]

[quote="Dookiestix
1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.

[/quote]

Technically, neither the Prez or VP can be guilty of leaking classified intel because (courtesy Bush's EO) they both have legal authority to declassify anything they want to release.

Not that I think that's a good thing, but it is what it is.


As for the rest of their crimes..... go for it.

[Thrilla]

Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.

what you "doubt" is your problem...and doesnt concern me one bit.

now if you want a productive debate.. im all for it.... but "calling me out " but insulting my intelligence is something i wont curtail to...you would be best served by examining your debate style around here.... I wont play silly games forever

[Alizard]

Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

A true Freudian slip: you said MOST of the list is horsedung (and artuculate and comprehensive rebuttal of charges to be sure)....

Do I need to point out that by saying "most" of the charges are invalid, you are also admitting that they should be impeached?

If even one charge is valid, there are good legal grounds for impeachment.

I doubt there will be an impeachment, but the one thing I know is more certain even than death and taxes:


You will absolutely not be "amused" at the proceedings if they do, you will be screaming an octave higher than dogs can hear if the dems were to do such a thing.

[Alizard]

Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.

what you "doubt" is your problem...and doesnt concern me one bit.

now if you want a productive debate.. im all for it.... but "calling me out " but insulting my intelligence is something i wont curtail to...you would be best served by examining your debate style around here.... I wont play silly games forever

Speaking of playing games, I would simply ask that you explain which of the charges are "horsedung" and why you believe they are, and then for the big finale:

Explain why they should not be impeached if it is true that NOT ALL of the charges are "horsedung"..... or more politely, without basis.

I don't think it is "calling someone out" to ask them to substantiate their post claims. BTW, when you claim somebody has posted "horsedung" you are calling them a liar, in that they posted false content. It is internet ptotocol to at least substantiate that if you choose to do that.

I would like to see a list of the offensive dung, because I will then ask why the charges not on that list should not be drafted into an article of impeachment.

[Thrilla]

Alizard wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

A true Freudian slip: you said MOST of the list is horsedung (and artuculate and comprehensive rebuttal of charges to be sure)....

Do I need to point out that by saying "most" of the charges are invalid, you are also admitting that they should be impeached?

If even one charge is valid, there are good legal grounds for impeachment.

I doubt there will be an impeachment, but the one thing I know is more certain even than death and taxes:


You will absolutely not be "amused" at the proceedings if they do, you will be screaming an octave higher than dogs can hear if the dems were to do such a thing. wasnt a slip... i said ealier i would be in favor of investigations into #2 and #11..

and no..i dont make it a habit to scream about stuff.... thats not my style.. I leave the screaming to you guys :lol:

[Fishstyx]

1. Prove that the leak was intentional, beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Prove that they knew the intelligence was false and presented it anyway.

3. Where does it say in the Contitution that it applies to foreigners captured in a foreign country?

4. See number 3.

5. See number 4.

Well, at this point from what I've seen, I still oppose impeachment. Mainly becuase what you charged will never be proven and this will do nothing but cost a sh!tload of taxpayer money simply for a political embarrassemnt.

[CountryGuy]

Any Democrat elected into office in non-Democratic districts will find themselves ousted in the next election should they go forward with something as asinine as this. It will be a complete betrayal of what they were supposed to be going into office for.

Never mind that there will be quite a number of Democratic congresspeople and senators who will need to go down as well -- Or just add to the one-sidedness of it.

Hopefully, they are smart enough to just do their jobs -- Bush is gone in two years, don't screw yourselves over.

[The dane]

I'm not sure impeachement would be a good thing at this point but I support anyway on the general principle that everyone including the president has to follow the law, and should be prosecuted when they don't, especially when the list of offenses is that long.

More so though I would favor prosecution of Bush and Cheney in an international court of law after they leave office, like the war crimes tribunal in Haag, doubt the US would ever allow it though, since apparently it's only a problem if other countries kill and torture innocents.

[Zadoc]

Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too!

[cap'n queasy]

Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too!

You don't any business implying stupidity while at the same time you tell a moderator how you are going to violate the rules of this forum by using something he said in your signature.

:lol:

[Thrilla]

Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too! i dont know... maybe im not as "eliquent" as you...... do you feel like an ass yet?... you should... the correct spelling would be "eloquently"... go back and correct your spelling mistakes before getting high and mighty on others

here's a hint.. before you break into spelling nazi realm.. make sure you have no mistakes in your posts.... you look like a tool otherwise

oh.. and refer to the forum rules on signatures....

[Zadoc]

cap'n queasy wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too!

You don't any business implying stupidity while at the same time you tell a moderator how you are going to violate the rules of this forum by using something he said in your signature.

:lol:

I didn't say it was going to be my sig at this forum. ;)

Oh, and seriously, there is not need for me to imply that Thrilla is stupid, he pretty much demonstrates a diminished mental capacity in every post.

He is a troll, who brings nothing to the debate, offers no opinions, and everyone here but himself knows that he's been mitigated to the role of peanut gallery commentator to whom no one pays positive attention to.

[bigstick61]

Only 4, 10, 11, and 12 are concerns I have. The rest is mostly a bunch of BS. However, 14 takes the cake for the dumbest accusation. So what if we used white phosphorus? We have used it in nearly every conflict we have fought in since such ordnance became available.

[Hegelian_Center]

I oppose it. What a waste of time! Those men have less than 2 years in power. Besides, it won't produce much change, the Democrats already won the Congress, better stick to the issues and try to show the U.S. citizens what they can do to improve our lifes and make this country stronger, whatever meaning this may have. Making this country stronger... I sound like a campaigner.

[Zadoc]

Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too! go back and correct your spelling mistakes before getting high and mighty on others



The issue isn't your spelling. Everyone makes type-o's and spelling mistakes by default. The issue is your apparent inability to understand the language in which you're attempting to communicate in.

Concepts such as complete sentences, punctuation, contractions, capitalization, adjectives and adverbs, and prepositions (just to name a few) are seemingly alien to you.

You are a grown-up in a grown-up world and you communicate at less than a fourth grade level.

There is really no excuse for it.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Dookiestix wrote:
What do you think? The number of violations stacked up against the Bush administration is rather stunning. Does anyone think that at some point, if things truly get bad enough for the Bush administration (Cheney is now asking help from the Saudis because of their extroardinary screw-ups), and as Iraq continues to spiral into absolute chaos and death, that the American people will have finally had enough with the failed policies of this group of cronies? When is enough going to be enough?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/24/17048/677

Daily Kos... lol. Not smirking chimp's blog? Sure, I support it. I say railroad it through the House and let the Senate chew on it for 18 months. It will push the Democrats out of power for at least another decade. The congress that was elected and put the GOP out of business who supports it will need to be so preoccupied with not only Bush, but now Cheney - that they'll get zero, nada, done. They'll run in 2008 on the "impeachment ticket" and show the people who voted them in, just who lied. I'd love it. Please please please do it... :-D

If I were to look at what's best for the country, I'd certainly say not to persue this course as it will not only divide the DNC and alienate the blue-dog Dems who most likely wouldn't be in favor of it, but it would make sure again, a do-nothing Congress does nothing. If the DNC really wants to put that gun in their mouths and pull the trigger - I'd certainly love to watch. As I've said many times, I don't think the DNC can avoid this ultimate accident... they're simply too stupid as a political party. I'm simply waiting for the inevitable to happen. It's never too late for the Democrats to f**k things up royally and then spend years and years whining about it... it's what they do best.

[Thrilla]

Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too! go back and correct your spelling mistakes before getting high and mighty on others



The issue isn't your spelling. Everyone makes type-o's and spelling mistakes by default. The issue is your apparent inability to understand the language in which you're attempting to communicate in.

Concepts such as complete sentences, punctuation, contractions, capitalization, adjectives and adverbs, and prepositions (just to name a few) are seemingly alien to you.

You are a grown-up in a grown-up world and you communicate at less than a fourth grade level.

There is really no excuse for it. thats lovely.. next time address you concerns in a PM <----- were you able to comprehend that?...please let me know...i can make it crystal f***ing clear if you are still confused.

[The dane]

Anyone else think it says a LOT about your system that you impeach one president for lying about having an affair, while you won't impeach another for breaking countless laws contributing to the death and torture of thousands ....

I mean really a rich white man having an affair and lying about it, thats horrible ! Who ever heard of such a thing ! .... :roll:

[Ozzone]

1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.
Nope, sorry. Scooter Libby is still under investigation. No grounds to impeach the President or Vice-President.


2. Lying to congress -- passing false information about Iraq's WMD capacities.
Nope, sorry. The intelligence community passed false information to both the President and Congress. In addition, the President was also advised by foreign leaders of Saddam's intent to acquire WMD. The President did not willfully pass false information to Congress.


3. Extraordinary Renditions.
4. Detentions without Trial.
5. Torture.
Nope, sorry. The 6th Amendment applies to criminals not unlawful enemy combatants. Feel free to read up on it.

In addition, the Supreme Court ruled the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism military order was constitutional and has since been replaced by Military Commissions Act of 2006.

In order to impeach the President for these specifications, first the Supreme Court must rule them unconstitutional.


7. Bombing Iraq without Congressional Approval.
Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire and in violation of the no-fly zone. Clinton refused to enforce it. President Bush did not need Congressional approval.


8. Conspiracy to pass false information.
Unproven allegations. A conspiracy has to be investigated and proven as fact before impeachment proceedings can commence.


9. Lying about Niger connection.
Nope, sorry. No proof of a lie. Current opinion is that there was a lot of misinformation. The UK continues to back up the story that Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium.

Quote: George Bush and Dick Cheney lied to Congress at the State of the Union and elsewhere by falsely stating that Iraq had procured Uranium from Niger.

President Bush said at the State of the Union: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Sought, not procured. Learn the difference.


10. Contempt of Congress.
George Bush and Dick Cheney showed a contempt of Congress by stating their intentions to violate laws passed by Congress or cause others to do so over 750 times.

Nope, sorry. Witch-hunting.


11. Illegal wiretaps.
George Bush and Dick Cheney repeatedly bypassed the court system by ordering wiretaps without authorization from judges and without obtaining a warrant.

Of all the stuff you've listed, this may be the only item that will come close to impeachment criteria. Unless Congress can prove that President Bush authorized wiretapping of American citizens that had nothing to do with National Security detection of terrorism plots then it will go nowhere.


12. Concealment of the existance or nature of Domestic Intelligence Programs.
George Bush and Dick Cheney concealed the nature and extent of the JPEN program, used for the purpose of domestic intelligence.

Nope, sorry. Programs were concealed because they were classified and on a "need-to-know" basis. Those in Congress, with a need-to-know, were informed.


13. Destruction of Evidence.
George Bush and Dick Cheney destroyed evidence in conjunction with Plamegate.

Nope, sorry. Baseless accusation by this hack site.


14. The use of White Phosphorus in Iraq.
George Bush and Dick Cheney authorized the use of White Phosphorus in Iraq in November 2004 during the Fallujah offensive.

Nope, sorry. First of all you have to prove that the President and/or Vice-President authorized it's use.

Second, there is considerable argument whether white phosphorus was used illegally. Congress would have to prove that white phosphorus was used specifically as a chemical weapon against personnel.

Quote: What do you think?

What I think is that the hack site voice of the anti-war, anti-Bush left is garbage.

Accusations are one thing, proven violations are another. Good luck on the impeachment proceedings though. Let us now how that works out.