Impeach Bush? - Page 3

Root · 01-16-2006, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -OIJ-Brutus

It needed to happen in Iraq, regardless of WOMD, the man was a ruthless killer, I would do it all over again right now.

Tell me - when is your corp shipping out to Zimbabwe? Are you also on standby to deploy to Russia? Mugabe and Putin are ruthless killers. When will you be dealing with them? There's no oil in Zimbabwe, so I guess we'll just give that a miss huh? And as for Russia, if we start down *that* slipperly slope, we might well have to follow through and deal with Downing Street and Pensylvania Avenue, and by golly we can't have *those* sorts of shenanigans, can we?

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta_Swift

Here's what I think. Forgive me if these seems hypocritical:

I discovered very quickly upon contributing to this forum that debate is rare. Most of the time, although not all of the time, debate is abandoned completely after the first post of dissent. What ensues is singlemindedness, mudslinging, and complete disregard for facts, evidence, and sometimes even logic--by both sides of the argument. Sometimes civil debate re-emerges later in the thread, however, it is usually drowned out by the subsequent bickering posts.

Every now and then a thread will come about where discussion is encouraged in a civil environment. Posters debate freely without antagonizing those that have different views. They accept good arguments for what they are--good arguments. Facts and evidence are even used. You may even see someone's opinion change based on the debate. These are rare gems. However, I'm almost afraid to post in such a thread for fear of drawing attention to it so that it might be squashed like all the others.

So my questions to everyone are: what exactly are we doing here? What is the point of all "this?" What have we accomplished in this forum? Does anyone even care if all we do is spit on each other?

Excellent post, Delta.. This is why I don't participate in this forum very much. As much as I would like to get involved, there is too high a percentage of people who don't know of what they speak, throw out whatever insults and charges they've heard someone else make, and have no ability whatsoever to back up their opinions.

Debate is a wonderful thing in which all sides can learn a little bit about the other side's views on various issues. It's a shame that we don't have enough people who can do this in a mature manner.

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

Tell me - when is your corp shipping out to Zimbabwe? Are you also on standby to deploy to Russia? Mugabe and Putin are ruthless killers. When will you be dealing with them? There's no oil in Zimbabwe, so I guess we'll just give that a miss huh? And as for Russia, if we start down *that* slipperly slope, we might well have to follow through and deal with Downing Street and Pensylvania Avenue, and by golly we can't have *those* sorts of shenanigans, can we?

It is terribly wrong to judge someone based on the lack of action in this manner. The "oil" card is an EXTREMELY soft target when it comes to debate and something that really can't be proven. We went to war in Afghanistan and I do not believe there was any oil there to take. This "oil" card is one of those arguments that the administrations opponents threw out there because it couldn't be disproved and serves their purposes in further demonizing a political figure that they dislike.

Anyone that brings political party talking points such as this into this forum should receive 40 lashes and be removed from the forum for a month!

Root · 01-16-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

We went to war in Afghanistan and I do not believe there was any oil there to take.

Afghanistan was because we (the US and UK) decided that we made a mistake when we put the Taliban in power a few years previously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

Anyone that brings political party talking points such as this into this forum should receive 40 lashes and be removed from the forum for a month!

I despise party polictics both in theory and in practice. It doesn't work, so I'm all for you lashing people as much as you feel the need.

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

Afghanistan was because we (the US and UK) decided that we made a mistake when we put the Taliban in power a few years previously.

So why does oil need to be the motive in Iraq? As I said, it's a "soft target" when it comes to attacking the administration and is difficult to conclusively prove or disprove.

Root · 01-16-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

So why does oil need to be the motive in Iraq? As I said, it's a "soft target" when it comes to attacking the administration and is difficult to conclusively prove or disprove.

Control of the oil in the middle east is important to America so that it can secure continued supply. The war there certainly has nothing to do with giving the Iraqi people democracy, because if they elect someone the white house doesn't want, they just send the troops back in.

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

Control of the oil in the middle east is important to America so that it can secure continued supply. The war there certainly has nothing to do with giving the Iraqi people democracy, because if they elect someone the white house doesn't want, they just send the troops back in.

What? How do you know they will send the troops back in? You're basing your evidence as to the war being all about oil on something that you think might happen in the future if the elections dont go the way the US government wants?

That's rediculous.

Yes, the US wants to make sure it's oil supply is secured. And I would agree with someone, if they proposed it, that when choosing between two hostile nations that desire to inflict harm on the US, the US might go after the one with oil reserves because it does have an impact on US oil supply. But I would not agree in the slightest that we went to war in a country "because" of the oil unless it was qualified properly as a contributing factor to an already existing decision.

Root · 01-16-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

But I would not agree in the slightest that we went to war in a country "because" of the oil unless it was qualified properly as a contributing factor to an already existing decision.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but wouldn't that require politicians being honest? If so, I'll stick to gaming, because at least *that* waste of time provides me with much entertainment, and enables me to make friends. Waiting for a politician to be honest is boring, and highly unlikely. Yes, I'm tarring a lot of people across the planet with the same brush here, but that's because politicians are pretty much all the same.

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

Maybe I misunderstand you, but wouldn't that require politicians being honest? If so, I'll stick to gaming, because at least *that* waste of time provides me with much entertainment, and enables me to make friends. Waiting for a politician to be honest is boring, and highly unlikely. Yes, I'm tarring a lot of people across the planet with the same brush here, but that's because politicians are pretty much all the same.

Yes, it would require that politicians are honest. But as unrealistic as it is to believe that politicians are always being honest, it is equally unrealistic to believe that politicians are always being dishonest and acting with the foulest of intent.

People need to weigh each action, inaction or event on it's own merits. Some people just hate Bush and choose to believe that no matter what he does, or what his administration does, it's got foul intent or is dishonest. Some people love him and feel that nothing he does could possibly be wrong.

**RandomGuy** · 01-16-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I think the patriot is somewhere in the middle. Think of it this way: You might get in a fight with your mother, you might call her names, you might dislike her for a bit, but what happens if somebody from outside your family calls her a bitch? You lay the smacketh down, right? I think we can discuss/debate/argue all we want within the United States, but when it comes time to do things outside our nation, we need to present a united front. We need to let the world know that our country will stand together in tough times. We can still debate internally, but it shouldn't effect an outsider's perception of our resolve.

Right now, that's not the case. Our country's political bickering has divided our nation in a way that is quite obvious to both our allies and our enemies.

I get your point, but I don't think you can have it both ways. The political process requires open debate and dissent. That the people can read, hear or watch this process keeps things healthy. Keeping the process closed would be unhealthy. I don't think there is any practical way to limit who can see these things.

Karkianman101 · 01-16-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I think the patriot is somewhere in the middle. Think of it this way: You might get in a fight with your mother, you might call her names, you might dislike her for a bit, but what happens if somebody from outside your family calls her a bitch? You lay the smacketh down, right? I think we can discuss/debate/argue all we want within the United States, but when it comes time to do things outside our nation, we need to present a united front. We need to let the world know that our country will stand together in tough times. We can still debate internally, but it shouldn't effect an outsider's perception of our resolve.

Right now, that's not the case. Our country's political bickering has divided our nation in a way that is quite obvious to both our allies and our enemies.

That's kind of the example I was aiming for. I was just talking about internal dynamics. Of course we need to present a united front to the outside world, just as much as we need to support our troops whether or not we believe why they are there is wrong.

AMosely · 01-16-2006, 11:10 AM

Back to the original subject/question in this thread..

George Bush should not be impeached for several reasons. The first one that comes to my mind is that it is not worth the time - our government should be focusing on the two wars that it is fighting right now and the troops they have deployed to fight those wars. The process of impeachment would spark a political frenzy in this country that we most certainly do not need right now. Repubs and Dems hate each other enough as it is.

This doesn't mean that I don't think Bush is an embarassment to the office of President. He is isolated, arrogant, stubborn, a poor public speaker and is guided by the most dispicable political advocate known to man (Rove). Supporters call these traits strong-willed and focused. I disagree. Love him or hate him, though, no one should ever support him simply because he is the president. Never do that for any president, or government for that matter.

**CingularDuality** · 01-16-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I get your point, but I don't think you can have it both ways. The political process requires open debate and dissent. That the people can read, hear or watch this process keeps things healthy. Keeping the process closed would be unhealthy. I don't think there is any practical way to limit who can see these things.

I'm not proposing that the process be closed. I'm suggesting that people that oppose the leader of our country reign themselves in during a time of war. Present that united front to the outside world, y'know?

Impeach the President while our troops are deployed when he's not done anything illegal? Pure craziness.

Beatnik · 01-16-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Impeach the President while our troops are deployed when he's not done anything illegal? Pure craziness.

I don't like to join in a debate that will change noone's mind on the subject, but the legality of issuing an executive order authorizing the NSA to spy on American citizens, while circumventing the FISA process that was created to be a check on unlimited executive power over domestic spying, is very much in question at this point.

Buck Fush · 01-16-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

I don't like to join in a debate that will change noone's mind on the subject, but the legality of issuing an executive order authorizing the NSA to spy on American citizens, while circumventing the FISA process that was created to be a check on unlimited executive power over domestic spying, is very much in question at this point.

The funny thing is that I haven't seen one person in this thread on the side of not impeaching that has even tried to justify that the wiretaps were legal. The legality of the wiretaps is not in question. It is known to be illegal and anyone arguing to the contrary is merely trying to protect the president.

01-16-2006, 11:10 AM	#42 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 33 Posts: 2,536	Re: Impeach Bush? Back to the original subject/question in this thread.. George Bush should not be impeached for several reasons. The first one that comes to my mind is that it is not worth the time - our government should be focusing on the two wars that it is fighting right now and the troops they have deployed to fight those wars. The process of impeachment would spark a political frenzy in this country that we most certainly do not need right now. Repubs and Dems hate each other enough as it is. This doesn't mean that I don't think Bush is an embarassment to the office of President. He is isolated, arrogant, stubborn, a poor public speaker and is guided by the most dispicable political advocate known to man (Rove). Supporters call these traits strong-willed and focused. I disagree. Love him or hate him, though, no one should ever support him simply because he is the president. Never do that for any president, or government for that matter.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
President Bush shot!!?!! (fiction)	CingularDuality	The Sandbox	4	09-17-2006 06:47 PM
"Senate Hearings on Bush, Now", by Carl Bernstein re:Impeachment	Eggplant999	The Sandbox	39	04-20-2006 09:55 AM
Bush shows his class	Trooper	The Sandbox	77	04-13-2006 01:52 PM
Putin endorses Bush	Apophis	The Sandbox	6	10-19-2004 07:54 AM
Bush: The missing years	leejo	The Sandbox	2	08-03-2004 02:37 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links