I am all for impeachment, if it means we get someone good to replace him. The problem is that if Bush is impeached, Cheney replaces him. If Cheney is impached, it's Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House. If Hastert is impeached, then TED STEVENS becomes prez.
So you see, the list of replacements is quite frightening indeed.
Look at the picture you posted. The American people need to be educated and warmed up to the idea? Come on, man. If they aren't there now, they won't be tomorrow or next year. (there won't be a next year if this continues)
Impeachment only works if the Speaker of the House changes from Repug to Democrat. Otherwise, if Bush AND Cheney are impeached, they would be replaced by Dennis Hastert - arguably cut from the same cloth. If there is a Dem speaker, then there would be hope.
And educating the American people? Good idea, I just am not sure how. I mean, they "reelected" the clown we have in the White House, after all.
you hit the nail on the head. The scam of the elections. If it can be proved bush bought both elections then the entire repuglic-scum party would have to go. Along with everyone they appointed anointed and weaseled into office.
Failing that a .45 cal air hole in the back of some heads might do the trick.
I just want to say something. Andrew Jackson, who QRS says was a national hero, killed more Native Americans than any US prez in the history of the country. See: Creek War and Indian Removal Act.
Read about him on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jackson
The man introduced the "spoils" system of American politics, whereby the prez chooses his entire cabinet. (giving the executive more power than envisioned in the constitution, which says the prez is the man with the most votes, and VP is the one with second most votes)
His system of taking away the national banks also led to the Panic of 1837. He put money in "pet banks" that were loyal to Jackson's party.
Was Jackson's monetary scheme better than the alternative? You can debate that until blue in the face. There are pros and cons to both. But make no mistake about it. Andrew Jackson the man had a checkered past, to say the least.
WASHINGTON, March 13 — Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an immediate vote on a call by one of their own to censure President Bush for his eavesdropping program.
They acted after Republicans said they were eager to pass judgment on a proposal that they portrayed as baseless and disruptive to the antiterror effort.
Minutes before Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, formally introduced his resolution reprimanding Mr. Bush, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said Republicans were ready to vote by day's end or Tuesday.
"When we're talking about censure of the president of the United States at a time of war, when this president is out defending the American people with a very good, lawful, constitutional program, it is serious business," Mr. Frist said. "If they want to make an issue out of it, we're willing to do just that."
Doesn't it feel great to be under the leadership of 4 year olds?
The actions of full grown men in positions of such power can never be characterized as infantile, because that would imply that it is somehow excusable, when it is not.
Indeed, their bald-faced and brazen abdication of their constitutional duty to serve as a check on an out of control executive is at best reckless, at worst treasonous.
Consequently, they deserve much worse than time-out as punishment.
He is one of the few Dems out there with principle. In the Senate, I also like Barbara Boxer, who incidentally, received the third most votes of any politician. ("Bush," Kerry, then her) Other worthy Dems include the Congressional Black Caucus (though Representatives usually have a poor chance at becoming president), Maurice Hinchey, and Ron Paul, Republican. Not sure if there are any others.
OH WELL.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Anonymous said...
Have everyone in the Bush Whitehouse declared a terrorist and send them all to Gitmo, and all those PNAC neocon journalists too. neocon -> the new con.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
[Senator Russ Feingold,] a liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality. Forget eavesdropping; what about lying our Nation into WAR? The man deserves nothing less than impeachment. Indeed, he deserves much more. But, our government refuses to support the ICC. So, that's not happening.
But, censure is NOT the way to go. Not only does it amount to nothing but a slap on the wrist, but also it would have Bush compared to Andrew Jackson, the last and only American president to have ever been censured by the Senate.The Senate demanded that the president turn over a document. The president—in the second year of his second term—refused. In an unprecedented and never-repeated tactic, the Senate then censured the president on March 28, 1834.
Two years earlier, President Andrew Jackson had vetoed an act to re-charter the Bank of the United States. That veto became a major issue in his 1832 reelection campaign, as he decisively defeated Senator Henry Clay. After the election, Jackson moved to withdraw federal deposits from that bank.
When the new Congress convened in December 1833, Clay's anti-administration coalition in the Senate held an eight-vote majority over Jackson's fellow Democrats. Clay then challenged Jackson on the bank issue with a Senate resolution seeking a paper the president had read to his cabinet. When Jackson refused, Clay introduced the censure resolution.Needless to say, not in his wildest dreams could that pin-head BUSH possibly compare to Andrew Jackson, a true American hero who fought fearlessly to take our money supply away from voracious bankers and put it back into the hands of the people.
19 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formHilarious. Anyone remember Harry Reid bringing the senate into closed session?
*Yawn
Sunday, March 12, 2006
whatever happened to that report that was supposed to follow?
Sunday, March 12, 2006
qrswave, one lie is enough for me. I don't trust anyone on capital hill.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Neither do I.
Are you going to DC in July, or Chicago in September?
Sunday, March 12, 2006
I'll be on the west coast, representing of course. :)
Sunday, March 12, 2006
I'll be here kicking the tailfeathers out of the south!
Got my work cut out for me, eh?
Monday, March 13, 2006
QRS,
I am all for impeachment, if it means we get someone good to replace him. The problem is that if Bush is impeached, Cheney replaces him. If Cheney is impached, it's Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House. If Hastert is impeached, then TED STEVENS becomes prez.
So you see, the list of replacements is quite frightening indeed.
Monday, March 13, 2006
I'm for impeachmnet to. but baby steps. the American public needs to be educated and warmend up to the idea.
Monday, March 13, 2006
left of center,
Look at the picture you posted. The American people need to be educated and warmed up to the idea?
Come on, man. If they aren't there now, they won't be tomorrow or next year. (there won't be a next year if this continues)
Cyclone
Monday, March 13, 2006
Impeachment only works if the Speaker of the House changes from Repug to Democrat. Otherwise, if Bush AND Cheney are impeached, they would be replaced by Dennis Hastert - arguably cut from the same cloth. If there is a Dem speaker, then there would be hope.
And educating the American people? Good idea, I just am not sure how. I mean, they "reelected" the clown we have in the White House, after all.
Monday, March 13, 2006
An ends to a means...Censure, impeach and then- REMOVE!
FIVE THOUSAND MILLIGRAMS
Monday, March 13, 2006
Miss R
you hit the nail on the head. The scam of the elections. If it can be proved bush bought both elections then the entire repuglic-scum party would have to go. Along with everyone they appointed anointed and weaseled into office.
Failing that a .45 cal air hole in the back of some heads might do the trick.
Monday, March 13, 2006
I just want to say something. Andrew Jackson, who QRS says was a national hero, killed more Native Americans than any US prez in the history of the country. See: Creek War and Indian Removal Act.
Read about him on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jackson
The man introduced the "spoils" system of American politics, whereby the prez chooses his entire cabinet. (giving the executive more power than envisioned in the constitution, which says the prez is the man with the most votes, and VP is the one with second most votes)
His system of taking away the national banks also led to the Panic of 1837. He put money in "pet banks" that were loyal to Jackson's party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States
Was Jackson's monetary scheme better than the alternative? You can debate that until blue in the face. There are pros and cons to both. But make no mistake about it. Andrew Jackson the man had a checkered past, to say the least.
Monday, March 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 13 — Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an immediate vote on a call by one of their own to censure President Bush for his eavesdropping program.
They acted after Republicans said they were eager to pass judgment on a proposal that they portrayed as baseless and disruptive to the antiterror effort.
Minutes before Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, formally introduced his resolution reprimanding Mr. Bush, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said Republicans were ready to vote by day's end or Tuesday.
"When we're talking about censure of the president of the United States at a time of war, when this president is out defending the American people with a very good, lawful, constitutional program, it is serious business," Mr. Frist said. "If they want to make an issue out of it, we're willing to do just that."
Doesn't it feel great to be under the leadership of 4 year olds?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The actions of full grown men in positions of such power can never be characterized as infantile, because that would imply that it is somehow excusable, when it is not.
Indeed, their bald-faced and brazen abdication of their constitutional duty to serve as a check on an out of control executive is at best reckless, at worst treasonous.
Consequently, they deserve much worse than time-out as punishment.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
True Q.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Well, this is yet another reason to say...
RUSS FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT '08!
He is one of the few Dems out there with principle. In the Senate, I also like Barbara Boxer, who incidentally, received the third most votes of any politician. ("Bush," Kerry, then her) Other worthy Dems include the Congressional Black Caucus (though Representatives usually have a poor chance at becoming president), Maurice Hinchey, and Ron Paul, Republican. Not sure if there are any others.
OH WELL.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Have everyone in the Bush Whitehouse declared a terrorist and send them all to Gitmo, and all those PNAC neocon journalists too. neocon -> the new con.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006