Impeachment

[sophist]

Again, the important thing you and many other people don't seem to understand (and continue to ignore): the Florida constitution allows seven days for recounts and it took more than seven days for recounting, thus the state constitution had to be upheld.  Which sucks, but the staff of the Florida polls were incompetent, which again, isn't the fault of the Bushes.  Further, that rule was written long before W even thought about running for office, so this delusional conspiracy theory doesn't hold up against reality.  Bush or his brother didn't write the laws or enforce the laws.  The executive branch never enforces the law (at any level), its the judicial branch that enforces the law (at every level), and the legislative branch writes the laws (at every level).  Jeb was part of the state executive branch, which can declare "orders," but Jeb did no such thing.  The state supreme court stepped in and then the Supreme Court ruled on it.  Which had no one elected by W, since he hadn't taken office at that time.  The court at that time was more liberal then than it is now (due to the two Clinton appointments).       

[susep]

Again, the important thing you and many other people don't seem to understand (and continue to ignore): the Florida constitution allows seven days for recounts and it took more than seven days for recounting, thus the state constitution had to be upheld.

I understand that but keep in my mind Jebby et al. probably knew that before hand which is why shit hit the phan :-P in FL. 
Bro, I respect your opinions and ideas but this and other threads reflect that your thinking is very status quo and linear.  You do a good job sticking to the facts but rarely offer your own views or ideas, merely reinforcing the status quo. 
I respectfully dissent.

[rowjimmy]

The ballots were marred. Votes completely dumped form electronic machines. Voters purged from the rolls illegally. Florida should be given to Raúl Castro and save us the trouble of discrediting them and the embarrassment of their inability to have a fair election.

[flufhed]

Again, the important thing you and many other people don't seem to understand (and continue to ignore): the Florida constitution allows seven days for recounts and it took more than seven days for recounting, thus the state constitution had to be upheld.

I understand that but keep in my mind Jebby et al. probably knew that before hand which is why shit hit the phan :-P in FL. 
Bro, I respect your opinions and ideas but this and other threads reflect that your thinking is very status quo and linear.  You do a good job sticking to the facts but rarely offer your own views or ideas, merely reinforcing the status quo. 
I respectfully dissent.

Thanks to you too Susep...I was starting to get scared last night that Sophist was right (he was kicking my ass...but I was really baked and off my game...) and I was the status quo!

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Faux,

That was well put, and I think Ikki should read it when he gets the chance.   

However, I disagree with part of your argument.  Suggesting that the public is to blame is silly to me.  The public can't know what the president knows, therefore the public is ill informed.  Thus making our opinion moot.  You said yourself that you'd need a security clearance to know the details, but thats not going to be granted to the public.  So for an informed individual to listen to the uninformed public is naturally counterintuitive. 

Thats like a doctor of physics taking advice from a group of high school students (the extent of knowledge isn't equal).  Further, your appeal to ignorance argument is flawed from the get go.  Not having all the information present for the public doesn't negate the duty of the executive branch to be truthful to the public (to the extent the executive branch can give information- i.e. national security).  To get back to the high school metaphor  its like the doctor of physics telling the high school crowd that "X" law occurs due to natural principals "Y."  When in reality "Y" is 100% false, but "Y" serves the agenda of the doctor of physics. 

To get to president now, he stuck to his guns for whatever reason, and the result has hampered this country and the citizens of Iraq.  It is the fault of the administration and the administration only. 
       

Your logic and your points are great, Sophist.

Here is where your logic is flawed...

...I cannot blame the President, because, when he told me that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, my response was "you are wrong, your administration is wrong, Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction, please do not bring us to war." 

That was my response based on the President's erroneous information that was presented as factual.

The majority of Americans, on the other hand, not only backed up the President's assertions, but also chose to defend his erroneous intelligence presented as fact by saying that he was correct (and by also saying that if you disagreed with this opinion you were Un-American).

I was an average member of the public, it was obvious to me that the information was incorrect, and because of this, I would expect every other member of the public to be able to reach the same conclusion... a conclusion that in your argument, you have not made room for.  I do not fault the public for dissemenating false information, I fault the public for accepting false information as true.  Likewise, I fault the president for disseminating false information.

As the saying goes "it takes two to tango", and while the President deserves a ton of blame for providing false information, the public deserves a ton of blame for accepting this information as factual and for silencing the voices of dissent.

This is the guilt that the average member of the public needs to accept... the public needs to accept the fact that they accepted this erroneous intelligence presented by the President to the public, and they believed this erroneous intelligence, and they acted upon the erroneous intelligence in a manner that was innapropriate and detrimental to their own quality of life.

I am not "blaming" the American people, per say, but I am saying that if you are going to expect your elected officials to be held accountable when they make grievous mistakes, than the average citizen should be likewise expected to be held accountable when they make grievous mistakes.

In the same way that the Nuremberg trials did not accept a plea of "I was just following orders", we Americans can not and should not desire to hide behind a shield of "we were presented counter-factual information".  One of our duties as Americans is to be highly critical of our leaders especially when our leaders foolishly push us all towards the brink and over the cliff of the mountain known as "War".  Even when our leaders are using their positions maliciously in a direct attempt to dupe us ordinary citizens, we should expect, encourage and stand behind all of those who question the intelligence presented to us by those which we have entrusted with the ability to represent our hopes our wishes our fears our legacy and our security... especially when that Intelligence concerns a grave threat.

At this point, I am very afraid.  I feel as if we are in a fairy tale.  The fairy tale is a grim story, indeed.  It is the tale of the boy who cried wolf.  In this case, the boy is the President and our American Government.  The "ghost wolf" has been Iraq.  I pray that when there is a true wolf at the door, we do not possess a false sense of security because we were all duped by the President's men.

The President and his men were installed and entrusted with the power to persuade and protect our interests by all of us, and we should feel obligated to a responsibility to have to defend the decisions that we make, including who we choose to represent our interests.

This includes having to defend poor decisions, such as electing George Bush to represent us, trusting the information that George Bush presented us how we have presented our country to the rest of the World and acting under the guidance of the one who we chose to lead us.

Just as if we are students in a science class who are encouraged to question their teacher scientifically....

[flufhed]

Faux,

That was well put, and I think Ikki should read it when he gets the chance.   

However, I disagree with part of your argument.  Suggesting that the public is to blame is silly to me.  The public can't know what the president knows, therefore the public is ill informed.  Thus making our opinion moot.  You said yourself that you'd need a security clearance to know the details, but thats not going to be granted to the public.  So for an informed individual to listen to the uninformed public is naturally counterintuitive. 

Thats like a doctor of physics taking advice from a group of high school students (the extent of knowledge isn't equal).  Further, your appeal to ignorance argument is flawed from the get go.  Not having all the information present for the public doesn't negate the duty of the executive branch to be truthful to the public (to the extent the executive branch can give information- i.e. national security).  To get back to the high school metaphor  its like the doctor of physics telling the high school crowd that "X" law occurs due to natural principals "Y."  When in reality "Y" is 100% false, but "Y" serves the agenda of the doctor of physics. 

To get to president now, he stuck to his guns for whatever reason, and the result has hampered this country and the citizens of Iraq.  It is the fault of the administration and the administration only. 
       

Your logic and your points are great, Sophist.

Here is where your logic is flawed...

...I cannot blame the President, because, when he told me that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, my response was "you are wrong, your administration is wrong, Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction, please do not bring us to war." 

That was my response based on the President's erroneous information that was presented as factual.

The majority of Americans, on the other hand, not only backed up the President's assertions, but also chose to defend his erroneous intelligence presented as fact by saying that he was correct (and by also saying that if you disagreed with this opinion you were Un-American).

I was an average member of the public, it was obvious to me that the information was incorrect, and because of this, I would expect every other member of the public to be able to reach the same conclusion... a conclusion that in your argument, you have not made room for.  I do not fault the public for dissemenating false information, I fault the public for accepting false information as true.  Likewise, I fault the president for disseminating false information.

As the saying goes "it takes two to tango", and while the President deserves a ton of blame for providing false information, the public deserves a ton of blame for accepting this information as factual and for silencing the voices of dissent.

This is the guilt that the average member of the public needs to accept... the public needs to accept the fact that they accepted this erroneous intelligence presented by the President to the public, and they believed this erroneous intelligence, and they acted upon the erroneous intelligence in a manner that was innapropriate and detrimental to their own quality of life.

I am not "blaming" the American people, per say, but I am saying that if you are going to expect your elected officials to be held accountable when they make grievous mistakes, than the average citizen should be likewise expected to be held accountable when they make grievous mistakes.

In the same way that the Nuremberg trials did not accept a plea of "I was just following orders", we Americans can not and should not desire to hide behind a shield of "we were presented counter-factual information".  One of our duties as Americans is to be highly critical of our leaders especially when our leaders foolishly push us all towards the brink and over the cliff of the mountain known as "War".  Even when our leaders are using their positions maliciously in a direct attempt to dupe us ordinary citizens, we should expect, encourage and stand behind all of those who question the intelligence presented to us by those which we have entrusted with the ability to represent our hopes our wishes our fears our legacy and our security... especially when that Intelligence concerns a grave threat.

At this point, I am very afraid.  I feel as if we are in a fairy tale.  The fairy tale is a grim story, indeed.  It is the tale of the boy who cried wolf.  In this case, the boy is the President and our American Government.  The "ghost wolf" has been Iraq.  I pray that when there is a true wolf at the door, we do not possess a false sense of security because we were all duped by the President's men.

The President and his men were installed and entrusted with the power to persuade and protect our interests by all of us, and we should feel obligated to a responsibility to have to defend the decisions that we make, including who we choose to represent our interests.

This includes having to defend poor decisions, such as electing George Bush to represent us, trusting the information that George Bush presented us how we have presented our country to the rest of the World and acting under the guidance of the one who we chose to lead us.

Just as if we are students in a science class who are encouraged to question their teacher scientifically....

Damn that was well said Faux...the part I never talk about (because we will be beaten as un-american or something) is that the public IS absolutely to blame.  Not me...I voted for Gore and Kerry (lesser of two evils both times...).  But I think your point is very true and understated that people should own up as well to this mess.  However, for those who could not see his flaws before, or during this atrocious 7+ years that Bush was president...those who continue to defend him and support his decisions and his actions...I do not understand their logic.

I actually came up with a slogan 7 years ago...and wanted to make bumper stickers...and I probably should have.  IT says...

"WE PUT A BUSH AND A DICK IN THE WHITE HOUSE...HOW ARE WE NOT GONNA GET SCREWED?"

[sophist]

Bro, I respect your opinions and ideas but this and other threads reflect that your thinking is very status quo and linear.  You do a good job sticking to the facts but rarely offer your own views or ideas, merely reinforcing the status quo. 
I respectfully dissent.

Status Quo ?

I've never heard my viewpoints expressed as that, so I'm without speech as to to respond, and I don't take offense to it, but I feel it is inaccurate. 

If your searching for my views on Bush, I'll gladly opine for you.  I think he will be remembered as one of the worst presidents in the history of this country and here is why:
His utter disdain for civil rights (domestic and abroad) is uncanny.  His domestic economic policies have and will be damaging for some time to come.  The influx of "super" capitalism (i.e. globalization) and Bush's continuation to support that notion have put us in a dyer situation.  As you know, I support capitalism and I am a firm believer in the benefits of said economic system; however, I feel capitalism was never intended for such a macro-sized market, and as such the bad qualities of it are now more prominent than the good qualities.  I see it the duty of the president to suggest to congress to intervene in order to keep the market at a micro-sized market (as the system is intended in my opinion).  Bush's failure to do so will result in more economic failures in the near future.  While I'm a fan of tax cuts, Bush's tax cuts weren't that effective, it was like a shot of adrenaline to a dying patient.  While the short term effects were felt, it didn't solve the issue at hand. 
His foreign economic policies are even worse, and congress's failure to propose good policy is equally upsetting. 

As for the impeachment bill, I happen to agree with RJ, and think he said it best. 

I think Bush was elected on "morality" rather than policy.  If we look at election by election.  I saw strong campaign based on "values" rather than facts and policy.  It disgusts me in every possible aspect.  The notion that people will vote for an individual because they will limit the rights on a another individual (i.e. the gay marriage ban of the 2004 election), and the morality push of 2000 as well.  Bush implying that he was not tainted like Gore (being that Clinton was corrupt for having an affair- which is a bullshit notion on many levels, and that Gore was part of the problem, thus being tainted.  This being a complete lie).  Bush being in office is the result of people who want a false sense of security, that being from "terror," drugs, homosexuality, or any other "threat."  The fault of the DNC is not that they spoke the truth, its that they failed to shovel required amount of drivel to the public, which I respect them for not doing. 

Faux, I see your point, but I still disagree with you. 

fluf, thats a damn good slogan.  Nice work.   

 

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Bro, I respect your opinions and ideas but this and other threads reflect that your thinking is very status quo and linear.  You do a good job sticking to the facts but rarely offer your own views or ideas, merely reinforcing the status quo. 
I respectfully dissent.

Status Quo ?

I've never heard my viewpoints expressed as that, so I'm without speech as to to respond, and I don't take offense to it, but I feel it is inaccurate. 

If your searching for my views on Bush, I'll gladly opine for you.  I think he will be remembered as one of the worst presidents in the history of this country and here is why:
His utter disdain for civil rights (domestic and abroad) is uncanny.  His domestic economic policies have and will be damaging for some time to come.  The influx of "super" capitalism (i.e. globalization) and Bush's continuation to support that notion have put us in a dyer situation.  As you know, I support capitalism and I am a firm believer in the benefits of said economic system; however, I feel capitalism was never intended for such a macro-sized market, and as such the bad qualities of it are now more prominent than the good qualities.  I see it the duty of the president to suggest to congress to intervene in order to keep the market at a micro-sized market (as the system is intended in my opinion).  Bush's failure to do so will result in more economic failures in the near future.  While I'm a fan of tax cuts, Bush's tax cuts weren't that effective, it was like a shot of adrenaline to a dying patient.  While the short term effects were felt, it didn't solve the issue at hand. 
His foreign economic policies are even worse, and congress's failure to propose good policy is equally upsetting. 

As for the impeachment bill, I happen to agree with RJ, and think he said it best. 

I think Bush was elected on "morality" rather than policy.  If we look at election by election.  I saw strong campaign based on "values" rather than facts and policy.  It disgusts me in every possible aspect.  The notion that people will vote for an individual because they will limit the rights on a another individual (i.e. the gay marriage ban of the 2004 election), and the morality push of 2000 as well.  Bush implying that he was not tainted like Gore (being that Clinton was corrupt for having an affair- which is a bullshit notion on many levels, and that Gore was part of the problem, thus being tainted.  This being a complete lie).  Bush being in office is the result of people who want a false sense of security, that being from "terror," drugs, homosexuality, or any other "threat."  The fault of the DNC is not that they spoke the truth, its that they failed to shovel required amount of drivel to the public, which I respect them for not doing. 

Faux, I see your point, but I still disagree with you. 

fluf, thats a damn good slogan.  Nice work.   

 

While I understand your motivation to not blame the public, I still feel compelled to present the argument.

It's an argument that I have not heard opined as of yet, and it's an argument I've been forming for 6 years.

I knew you would disagree with that aspect of my arguments, but I do believe that on the issue of the leadership opportunities presented to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice and the rest of our heads of state versus how our government has chosen to answer these opportunities, you and I have very very similar opinions.

I think the issue that the administration hasn't stressed that is on everyones mind that I most fault Mr. Bush for is the issue of sustainable fuel efficiency across the board. 

I'm glad we are re-promoting nuclear growth (nuke-u-ler?), I'm saddened that we are running out of barrells of oil faster than we used to run out of Nintendo Wii's.

At least that's the impression I get from the S vs. D curve produced based upon the fluctuation in the value of oil... unless our current trend is in fact cyclical (and reversible?).

It's always a pleasure to debate with people willing to talk about causal effect...thanks Sophi...

---m@tte.