Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Never a happy camper when it comes to discussing politics on the relatively abstract level since its mind boggling that what we have now is what supposedly represents democracy. Our system makes 40k 2nd edition look like a godsend.

As for Bush, I'm still wondering how that guy didn't get impeached. I'm neither a dem, rep, or anything else but the GOP in the past decade has made incredibly bad decisions and precedents; namely Iraq, and was more than worthy of impeachment hearings.

But thats another tangent.

Show me something thats meets the minimum requirements of impeachment and I'd agree. but you can't so I won't.

Dissagreeing with a President, or them making mistakes, doesn't mean they can be impeached. Otherwise here's the list of presidents that would have been impeached since Ike.

Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Obama

Thats part of the problem; impeachment is part of the US check and balances yet our system is too convoluted to make use of it due to lobbying, red versus blue, and other such mentality thats there solely to say 'nay/yay' than actually analyzing the issue at hand.

For Bush, his conduct regarding invading Iraq imo and probably to most Americans warrants an impeachment trial. The amount of negative controversy, lies, and corruption regarding that affair AND the amount of lives lost couldn't kickstart impeachment which imo shows how messed up our system is.

You do realize he was elected for a second term?

Cane wrote:Thats part of the problem; impeachment is part of the US check and balances yet our system is too convoluted to make use of it due to lobbying, red versus blue, and other such mentality thats there solely to say 'nay/yay' than actually analyzing the issue at hand.

For Bush, his conduct regarding invading Iraq imo and probably to most Americans warrants an impeachment trial. The amount of negative controversy, lies, and corruption regarding that affair AND the amount of lives lost couldn't kickstart impeachment which imo shows how messed up our system is.

No

Its not

At all

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

? That sentence is just reaffirming the premise that its there to be used as a form of checks and balances. If any of those individuals start acting illegally then thats grounds to start impeachment. Also, impeaching and actually removing someone from office is two different things since you can have an impeachment trial and the defendant be decided innocent.

Bush's conduct regarding Iraq was one of the best cases for impeachment this country had and for whatever reason wasn't acted upon. Engaging war with Iraq was a war of aggression fed to the public through lies, misinformation, etc.

We don't need warmongering politicians especially presidents especially after the lessons some of us learned from Vietnam.

It's hard to find an actual law that Bush violated, however.

Although any discussion of Presidential Impeachment that doesn't center on it's partisan political role is simply naive.

Cane wrote:?
Bush's conduct regarding Iraq was one of the best cases for impeachment this country had and for whatever reason wasn't acted upon. Engaging war with Iraq was a war of aggression fed to the public through lies, misinformation, etc.

Blah blah blah blah. My point stands. Based on your statement I look forward to your calling for Obama's impeachment at any moment.

We don't need warmongering politicians especially presidents especially after the lessons some of us learned from Vietnam.

You mean like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton right?

Frazzled wrote:
Dissagreeing with a President, or them making mistakes, doesn't mean they can be impeached. Otherwise here's the list of presidents that would have been impeached since Ike.

Clinton

Pretty sure Clinton was impeached.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Cane wrote:?
Bush's conduct regarding Iraq was one of the best cases for impeachment this country had and for whatever reason wasn't acted upon. Engaging war with Iraq was a war of aggression fed to the public through lies, misinformation, etc.

Blah blah blah blah. My point stands. Based on your statement I look forward to your calling for Obama's impeachment at any moment.

"Blah blah blah" right back at ya

Bush's mess that was Iraq is an issue worthy of impeachment.

Pretty sure Clinton was impeached.

He was impeached because he committed you know, a crime, called perjury (yea I thought it was stupid)
He was not impeached over the air raids on Iraq, Afghanistan, and that whole war with Serbia thing. Under your definition he should have.

"Blah blah blah" right back at ya

Bush's mess that was Iraq is an issue worthy of impeachment.

Sorry what was the, you know crime again?

Frazzled wrote:

Pretty sure Clinton was impeached.

He was impeached because he committed you know, a crime, called perjury (yea I thought it was stupid)
He was not impeached over the air raids on Iraq, Afghanistan, and that whole war with Serbia thing. Under your definition he should have.

I see how I might've confused you but small scale operations like those are, in fact, legal and the norm for US presidents and probably why he didn't get impeached for 'em or any other president for similar actions. However its hard to a find a president and vice president like Bush and Cheney that engaged in a longstanding and large-scale war like Iraq, lied throughout it, and handled it incredibly bad for very questionable motives. Bush basically restarted his daddy's war; Clinton's operations do not compete on the level of outrage or on the level of American lives and $$$ lost.

Sorry what was the, you know crime again?

Misleading and lying to the American Congress and public. Violating international laws through the war of aggression. It'd be obnoxious to copy and paste this list but here ya go if you're genuinely interested: http://www.impeachbush.tv/progress/dk_aoi_bush/

Impeachment should happen when there are grounds for it and a strong enough case. Imo and to many Americans and politicians; Bush and his administration's conduct regarding Iraq alone seems to be one of the strongest and most motivating incidents to call for impeachment.

I see how I might've confused you but small scale operations like those are, in fact, legal and the norm for US presidents and probably why he didn't get impeached for 'em or any other president for similar actions. However its hard to a find a president and vice president like Bush and Cheney that engaged in a longstanding war like Iraq, lied throughout it, and handled it incredibly bad for very questionable motives. Bush basically restarted his daddy's war; Clinton's operations do not compete on the level of outrage or on the level of American lives and $$$ lost.

****What nonsense are you talking about? He had A WAR with Serbia. Its not our fault it didn’t last long. US/NATO Airpower pwons old Soviet style air defenses. Its still a war. Under your definition he’s an evil war criminal and should be impeached for that.

Misleading and lying to the American Congress and public. Violating international laws through the war of aggression. It'd be obnoxious to copy and paste this list but here ya go if you're genuinely interested: http://www.impeachbush.tv/progress/dk_aoi_bush/
**** Sorry none of that is a crime, even if proven, which it wasn’t, except on your 9/11 was an inside Job/Bush is a nazi websites. Further, No international laws were violated. Even if they were big whup that’s not US law. The US Constitution wipes its Revolutionary arse with the rest of the world’s laws. They don’t apply, nor should they. You wouldn’t use Texas legal code to remove the Queen of England now would you. The whole concept is stupid and asinine on an EPIC FAIL level.

Impeachment should happen when there are grounds for it and a strong enough case. Imo and to many Americans and politicians; Bush and his administration's conduct regarding Iraq alone seems to be one of the strongest and most motivating incidents to call for impeachment.
***Again what you want and WHAT THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS are completely, unalterably different. Putting the previous administration out of office, in jail etc etc whatever you guys want is what is done in a banana republic. I’ll grant you Obama’s been mighty kind to Latin American dictatorships lately, but I’m sure even he is not up for that as the business end of that standard would come his way presently.

Orkeosaurus wrote:To be honest, it sounds like you're defining a word to be what you want it to be and calling other people ignorant for not having changed their definition of it as well.

I don't see why 'free' = 'efficient', or 'successful', or 'ideal', or anything besides 'unconstrained by policy' in this case.

I'm not claiming that free = efficient. I'm claiming exactly that free = unconstrained, and then adding that economic constraints result from the absence of state intervention as surely as from its presence.

Cane wrote:
Misleading and lying to the American Congress and public.

He never lied. He certainly mislead, or suffered from the most incompetent support apparatus in history, but that isn't an impeachable offense.

Cane wrote:
Violating international laws through the war of aggression.

Not US law, doesn't matter. Not yet, anyway. Give it 5-6 decades.

Cane wrote:
Impeachment should happen when there are grounds for it and a strong enough case. Imo and to many Americans and politicians; Bush and his administration's conduct regarding Iraq alone seems to be one of the strongest and most motivating incidents to call for impeachment.

But its not. At all. It doesn't fall underneath any of the criteria necessary for impeachment, no matter how much you believe to the contrary.

dogma wrote:I'm not claiming that free = efficient. I'm claiming exactly that free = unconstrained, and then adding that economic constraints result from the absence of state intervention as surely as from its presence.

I wouldn't consider something lacking support from another source as being constrained by that source; just unaided by it.

I think what you observe isn't a misunderstanding of free enterprise (as a rule), but a different view of what 'free' entails.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm not claiming that free = efficient. I'm claiming exactly that free = unconstrained, and then adding that economic constraints result from the absence of state intervention as surely as from its presence.

I wouldn't consider something lacking support from another source as being constrained by that source; just unaided by it.

I think what you observe isn't a misunderstanding of free enterprise (as a rule), but a different view of what 'free' entails.

Dude thats deep...

Orkeosaurus wrote:I wouldn't consider something lacking support from another source as being constrained by that source; just unaided by it.

The constraint isn't a direct result of the lack of state intervention, that was a poor turn of phrase. Rather, without some third party to mediate the economic game, the natural congregation of wealth and information serves to invalidate the assumptions of a capitalist market; primarily free access to information, and value by market price.

In essence, without state intervention capitalism will always tend towards monopolism, which is as deleterious with respect to growth as any other command economy.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I think what you observe isn't a misunderstanding of free enterprise (as a rule), but a different view of what 'free' entails.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Orkeosaurus, I think you're confusing Free Market, which is a market free of gov't regulation (apart from fraud and stuff like that), and Free Enterprise, which is basically the system we have in the US. I'm conservative, but I'm pragmatic enough to know that Free Enterprise can only result if the playing field is level. Without some government intervention, monopolies and cartels are almost inevitable. While over-regulation is bad in it's own way (stifling innovation and growth), part of the mess we're in is because we swung too far back to under-regulation and allowed a bunch of "experts" to take advantage of lay people with no oversight.

That being said, it's not easy to find that balance that encourages innovation but still allows perfect competition. Obviously we haven't found that balance yet.

I disagree with the OP in that I don't think conservatives per se are ruining the Republican party, I think ultra-right conservatives are ruining the Republican party. When Limbaugh, Hannity, et al are running respected, moderate Republicans (like Colin Powell) away, you know there's an issue. Hell, before he won, they were even trying to push John McCain away for being too moderate.

As a moderate conservative, I'm really close to jumping ship and registering Independent. The only thing keeping me from doing so is that I won't be able to vote in the primary if I do so.

Ozymandias wrote:Orkeosaurus, I think you're confusing Free Market, which is a market free of gov't regulation (apart from fraud and stuff like that), and Free Enterprise, which is basically the system we have in the US.

Not really; I mean, I understand what dogma's saying, and I'm not really disagreeing with him.

I just think there are multiple ways of looking at the concept of 'free enterprise', with the word 'free' either referring to freedom from state control, or freedom from constraints in general. (Actually, I should have just said that in the first place, I think it's clearer than what I had written before.)

Fair enough. It seemed to me that your definition of Free Enterprise matched the definition of Free Market (which is a different animal).

Lets face facts people, the reason that all these radical conservatives(limbaugh ,etc.) are getting to say what they want and that it is very publicized, it that it makes good NEWS
News stations give people what they want to hear, example: bush ratings went down before elections, many people switched to democratic party, news stations show off radical part of republican/conservative(more people jumping to democrat/liberal, they want their switch validated)
This is just my take on the situation, and who wants to see the moderate republicans, they aren't exciting or run their mouths on public airwaves/TV.
and very OT, do you think if it was on the news that vikings sacked a US coastal city, would people believe it?

Sure. They're dangerous guys.

No way man, The Vikings are under way too much scrutiny right now to do something that crazy.

With Icelands economy having imploded, it's only a matter of time before they start raiding the North Atlantic coasts again.
That whole thing about that hijacked freighter "Arctic Sea" with it's "secret load of russian weapons on their way to the Middle East" was just a coverup to hide the real truth, the fact that the Vikings tried to steal the load of lumber that freighter was carrying. Fear the spring, the Vikings are coming!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, forgot to add the link to the news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/arctic-sea-missing-ship-pirates

I'm a constitutionalist conservative,

The executive branch has too much power, its been seizing it unconstitutionally and/or extra-constitutionally since Teddy Roosevelt or before,
The congress has become a lifetime, rather than short term appointment as long as you don't screw up politically,
The Judicial branch constantly tries to Legislate and create new law...(the job of congress)

The Government has grown big, faceless, and unwieldy...no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The main problem stems from the fact that their is currently a Political class in this country, a group of people who have never held a real job,
merely public office, or positions on non-profit or political action committees, they are disconnected from the people at large.

The second problem stems from the Era of FDR and...yes dare I say it Socialism.

While government has its place, and some problems must be solved centrally, most things the government attempts to solve it makes worse and end up costing more.

The government has had a universal health care plan for a long time, at least in a certain age group.

Its called Medicare, and it is bankrupt.


I want to like Obama, he is very charismatic, seems sincerely to desire good things for the country, but his "line by line review" of the federal budget has yet to result in any great saving, and the poor planning and use of the stimulus money, most of it feeding big business and bad practices rather than creating new jobs through small business grants and loans, has left me dissatisfied.

Also his repeated use of the phrase "A Fundamental change in America" is quite scary to one who believes as strongly as I do, that it is the fundamentals, the foundation, the constitution that have made our country great.

Purge the Heretic wrote: a group of people who have never held a real job,

I hear people say this a lot, and it always bewilders me, so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. But what exactly is a 'real job'?

Politics in and of itself is an act, you become what the people, or your donors, or the press want you to be at least in part if not in whole.


It is an occupation. (a job, though imo not a real one because it has no real qualifications or substance, other than being able to sell yourself)

In which those elected wield money and power on a scale that most people will never see.


Remember the part of the stimulous bill that was set aside for ATV trails? it was millions if I remember correctly...

Divided up among 2-3 contractors, maybe?

lets say 10 employees from each company are at work on that particular project with most of the funds going to materials and gas rather than labor. So 30 jobs have been created/saved.

Thats what the political class in this country decided to do with large portions of the stimulus bill.



What would I have done with it?

I believe in the american dream, that someone can start with next to nothing, start a business, and with gumption luck and ingenuity make it big.

I would have given small business grants to 8-10 new companies. Lets say they only employed 5 employees a piece...which for the amount of start-up money availiable here is an under-estimate imo.

8x5 is...40...ten more jobs right off the bat



I just looked it up $25 million....thats alot more than 8 small business grants...but only a few more contracting companies.


And whats hidden behind the scenes if we really looked, I would guess, is somebodys uncle, or cousin, or brother, or donor's son, owns a construction company specializing in building atv trails.

Purge the Heretic wrote:
Politics in and of itself is an act, you become what the people, or your donors, or the press want you to be at least in part if not in whole.

Publicly, anyway.

Purge the Heretic wrote:
It is an occupation. (a job, though imo not a real one because it has no real qualifications or substance, other than being able to sell yourself)

I would say most jobs lack any requisite qualifications beyond having prior experience. Being able to sell yourself is a skill, and certain positions require certain skills for effective performance, but I don't see how any one skill is less legitimate than another.

Purge the Heretic wrote:
Remember the part of the stimulous bill that was set aside for ATV trails? it was millions if I remember correctly...

Divided up among 2-3 contractors, maybe?

lets say 10 employees from each company are at work on that particular project with most of the funds going to materials and gas rather than labor. So 30 jobs have been created/saved.

Sure, if you ignore the knock-on effect inherent in purchasing materials.

Purge the Heretic wrote:
Thats what the political class in this country decided to do with large portions of the stimulus bill.

Because that's what stimulus is. I said this in another thread, but I'll summarize here. You can claim the stimulus isn't useful in the long run, or that it isn't perfectly efficient in the short run, but that criticism isn't really anything damning with respect to the nature of stimulus. No economic action is perfectly efficient in the short run, and stimulus isn't meant to impact the long run in any significant fashion.

Purge the Heretic wrote:
I would have given small business grants to 8-10 new companies. Lets say they only employed 5 employees a piece...which for the amount of start-up money availiable here is an under-estimate imo.

8x5 is...40...ten more jobs right off the bat

That's laudable, but it isn't stimulus.