Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

[1969912 0]

Perhaps my question was worded poorly, because your reply had nothing to do with what I was asking.


What I wanted to do was compare the Income to Debt ratio of the US with the Income to Debt ratio of a fairly typical US household. I was asking how one might think they'd compare. In other words, if one were to look at the US as a household with a $9 Trillion home loan, and federal tax revenues were that household's income, how would the income/debt ratio compare to a realistic actual household?

Hope that's clearer. Any ideas?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I know how loyal you are to Clinton and how it is important is to continue coming up with new things to hate Bush for, and to blame Bush for everything, but you cannot deny that most of the hatred for Bush wouldn't exist if 9/11 had never happened.

I'm not loyal to Clinton. He and his mate are too deeply seated in the status quo business party for my taste. I just sound like a loyalist because it was during his term that I became COMPLETELY disgusted with the Republican party and their witch hunt during the 90's and became much more vocal about it. Politics was never pretty but they brought it to a new low. And then to turn around and praise/defend Bush's infractions as acceptable or even comparable by comparison is just insane. Clinton's screw ups, at least those which he was accused of, were of no real consequence. Bush's screw ups have been to the detriment of nearly the entire globe and we'll be literally and figuratively paying for his mistakes for decades.
And you're absolutely right, most of the hatred for the Bush administration is the result of how it handled things post 9/11. We HAD the world's support. He threw it away in favor of a premeditated region building exercise that has resulted in breaking the bank, pissing on the Constitution and Geneva conventions, creating more enemies, pissing off our allies, damaging our military, the list goes on. Trying pin the blame for that on Clinton is a bunch of crap.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'd also be very interested to learn how much research into alternative energies could have been paind for my the global financial cost of the 'police action' against Iraq!!

I don't know about global expenses, but I'm guesstimating that if we here in the US continue to invest in alternative energies at the current rate that it will take us about 240 years to reach the level of our current "investment" in Iraq.

[shropshire 0]

and only then, if you stop wasting dosh in Iraq.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[tbrown 26]

I'd rather see Congress waterboard him. since he doesn't seem to think waterbaording is torture, he shouldn't have any objection to being subjected to it.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

I'd rather see Congress waterboard him. since he doesn't seem to think waterbaording is torture, he shouldn't have any objection to being subjected to it.

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd rather see Congress waterboard him. since he doesn't seem to think waterbaording is torture, he shouldn't have any objection to being subjected to it.

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him?

More than could be gained from you.

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

[Erroll 49]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd rather see Congress waterboard him. since he doesn't seem to think waterbaording is torture, he shouldn't have any objection to being subjected to it.

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him?

More than could be gained from you.

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

Whhhooooooosssssshhh.....

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd rather see Congress waterboard him. since he doesn't seem to think waterbaording is torture, he shouldn't have any objection to being subjected to it.

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him?

More than could be gained from you.

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

Whhhooooooosssssshhh.....

Ah, I think the the whoosh is on you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd rather see Congress waterboard him. since he doesn't seem to think waterbaording is torture, he shouldn't have any objection to being subjected to it.

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him?

More than could be gained from you.

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

You gotta read the stuff first.......remember that memo named "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" that he didn't read?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd rather see Congress waterboard him. since he doesn't seem to think waterbaording is torture, he shouldn't have any objection to being subjected to it.

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him?

More than could be gained from you.

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

Whhhooooooosssssshhh.....

Ah, I think the the whoosh is on you

Double Whhhooooooosssssshhh.....

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

What does clearance have to do with intelligence? Lots of people with high clearance levels couldn't make an intelligent decision when it came to Iraq.....

[warpedskydiver 0]

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

What does clearance have to do with intelligence? Lots of people with high clearance levels couldn't make an intelligent decision when it came to Iraq.....

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours.

What does clearance have to do with intelligence? Lots of people with high clearance levels couldn't make an intelligent decision when it came to Iraq.....

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I bet there were a lot more with (R- ) after their names that made a bad decision based on the cherry picked "bad intel" propagated by Bush and his PNAC cronies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I bet there were a lot more with (R- ) after their names that made a bad decision based on the cherry picked "bad intel" propagated by Bush and his PNAC cronies.

Why would you bet that?

Wasn't Barbara Lee the only Representative to vote no? Senate was close to that as well, so the only delta really is the small lead the GOP had in each chamber, plus a couple.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Also, impeachment is not a viable option right now. Not enough time. Congress is split down the middle even with the Democratic "mandate" , the debate would be played out not in the evidence, but in the talking point of "this is just politics and retribution for the 90's" crap. It would be a circus run by a bunch of overpaid clowns...

Even though there is not much time left in Bush' term, the reason for potentially pursuing impeachment at this time is that it would prevent Bush from pardoning himself. If Bush is impeached and convicted, even after he leaves office, then it opens the door for criminal charges in the regular courts if he is believed to have committed while in office. If Bush is not impeached, then he can just pardon himself.

I'm not necessarily saying Bush is, in fact, guilty of impeachable and/or criminal offenses. What I'm saying is that if impeachment is the right thing to do, it should be done regardless of the timing. It is important to set the right precedent in these matters.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

You really have no comprehension of what causes oil prices to rise and fall do you? So again you spiral down into an uneducated Bush-Hate rant. If you'd like to have a few links to some financial sites where you could educate yourself, I'd be happy to provide them.

Hint: OPEC has little to do with the price of oil. It has to do with supply and demand, oil futures and China and India right now. But I guess it's easier to rant and vent hate than to actually find out the truth.

You cant reallllly expect us all to believe that this excellent little adventure is not about OIL.
That may play to the RUBES in flyover land about freedom and democracy or WMD.. but the root cause is the greed you guys wrap yourselves in.

Just look at the news.. everytime there is a HICKUP in an oil rich region...it causes oil prices to spike......

Then explain why it is that gas was at $3.00 per gallon when a barrell of oil was only $50.00 and now that it's at nearly $100. per barrell gas is still only about $3.00 If your theory was true, then gas should be around $5.50-$600 per gallon shouldn't it?

[1969912 0]

General comment not directed at any one person.

The document linked below provides what looks like a careful analysis of oil and gas prices. It's worth reading if you're interested in what has caused the current high prices.


http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Then explain why it is that gas was at $3.00 per gallon when a barrell of oil was only $50.00 and now that it's at nearly $100. per barrell gas is still only about $3.00 If your theory was true, then gas should be around $5.50-$600 per gallon shouldn't it?

They are working on it...... it is swinging up and down a little.... then climbing a little higher on each high and a little higher on each low... all to not TOTALLY PISS OFF the American people.( Its easier to boil a frog slowly.. raise the temp a little at a time than one big throw him into the boiling water) The result is the same... total overall prices. Currently that is $.85 a gollon more than it was just a year ago.

I can afford the difference... a lot of americans can't... so I would say we have not been served very well by our oil boys in the Administration.. but they have.. as always served themselves quite well.. at the expence of our country.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You really have no comprehension of what causes oil prices to rise and fall do you? So again you spiral down into an uneducated Bush-Hate rant. If you'd like to have a few links to some financial sites where you could educate yourself, I'd be happy to provide them.

Hint: OPEC has little to do with the price of oil. It has to do with supply and demand, oil futures and China and India right now. But I guess it's easier to rant and vent hate than to actually find out the truth.

You cant reallllly expect us all to believe that this excellent little adventure is not about OIL.
That may play to the RUBES in flyover land about freedom and democracy or WMD.. but the root cause is the greed you guys wrap yourselves in.

Just look at the news.. everytime there is a HICKUP in an oil rich region...it causes oil prices to spike......

Then explain why it is that gas was at $3.00 per gallon when a barrell of oil was only $50.00 and now that it's at nearly $100. per barrell gas is still only about $3.00 If your theory was true, then gas should be around $5.50-$600 per gallon shouldn't it?

Go to N. Ca. It is 5 bucks a gallon

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Casurf1978 0]

It's already $4+ at some gas stations here in So Cal. What many also fail to see is that oil is traded in USD and with a weak dollar the price per barrel goes up. It's a vicious cycle. Vanity Fair did an excellent article the consequences of Bush and his economic policy. It's going to take decades to fix what W did.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

It's already $4+ at some gas stations here in So Cal. What many also fail to see is that oil is traded in USD and with a weak dollar the price per barrel goes up. It's a vicious cycle. Vanity Fair did an excellent article the consequences of Bush and his economic policy. It's going to take decades to fix what W did.

Well. I predicted last yr. a 100 a barrel by the end of 2006. Off by a yr. Next prediction. Oil will be traded in euros by the end of 2008. Might be off by a yr. on that too but it's gonna happen.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Go to N. Ca. It is 5 bucks a gallon

Uh, no it is not.

First Kallend makes this stuff up, now you? It's not hard to look up.

The gas concerns are making less profit now, because if they did raise gas to $6 we'd have those congressional hearings again. Remember those in the fall of 2006, right before the elections. Remember how gas dropped back down to nearly $2 while they were going on...

[billvon 2,400]

>The gas concerns are making less profit now, because if they did raise
>gas to $6 we'd have those congressional hearings again. Remember those
>in the fall of 2006, right before the elections. Remember how gas dropped
>back down to nearly $2 while they were going on...

Interesting. That suggests that gas prices are affected more by political considerations than by oil prices. If so, then political pressure is a better "lever" than oil prices - which seems somewhat unlikely.