Indict BuSh, and/or Cheney, and/or Rumsfeld

Indict

  • BuSh:yes

    Votes: 17 60.7%
  • BuSh:no

    Votes: 8 28.6%
  • Cheney:yes

    Votes: 19 67.9%
  • Cheney:No

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • Rumsfeld:Yes

    Votes: 18 64.3%
  • Rumsfeld:No

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • I'm not a US citizen, but BuSh:Yes

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • I'm not a US citizen, but BuSh:No

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • I'm not a US citizen, but Cheney:Yes

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • I'm not a US citizen, but Cheney:No

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • I'm not a US citizen, but Rumsfeld:Yes

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • I'm not a US citizen, but Rumsfeld: No

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
Congress spends money, and controls the collection of taxes.

not the President. He can only propose.
 

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
8 years ago, we had a surplus and cheap gas, and low prices.
Today, we're in debt, gas is at record highs, and prices are skyrocketing.

Can we add the rest of the government to the hangmans list too please?


uh, no, we didnt.

the surplus never was

it was a "projected" surplus, it was never actually REAL

and what does that mean anyhow? a surplus would mean the government was collecting more taxes than it needed to run the government. Thats isnt a good thing.

We were also in debt then too, but the Clinton friendly press just didnt make noise about it.

The president has zero control over the price of gas. or of much of anything else either.
 

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
190
Location
Sanger CA
Yeah, this guy sounds really stable:NY Times story
Mr. Guerra was under indictment on charges of theft and tampering with records for more than a year and a half, until a judge dismissed them last month. During that time, Mr. Guerra, a Democrat who has been in office 12 years, lost a re-election bid. He leaves office on Dec. 31.
He also has been acting rather oddly since his arrest in March 2007. At one point, he camped outside the county jail in a trailer with a horse, three goats and a rooster, daring the sheriff to arrest him. Convinced that local law enforcement officers had aided the investigation against him, he threatened to dismiss hundreds of criminal cases in retaliation.
The guy is a disgraced loon.
 

zeeberex

Green Belt
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
173
Reaction score
4
lying about the war
abu graib
declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
mishandling of Katrina
shooting a Lawyer in the face
using a dummy corpoation to do business with Iran (Cheney)
war profiteering in Iraq through haliburton (Cheney)
the Tanking of the economy

just getting warmed up
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
I dunno....is shooting a lawyer really all that bad? I can think of a few who I'd feed to lions if the SPCA wouldn't get so mad. ;)
 

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
lying about the war
abu graib
declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
mishandling of Katrina
shooting a Lawyer in the face
using a dummy corpoation to do business with Iran (Cheney)
war profiteering in Iraq through haliburton (Cheney)
the Tanking of the economy

just getting warmed up

should I bother showing how every single one of those is false?

or is it worth the trouble when in all likelyhood, the mind behind them is already made up and wont care anyway...........
 

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
190
Location
Sanger CA
lying about the war
So then, we should have indicted Clinton and Gore for Bosnia? They said the troops would be home for Christmas about ten years ago (we still have some troops there...)
abu graib
Hmmm, so, we should indict Clinton for Ruby Ridge and Waco?
declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
mishandling of Katrina
shooting a Lawyer in the face
using a dummy corpoation to do business with Iran (Cheney)
So we should indict Pelosi, McDermot, etc for usurping the Executive branch's job of foreign policy by travelling to and negotiating with Assad, Hussein, etc? Wait, a "dummy corporation?" What dummy corporation? Haliburton is a HUGE company...
war profiteering in Iraq through haliburton (Cheney)
You do understand Cheney's finances are in a blind trust, oh, nevermind, you don't understand that.
the Tanking of the economy
So, we should have indicted Carter, Hoover, and FDR?
just getting warmed up
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
136
Hmmm, so, we should indict Clinton for Ruby Ridge and Waco?

The Ruby Ridge Massacre happened in 1992 during the elder Bush's presidency, so it wouldn't make sense to indict Clinton for it.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,902
Location
England
Perhaps at the end of every politicians term of office there ought to be a sort of trial or enquiry where all their decisions have to be justified and explained. It's not always possible at the time for them to explain due to national security issues but afterwards they should be made to explain everything they have done and the country can give it's verdict on them! In the cases where the country doesn't approve of the actions the politician loses his pension and is banned from working in such jobs that profit on their previous service ie writing autobiographies, giving talks, working for defence companies, the UN etc!
If politicians knew there was going to be a 'job review' when they'd finished and they'd suffer financially and with their reputation in tatters doomed to live out of the limelight if they had failed the test would they, I wonder, be more circumspect in their decisions?
I don't mean just presidents and prime ministers I mean all ministers of state and their equivelants.
 

zeeberex

Green Belt
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
173
Reaction score
4
should I bother showing how every single one of those is false?

or is it worth the trouble when in all likelyhood, the mind behind them is already made up and wont care anyway...........


or they're not false, Cheney is one of biggest scumbags in office ever, serving under a Fratboy.... yes, my mind is made up, and the reagan revolution is quite dead thanks to them.
 

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
or they're not false, Cheney is one of biggest scumbags in office ever, serving under a Fratboy.... yes, my mind is made up, and the reagan revolution is quite dead thanks to them.

every single thing you posted is FALSE

flat out wrong, not even with a GIANT game of semantics can any of them be said to be true

lying about the war
there is only two options.Either he thought he was right, or he knew he wasnt right. Your way, he had to lie, he had to get EVERY other intelligence agency in the world to lie too, and he even had to get Clinton to lie, SIX YEARS BEFORE BUSH RAN FOR PRESIDENT, since they ALL said the same thing.

abu graib
that was a violation of military law. Please show ANY indication that what happened there was by order of the president. Was Johnson impreached or indicted for my lai? no.

declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
wrong answer. Bush never declared hostilities over. The mission accomplished banner you are referring to was in regard to the defeat of the iraqi army. Which was in fact beaten. Plus, please show how the mission accomplished banner is either a "high crime or misdemeanor" which is the standard for impeachment. For that matter, show how it is a violation of ANY law

mishandling of Katrina
So, it is a crime on Nush's part that the governor of Louisiana refused to allow federal assistance to go in in a timely mannor? That IS required by the way, the local government HAS to formally request help BEFORE the federal people can step up.


Should I go on or do you just wanna admit that your Bush Derangment Syndrome is acting up?
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,902
Location
England
every single thing you posted is FALSE

flat out wrong, not even with a GIANT game of semantics can any of them be said to be true

lying about the war
there is only two options.Either he thought he was right, or he knew he wasnt right. Your way, he had to lie, he had to get EVERY other intelligence agency in the world to lie too, and he even had to get Clinton to lie, SIX YEARS BEFORE BUSH RAN FOR PRESIDENT, since they ALL said the same thing.

abu graib
that was a violation of military law. Please show ANY indication that what happened there was by order of the president. Was Johnson impreached or indicted for my lai? no.

declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
wrong answer. Bush never declared hostilities over. The mission accomplished banner you are referring to was in regard to the defeat of the iraqi army. Which was in fact beaten. Plus, please show how the mission accomplished banner is either a "high crime or misdemeanor" which is the standard for impeachment. For that matter, show how it is a violation of ANY law

mishandling of Katrina
So, it is a crime on Nush's part that the governor of Louisiana refused to allow federal assistance to go in in a timely mannor? That IS required by the way, the local government HAS to formally request help BEFORE the federal people can step up.


Should I go on or do you just wanna admit that your Bush Derangment Syndrome is acting up?



The problem is of course that the ultimate responsiblity for many things lies with the President/head of government or state. This is implicit and tacitly understood when the incumbent takes over the job. such things as Abu Ghraib are the Presidents responsibilty whether or not he gave the orders, though it seems highly unlikely he didn't.
As for the intelligence reports, the British ones were made up from a students thesis, Blair lied about them. Others countries intel reports differed from the American and British ones.
 

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
The problem is of course that the ultimate responsiblity for many things lies with the President/head of government or state. This is implicit and tacitly understood when the incumbent takes over the job. such things as Abu Ghraib are the Presidents responsibilty whether or not he gave the orders, though it seems highly unlikely he didn't.
As for the intelligence reports, the British ones were made up from a students thesis, Blair lied about them. Others countries intel reports differed from the American and British ones.




uh, yeah

the fact that SADDAM himself claimed to have the things that we claimed he had, that doesnt matter a bit I guess............
 

Latest Discussions

Top