Dick Cheney's Impeachment

[sk8ndestroy14]

So what does everyone think about the articles of impeachment that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) brought up against Dick Cheney? Do you think anything will happen with it? I haven't been keeping up with it so I don't know where it is right now. I'm from his district (he always runs for president and fails miserably, it's almost kind of funny sometimes but he's in the Democrat's eight right now).

[Infarction]

It's stupid and even if it happens it won't change anything.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Yeah, I think you're right. Even if it does go somewhere not much will change. But he's the only one with the guts so far to bring it up in the first place.

[Infarction]

Impeachment is just another way to make noise (it has little immediate effect). And coming at this point before elections, it's probably just a way to get his name out.

[MidiMagic]

He just wants Pelosi in the White House.

Unlike President Clinton, who committed crimes and admitted to them (but argued they shouldn't be crimes), neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney have committed any impeachable crimes.

Going to war is not a crime, except in the Politically Correct religion (and the Baha'i Faith it was plagiarized from). But we are supposed to have separation of church and state, so that doesn't count.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses. The question isn't whether they have committed the offenses it's whether it's worth the effort. Books have been written and arguments brought up all over the country about the offenses.

[Infarction]

So you impeach them. Then what? Do you really think they'll be removed from office? Nothing of consequence will happen, just as with Clinton's silly impeachment, except that we'll have spent a ton of taxpayer money and the media will have a hay day. Ever since Clinton's personal affair became the number one national priority, impeachment is something that gets thrown around but the general public doesn't seem to realize how little it does.

[EnderX]

sk8ndestroy14:

Please detail these impeachable offenses. I know of nothing that Bush or Cheney have done that qualifies as such, unless you're counting 'Being a president with political beliefs opposing the current congress' as an impeachable offense. (After all, that's pretty much how President Johnson got impeached...)

[sk8ndestroy14]

Well, no President has ever been convicted and taken out of office from impeachment yet. Joshnson came close, being saved by only one vote. The offenses have something to do with misleading the public. Getting involved in the war with Iraq probably. I'll have to look it up. Impeachable offenses don't mean he's guilty of them yet unless he's convicted. It just means that there are grounds for it. They can't convict him until it has been proven. I'll go look it up soon.

[jbennet]

didnt that president (you know the one..) get forced to resign after watergate?

sorry, i suck at US history

[sk8ndestroy14]

It was Richard Nixon. Well, they were going to impeach him and he saw it coming, but instead of going through all of that he just resigned himself. You could say it was force cause what other choice did he have? What really bothers me is that his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. Gerald Ford was appointed by Nixon. He was never even elected. It proves that the system doesn't always work. I would love to appoint someone that could take my position later and bail me out without a scratch.

[EnderX]

Nixon may have appointed him, but only because he wasn't given any other options.

On October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned. According to The New York Times, "Nixon sought advice from senior Congressional leaders about a replacement. The advice was unanimous. 'We gave Nixon no choice but Ford,' House Speaker Carl Albert recalled later".

Although I'm a bit confused. We're supposedly still living under the 1947 presidential succession act, but it looks like the 25th amendment (the one Ford was appointed under) overrides that...so why is the 1947 still on the books in that case? And why does it appear we're still following it at times?

[jwenting]

weird is it, it makes sweeping claims of "impeachable offenses" but never mentions what those are.

Of course not so weird if you consider that those offenses don't exist, are only wishful thinking in the minds of the extreme left (iow things they think SHOULD be offenses but of course only if it's not one of them doing it).

Typical leftist thinking, everyone should be banned from doing anything except they themselves who have the Marx given right to be the eternal ruling class of a classless (except for them) society.
"All for the Party, the Party for me" is their credo.

[sk8ndestroy14]

I'm a leftist and I don't think everyone should be banned from doing anything except myself. I'm not a communist, I just think that some institutions should be nationalized, our desperate working class should be brought up from under the poverty line, we shouldn't rely on material possessions as a society although I would not force people against their will to give up material possessions or anything of the like. I just think we shouldn't get rid of thousands of jobs just to make a few extra dollars for the already rich people by sending those jobs to child laborers in China.

[sk8ndestroy14]

As for the impeachable offenses, like I said before I haven't read into it much but from what everyone says and what the politicians say, it has something to do with misleading the public, and it has less to do with the questionability of the offenses but more so with its consequences and the effort it takes to impeach. Especially considering him term will be over soon.

[EnderX]

If you're bringing up trying to reduce/end poverty, sk8, the quickest way to bring people out of the poverty belt would be to lower taxes across the board.

*Waits for gasps of shock to end*

Think about it for a second. The 'rich folk' you were just hounding are the ones who own the businesses, right? Well, think about it this way: When they're getting hit with heavy taxes, they'll put their money somewhere that taxes can't get to it. This means less is going into the jobs that the 'desperate working class' hold, and some of those jobs are likely to disappear. In addition, the higher taxes at lower income levels mean that even those who do still hold jobs are going to have to fork over (it ain't giving if your only other option is prison) a sizeable portion of their income that they'd have been able to keep for themselves otherwise. Which side favors lower taxes, sk8, Left or Right?

[jwenting]

save your breath. There's no talking to communists like that kid. They're so set in their ways they can't even conceive of the idea that there could be a flaw in what in their minds passes for reasoning.

And don't think they want poverty to disappear, they thrive on its very existence.
If people are discontent and think others have more than they deserve, they're more likely to vote for someone who claims he's going to take money away from "rich" people and give it to them for free (which is exactly what leftists claim all the time, in reality stealing from everyone and lining their own pockets).
So leftists do not even want poverty to end, they want it to increase. They want larger differences between rich and poor (but of course want to change things so they themselves are the rich and everyone else is poor insofar as that's not already the case. See John Edwards for example, income of half a billion dollars yet claims to be "the common man").

[sk8ndestroy14]

First of all, I am not a communist so don't call me one. Second of all don't tell me what the fuck I THINK. Don't tell me that I'M the one that wants to get rich off everyone else and line MY pockets. Why would a leftist want larger differences between rich and poor? Maybe Stalin wants to make himself profit from others' suffering, but that's the same as me calling Bush a fascist just as Hitler was, but he's not committing mass genocide. I don't need to hear what some asshole says MY intentions are, so the next time you feel like opening your fat mouth, let it go.

[Aia]

Why is it, that politicians always bring out the worst of us?

[Dave Sinkula]

Why is it, that politicians always bring out the worst of us?

I think that's their job. In order to focus on what you want, you also have to focus on what you don't want. There is only glorious gridlock in between. But I'd scarcely put W in the category of that sort of leader.

[sk8ndestroy14]

I have always been tolerant of others' religion, ethnic background, and political beliefs. But I'll defend myself if someone attacks me for my political beliefs. Don't accuse me of anything that isn't true. I was a little angry earlier and I apologize for that, but I was only defending myself after what someone said to me. I'm not going to discuss politics on Daniweb anymore because there are too many intolerant people when it comes to politics.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Why is it, that politicians always bring out the worst of us?

They just do and always have. I don't like politicians that much because when a generally good person wants to be one they realize they have to lie and cheat and steal to be a good politician and so decide to quit the business. It seems like only corrupt people can make it anywhere. But they aren't all like that. I think Kennedy was a great president. There are others as well, but they are getting to be less and less.

[jwenting]

I have always been tolerant of others' religion, ethnic background, and political beliefs.

Certainly not. This entire thread shows your hostility towards anyone who doesn't agree with your Marxist/Leninist view of the world.

[jbennet]

god thread for example

[sk8ndestroy14]

Certainly not. This entire thread shows your hostility towards anyone who doesn't agree with your Marxist/Leninist view of the world.

Last summer I went to Washing D.C. for a Congressional Forum Leadership program. I met a lot of people there. I met a few die hard republicans and I got to be friends with some of them even though we disagree. I can have an intelligent nonhostile conersation with any conservative, but I think I deserve the same in return. If you notice what was written before me, you could see the attack made. If someone says to me, "I disagree and think you're wrong and here's why." then I would not have reacted in such a way. But when someone says, "Your beliefs are completely wrong on every level. This is what you believe and it isn't right" especially when they state things about me that simply aren't true, I tend to get a bit angry. I admit I overreacted and I apologize for that. To tell the truth I was already in a bad mood when I got online that day and that didn't help a whole lot. But in all honesty, if we can avoid such attacks I can have a debate with someone without getting so angry as I did.

[sk8ndestroy14]

god thread for example

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that but if you mean the posts on the evolution thread, then everything I said was fairly presented, not posed as an attack, and I didn't put anyone down. In fact I exchanged pos. rep. with people that disagreed with me just because they had good arguments.