Is it time to impeach?

[dilligras]

Quote by: Mozart1220 I spell badly when I type fast. I can admit my weaknesses. Why can't your president?

No problemo on the typing.....we all have our moments.

Yours was particularly humorous, given that it was in essence a complaint about the mistakes of another.

As for Bush admitting weakness, I have heard him say he is bouyed by the prayers of others, which would seem to indicate an awareness that he's not doing what he's done entirely without support, and that would then lead one to the conclusion that he is in no small degree acknowledging his own weakness when he mentions how much your continued prayers mean to him.

Even if all you do is hold hands with your fellow pod members and chant, "Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm", for an interminably long time.

I also noticed you didn't answer the question.

I didn't? Waal, I can only imagine that I must have thought it beneath you to ask, and so determined that the most liberal path would be one that did not point unnecessarily to one's worthy adversary's pettiness.

Either that, or I just didn't give a rat's ass..........you choose.

And the "carry on" thing...not working for you.

Fortunately, no work is required of your dismissal.


As you were.

[Century 25]

Why do we not require our employees (Presidents or any other civil servant) pass a battery of general intelligence & personality tests..?

Mr Bush had a nasty paper trail of drug/alcohol abuse.. as well as his absenteeism with the Air National Guard.. basically he was a "no-show" for much of his.. "service"

I would like to see Bush & Cheney account for themselves at a World Court trial.. http://www.icj-cij.org/

Maybe somewhere.. an electric chair awaits these criminals..

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dilligras What is it about lefties and putting words in the mouths of others?

Talk about putting words into the mouths of others! You continue with your fake "quote" even when you know it's phony. Just more of your lies.

Again, as you are.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Century 25 Why do we not require our employees (Presidents or any other civil servant) pass a battery of general intelligence & personality tests..? Mr Bush had a nasty paper trail of drug/alcohol abuse.. as well as his absenteeism with the Air National Guard.. basically he was a "no-show" for much of his.. "service" I would like to see Bush & Cheney account for themselves at a World Court trial.. http://www.icj-cij.org/ Maybe somewhere.. an electric chair awaits these criminals..

Where is this infamous, "paper trail" to which you refer?

Does it consist of anything more tangible than lefty pundits, slinging the same sort of offal produced by the aft extrusions of the more masculine version of the bovine species?

As for Pres. Bush's service, I have insider info, in that I currently work occasionally with the man who was in charge of all the personnel records of the Texas Air National Guard during that service.

Suffice it to say, Bush served every minute his country required of him, given the circumstances of all pilots in the Air Guard at that time.

There was another of Bush's fellow pilots, a Col. Campini if memory serves, who wrote a letter that was published in the Wash Times, outlining many of the salient points of Bush's service that might seem incongruous to those without the necessary background knowledge to properly assess the records.

That is, coincidentally, why many of the uninitiated who have read Sen. Kerry's fitness reports from his duty just prior to joining the swiftboat crews are left with the impression that he was receiving high praise from his superiors, when, in fact, nothing could have been further from the truth.

Fit reps are notoriously over-stated in their praise, being replete with certain "code phrases" which spell certain doom for an officer's career. In other words, if you don't know what to look for, you won't really know what you're reading.

But you probably already knew all that.........right?


As you were.

[rmnunez]

The "carry on" thing works as well as that "as you were" one, both tend to imply the speaker's message has negligible impact on the one receiving it, who either continues or remains the same. I'd hope somehow to influence the people who read my posting.

[dilligras]

Quote by: rmnunez The "carry on" thing works as well as that "as you were" one, both tend to imply the speaker's message has negligible impact on the one receiving it, who either continues or remains the same. I'd hope somehow to influence the people who read my posting.

Well, good luck with that.

As for me, I see it as simply another avenue toward disappointment, and so expect only that others attempt to read what I say without pretending I said something else.

That seems to be enough of a challenge for most, without expecting them to also change their mind about some point......I know it is for me, at times.

I mitigate my expectation with the knowledge that verbatim reading is at times nearly impossible.

As evidence of my contention, I proffer a simple test.

Write the following on a piece of paper, with the words arranged so that the first word is on the first line, centered, the next two words are on the second line, and the last two words on the third, like so:

Dallas
in the
the spring

Now take your piece of paper and show it to anyone for only 5 seconds, hide it again, and then ask them what it said on the paper.

Invariably (almost) the person will respond with, "Dallas in the spring", which, as you may easily see, is incorrect.




So, in the end, if one cannot even reasonably expect accuracy, does it not then seem foolish to earnestly seek something so unlikely as agreement?


Carry on.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: dilligras No problemo on the typing.....we all have our moments. Yours was particularly humorous, given that it was in essence a complaint about the mistakes of another. As for Bush admitting weakness, I have heard him say he is bouyed by the prayers of others, which would seem to indicate an awareness that he's not doing what he's done entirely without support, and that would then lead one to the conclusion that he is in no small degree acknowledging his own weakness when he mentions how much your continued prayers mean to him. Even if all you do is hold hands with your fellow pod members and chant, "Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm", for an interminably long time. I didn't? Waal, I can only imagine that I must have thought it beneath you to ask, and so determined that the most liberal path would be one that did not point unnecessarily to one's worthy adversary's pettiness. Either that, or I just didn't give a rat's ass..........you choose. Fortunately, no work is required of your dismissal. As you were.

Again, disregarding my original post. Well done. How very Republican of you.

You support this clown in the White House like the whole country hasn't seen through him already. You disregard the point of a post or question, then close with someone else's line, as if you were in the actual military. Are you? I am not, so please don't act as if we were. It makes you look lame, like your responses aren't enough.

I don't pray for Bush. I pray he and his cronies are stopped before America is destroyed completely.

By now pretty much the entire nation has dicovered the dishonesty and arrogance (sp?) of the Bush administration. They went to war on the idea that there were weapons in Iraq, and of course, there were none, So they said "We have to get Hussein", though they never proved why he was a threat to the USA.

We got him. So now they say we can't leave until we "rebuild" Iraq, which is never going to happen as long as we keep blowing it up.

The war is a scam, the idea that terrorism can be stopped at all, let alone with a military is a scam, the whole Republican agenda for America is a scam.

Yet you still defend and apologise, why? Can't you see the truth when it is right before your eyes?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: dilligras Where is this infamous, "paper trail" to which you refer? Does it consist of anything more tangible than lefty pundits, slinging the same sort of offal produced by the aft extrusions of the more masculine version of the bovine species? As for Pres. Bush's service, I have insider info, in that I currently work occasionally with the man who was in charge of all the personnel records of the Texas Air National Guard during that service. Suffice it to say, Bush served every minute his country required of him, given the circumstances of all pilots in the Air Guard at that time. There was another of Bush's fellow pilots, a Col. Campini if memory serves, who wrote a letter that was published in the Wash Times, outlining many of the salient points of Bush's service that might seem incongruous to those without the necessary background knowledge to properly assess the records. That is, coincidentally, why many of the uninitiated who have read Sen. Kerry's fitness reports from his duty just prior to joining the swiftboat crews are left with the impression that he was receiving high praise from his superiors, when, in fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. Fit reps are notoriously over-stated in their praise, being replete with certain "code phrases" which spell certain doom for an officer's career. In other words, if you don't know what to look for, you won't really know what you're reading. But you probably already knew all that.........right? As you were.

Funny, they guy who was his commanding officer was on 60 minutes and admitted that not only did Bush not serve his entire term in the guard, but he was moved up the chain without completing the requirements (as were many children of "important" parents). The officer admitted this openly, and regeretted being "forced" to do so by political pressure.
The lady who filed the papers regarding Bush's AWOL, said that while the paper that Dan Rather reported was not the actual document, the information it contained was "essentially correct".

Of corse, Bush Sr. was CIA director, so he managed to get the whole thing termed a "forgery" and Rather's carreer ended.

Nicely done. How 'bout that CIA.

Evidence "lost" or destroyed, carreers ruined, threats carried out.

No harm no foul right? You gotta love those Republicans boy, call one president a liar and draft dodger, then cover their guy's ass for doing the same thing only for real.

[Zeebadee]

Don't waste your time on the troll. He criticizes other's sig lines while he continues to parrot a lie on his own. He complains about "lefties and putting words in the mouths of others" while making phony claims about clinton. And he complains about "accuracy" all the while knowing his own is wanting. Classic troll hypocrisy and lying.

[dilligras]

So much ad hominem crapola to spread, and so little time, eh, Zee?

Would you like this quote for my sig a little better?

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."- Bill Clinton, MTV, 1994

As you were.

[rez]

Dilligras, tell us why the President should not be impeached. We gave you all our reasons, now it is your turn.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Funny, they guy who was his commanding officer was on 60 minutes and admitted that not only did Bush not serve his entire term in the guard, but he was moved up the chain without completing the requirements (as were many children of "important" parents). The officer admitted this openly, and regeretted being "forced" to do so by political pressure. The lady who filed the papers regarding Bush's AWOL, said that while the paper that Dan Rather reported was not the actual document, the information it contained was "essentially correct". Of corse, Bush Sr. was CIA director, so he managed to get the whole thing termed a "forgery" and Rather's carreer ended. Nicely done. How 'bout that CIA. Evidence "lost" or destroyed, carreers ruined, threats carried out. No harm no foul right? You gotta love those Republicans boy, call one president a liar and draft dodger, then cover their guy's ass for doing the same thing only for real.

That is perhaps the most ridiculous perversion of historical fact that I have seen this year....bravo.

First, "The lady who filed the papers regarding Bush's AWOL" would probably be a reference to Lt.Col. Jerry Killian's secretary, who would have been the one to type the phony memo that Dan Rather tried to use to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

She had nothing whatsoever to do with the similarly phony charge of Bush's having been AWOL during his guard service as a fighter pilot.

Surely you're not one of the lefty pod members of the BHA (Bush Haters Anonymous) who can't keep their lies straight for two whole years.



I know, I know.......don't call you shirley.

Second, Bush Sr. was not the director of the CIA in '04, when Dan Rather exposed himself as a biased media hack.......that would have been Tenet, the Clinton appointee.

The reason the memo was determined to be bogus, is simply because anyone with two pesos worth of grey matter may easily spot the obvious deception in trying to print a memo allegedly from 1973, using technology that wasn't available until much later.

I'll bet even you could see it.

As you can see, in the memo dated 24 Jun, 1973, the term, "111th" shows an elevated "th" behind the "111".

Well, the only problem with that is that the only typewriter that Col. Killian's secretary would have had available to her in the military of 1973 was the IBM Selectric, which was incapable of printing any such raised letters.

It's very easy to do with the word processors of today, however.

Evidence "lost" or destroyed, carreers ruined, threats carried out.

Yeah, I know........them Clintons were a pair, were'nt they?


As you were.

[dilligras]

Quote by: rez Dilligras, tell us why the President should not be impeached. We gave you all our reasons, now it is your turn.

But mon ami, I have refuted all the phony reasons worth addressing, so you need some new ones before it's my turn.

Name some more Bush "lies" that were made up out of whole cloth by partisan nabobs, so that we may continue this never-ending tale of obstinance in face of facts.

Next thing I know, you'll be trying to convince me that Bush is a conservative and that Cindy Sheehan is a Democrat. :rolleyes:




"And I can show you how to make a bomb with a roll of toilet paper and a stick of dynamite."[/Dale Dribble]


As you were.

[Klio]

Ah, looks to me as if Dilli can't defend his own position, except to challenge other's views.

Don't have the courage of your convictions, Dilli? Hmmm????

[Clarence]

expect only that others attempt to read what I say without pretending I said something else.

word

Let me see if I understand you correctly........we need to withold the money that our troops need on the front lines of the War on Terror, in order to better facilitate some purely politically motivated lefty manipulations?

oh?

I have refuted all the phony reasons worth addressing, so you need some new ones before it's my turn.

link the post you refuted that public support was mustered for the Iraq war with intelligence known to be false.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Klio Ah, looks to me as if Dilli can't defend his own position, except to challenge other's views. Don't have the courage of your convictions, Dilli? Hmmm????

How is it that I am now expected to defend an imaginary position?

If you were accused of having sex with the neighbor's bird dog at 10:00 PM last Friday, and you refuted the charge by showing proof that you could not have been with the dog at that time.........would you then think it logical for your accusers to demand that you prove that you have no penchant for beagles?


As you were.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dilligras So much ad hominem crapola to spread, and so little time, eh, Zee? Would you like this quote for my sig a little better? As you were.

Ah yes, the trolling continues. You couldn't find any credible link to your own lies, so you pick some doobie that claims a link to MTV and try to sell that. Nothing from MTV directly, of course, or any other credible source. Funny how you want credible sources for other's claims, but are more than willing to find some doofus right-wing blog and take that as gospel. No wonder you so admire bush's extraordinary lying abilities.

And it's hardly ad hominem, since you continue to repeat your phony quote with every post you make. Why don't you just admit that it's a lie and change it?

It continues to be, as you are.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Zeebadee Why don't you just admit that it's a lie and change it?

First, because I have only the word of the errant ankle-biter that it's false, and second, because some apparently find the alternative so annoying as to preclude the manifestation of a mere modicum of dignity and decorum, as they yap earnestly at the heels of their tap-dancing antagonizers.


Kind of like watching a mistakenly caught hardhead, flopping around on the jetty in Galveston last summer....


As you were.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Clarence Link the post you refuted that public support was mustered for the Iraq war with intelligence known to be false.

I don't think it works that way, bunky......first, you have to prove the intel was false, then you need to prove that it was, "known to be false".

Oh, and you have to be willing to apply equal standards while separating facts from opinion derived from one's agenda..........oh well, maybe someday, eh?


As you were.

[Chaossaber314]

I think the problem with impeachment is that impeaching Bush would just be inconsistent. Largely, Bush has done the same things as those that came before him but he and his cronies were/are just too incompetent to cover them up intelligently.