[Prophet]

Yeah sure... And imagine there'll be a revolution and US falls in to civil war. And after a year of bloody fighting the scraps are equally divided among the UN/NATO/EU countries and the world will heal. Terrorism will stop and a new era of prosperity begins. Yay...

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

If this impeachment actually happens, I'll run out into the streets and sing Handel's "Hallelujah".........and I'll probably be shot seven notes in   .  

Seriously, this could be a good thing.  I'm not a big fan of Hastert, but I'm quite sure he could do a better job than Bush.  At least he probably won't talk about dropping nuclear weapons on other countries.

And Prophet, I actually think that it might be fun to live in a European controlled era.  Always seemed to like a lot things about Europe more than I did my own country.

[Shade]

It'll be like syndicate, Eurocorp rules all. Of course, you will like it. A lot. Your chip will tell you to. Actually if the US continues on it's present course, that's likely to happen. Well not Eurocorp, but if religion and anti-invention interests such as the RIAA keeps taking over more and more of the country, eventually everyone who actually allows science and ingenuity to prosper will overtake the US technologically and culturally.

Getting rid of Bush will help you keep that from happening though, since he seems the main reason it's going as bad as it is right now.

[karajorma]

Impeaching Bush might actually help the republican party more than leaving him in office for another 2 years. His approval ratings are plummeting and he's going to drag the next rebublican candidates chances down with him whoever they put up. 

[Nix]

I don't see how the Dems would do a better job at this point, because Bush has shown he's been the most liberal republican out there.  He's a globalist, not a true republican, along most of his party, who have been bailing out while they still can.  If he'd actually have a backbone and show a little nationalism, things would be quite a bit better, and so what if we had to step on some people's toes in order to stick up for our own nation.  We have this insane little **** over in Iran right now thinking he's got balls that clank, and will do anything he wants, and we do nothing about it, or say anything about it. (enrichment of uranium)  No, we can't do that because we're afraid of hurting someone's feelings.  If Bush had an actual backbone, I'm sure we'd have this situation RESOLVED by now, instead of just trying to get along to have one giant globalist state, which apparently Bush wants.  I honestly don't see how a possible speculative democratic presidential candidate like Kerry, or God forbid, Hillary, will be any better for this nation, with thier doubletalk and socialistic desires.  As many others have said, if the founding fathers knew the current state of the Democratic party today, they'd be disgusted, or rolling over in thier graves.  Unfotrunately, the same goes for Republican party as well.

Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic.  If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place.  But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense. 

[vyper]

... do you listen to yourself? He's stepped on more toes than a blind man in a shoe shop!

[Nix]

Read key word - NATIONALISM, not GLOBALISM.

 

[aldo_14]

I don't see how the Dems would do a better job at this point, because Bush has shown he's been the most liberal republican out there.  He's a globalist, not a true republican, along most of his party, who have been bailing out while they still can.  If he'd actually have a backbone and show a little nationalism, things would be quite a bit better, and so what if we had to step on some people's toes in order to stick up for our own nation.  We have this insane little **** over in Iran right now thinking he's got balls that clank, and will do anything he wants, and we do nothing about it, or say anything about it. (enrichment of uranium)  No, we can't do that because we're afraid of hurting someone's feelings.  If Bush had an actual backbone, I'm sure we'd have this situation RESOLVED by now, instead of just trying to get along to have one giant globalist state, which apparently Bush wants.  I honestly don't see how a possible speculative democratic presidential candidate like Kerry, or God forbid, Hillary, will be any better for this nation, with thier doubletalk and socialistic desires.  As many others have said, if the founding fathers knew the current state of the Democratic party today, they'd be disgusted, or rolling over in thier graves.  Unfotrunately, the same goes for Republican party as well.

Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic.  If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place.  But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense. 

You can't take military action against Iran because it'll destabilise the entire middle east, result in further bloodshed in Iraq (if air strikes, which would likely be ineffective based on the CIA etcs track history of finding WMD) or critically overstretch the already past-breaking point military (if full on invasion), massively raise oil prices, piss off the Russians and Chinese, and probably lose what few serious (i.e. militarily effective) allies the US has.  Even sanctions would be ineffective; odds are the Russians or Chinese would veto them, and if not just plain ignore them.

Although I personally consider the US one of the most introverted nationalistic governments there is in the world today, particularly with the way so much goodwill has been shed with the Iraq unilateralism and what was effectively an attack upon the UN.  The Us is only globalist if you mean globalist as being trying to exert a hegemony.


EDIt; rereads.... eh?  The US has done literally nothing other than step on other nations toes.  Did you forget the whole Iraq war thing or not?  Even the countries that went along are seeing themselve suffer for it, because they ignored their people.

[Nix]

Stepping on everyone's toes trying to unite the entire world is the wrong thing to do, but if you're going to stand up for your own country, in a nationalistic sense, you HAVE to step on toes, and you HAVE to be strong about it.  Here we are, led by a group of empty-headed politicians, running this country straight into the ground. (BOTH political parties) because they're held back by political correctness, and attempting to please everyone.  If the republican party as a whole actually stuck to it's core values, and actually had a backbone, we'd actually be IN CONTROL of our own country.

[aldo_14]

Stepping on everyone's toes trying to unite the entire world is the wrong thing to do, but if you're going to stand up for your own country, in a nationalistic sense, you HAVE to step on toes, and you HAVE to be strong about it.  Here we are, led by a group of empty-headed politicians, running this country straight into the ground. (BOTH political parties) because they're held back by political correctness, and attempting to please everyone.  If the republican party as a whole actually stuck to it's core values, and actually had a backbone, we'd actually be IN CONTROL of our own country.

There's stepping on toes, and there's ignoring the rest of the world and the United Nations organisation that represents them.  You wouldn't say the USSR was merely stepping on toes during the Cuban missile crisis, would you?  Or China during the Korean war?  There may only be one superpower nowadays, it's not an excuse for bullying the world, because even the US can't get away with that.

[Shade]

Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic.  If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place.  But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense.

I think you forgot to turn on your sarcasm detector when you read the Eurocorp part The rest of that post was actually not about Bush as such, but about science and innovation currently being in the firing line, and the dangers of continuing that way. Bush only comes in cause he's a religious zealot himself, and thus not likely to do anything about it.

On another note, Bush is actually the whole reason why you can't easily take action against Iran now. He lied to the whole world repeatedly and knowingly over Iraq, so now the US has Zero diplomatic credibility. Had he been honest, and done things by the book, Iran would now be facing serious sanctions and possibly even emargoes as the US would actually still have some influence left that didn't come from the end of a gun.

[deftonesmx17]

I don't see how the Dems would do a better job at this point, because Bush has shown he's been the most liberal republican out there.

Liberal - Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I'm not sure if you have ever listened to a single word that has come out of Bush's mouth if you consider him tolerant of others ideas or open to new ideas...........Stem Cells anyone?

[vyper]

They can be tastey.

Now, Nix, come on - do you honestly believe pissing off the rest of the world is whats in the best interests of the us?

[Turambar]

the dems can do a better job by improving the situation at home.

once the nation is back in the hands of the people, and not in the hands of corporate entities, then we'll start to see progress.  you look at these people running the country, it's as if they don't look towards the future at all.  it's all about who can rip off the american people as much as possible before the economy crashes.  one of the functions of government is to STOP THEM.  Unfortunately, we've elected people who actually help them along.

fix the problems at home first.  then worry about the rest of the world

[Shade]

Anyone, democrat or republican, will do a better job of international relations. As a foreign head of state, the simple fact of having someone there who hasn't repeatedly lied to your face would give an instant boost in, err, agreeability. The simple fact remains that as long as Bush is in charge, everyone knows the US cannot be trusted.

Hell, if he and Cheney got impeached and replaced, I bet you'd see a lot more cooperation from many countries right off the bat, simply because they could see you were prepared to hold people accountable.

[Paragon]

Anyone, democrat or republican, will do a better job of international relations. As a foreign head of state, the simple fact of having someone there who hasn't repeatedly lied to your face would give an instant boost in, err, agreeability. The simple fact remains that as long as Bush is in charge, everyone knows the US cannot be trusted.

Hell, if he and Cheney got impeached and replaced, I bet you'd see a lot more cooperation from many countries right off the bat, simply because they could see you were prepared to hold people accountable.

Precisely.  I as an American am apalled that to the rest of the world, my country, my people, and me, are viewed as liars because of the administration.  Bush may not be popular, but neither is America.  At the same time, we deserve it.  Why?  Because we haven't gotten rid of him yet, because we all think its too difficult, that people can't do it.  Bull****.  America is one nation "for the people, by the people", and that means if we don't like someone, it is within our full right, even our responsibility, to remove him from office.  We give him power by not making the changes, by not putting our foot down and saying, "Hold it, you can't do this to our nation!"

No, I haven't lived up to my own words yet.  Sure, I voted against him, but have I done anything to stop him?  Not really.  That makes me just as bad, just as controlled, and its time to stop.  What do I intend to do?  I'm not sure yet, but for the moment, I have a strong urge to gather as many people as possible, and march, from my hometown, on my feet, not in a car, all the way to Washington D.C., carrying signs calling for Bush's impeachment, and above that, the American flag, flown proudly.  That flag is the symbol of my right, and the right of everyone else in the United States, to remove a corrupt form of government, and replace it with one that will represent us all fairly and equally, one that will not follow its own agenda, but bend to the will of the people, the foundation upon which the nation must stand.

[Janos]

Anyone, democrat or republican, will do a better job of international relations. As a foreign head of state, the simple fact of having someone there who hasn't repeatedly lied to your face would give an instant boost in, err, agreeability. The simple fact remains that as long as Bush is in charge, everyone knows the US cannot be trusted.

Hell, if he and Cheney got impeached and replaced, I bet you'd see a lot more cooperation from many countries right off the bat, simply because they could see you were prepared to hold people accountable.

No, I haven't lived up to my own words yet.  Sure, I voted against him, but have I done anything to stop him?  Not really.  That makes me just as bad, just as controlled, and its time to stop.  What do I intend to do?  I'm not sure yet, but for the moment, I have a strong urge to gather as many people as possible, and march, from my hometown, on my feet, not in a car, all the way to Washington D.C., carrying signs calling for Bush's impeachment, and above that, the American flag, flown proudly.  That flag is the symbol of my right, and the right of everyone else in the United States, to remove a corrupt form of government, and replace it with one that will represent us all fairly and equally, one that will not follow its own agenda, but bend to the will of the people, the foundation upon which the nation must stand.

Umm, you actually did the parliamentary thing by voting against him. Everything else is basically non-parliamentary. You have more or less exhausted your legal democratic options by now.

Edit: OK, you can always write letters to representatives and so on, but that's extra. The entire point of a democratic process is that you give up some of your sovereignity and representives then decide for you. If you stick by that process (which is not always wise but is the granted way of things in western democracies), then voting is more or less all you have to do.

[Eightball]

You guys are so freaked out.

Chill, people.  You'll die of a heart attack before the Bush Administration leaves!

2. Violating the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution;”

I'm highly disturbed by this charge, however.  The Geneva Convention isn't part of the Constitution.  IT ISN'T SUPREME LAW.  Not even "regarded by the Constitution".  Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.

[Janos]

You guys are so freaked out.

Chill, people.  You'll die of a heart attack before the Bush Administration leaves!

2. Violating the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution;”

I'm highly disturbed by this charge, however.  The Geneva Convention isn't part of the Constitution.  IT ISN'T SUPREME LAW.  Not even "regarded by the Constitution".  Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.

International treaties are regarded as a part of a nation's law and may override them. There is some SCOTUS decision of this or something. Point being, Geneva convention actually is US law.

[Flipside]

That's a bloody scary comment to make, the abolition of torture isn't about lording it over the US or Europe for that matter, it was a commonly held agreement on what was right or wrong, and everyone agreed that torture was wrong, it was the actions of cruel and inhumane people. You can't simply ignore that because it doesn't suit the purposes of the USA any more.

We are judged as civilised by our ability to be human in the face of inhumanity, if we lose that, then we sink to the same level as what we are supposed to be fighting.

I agree that it is unlikely to lead to an impeachment of Bush, though I find it odd that Clinton can be impeached for a far less serious set of crimes.