Debate talk:Has George Bush displayed questionable judgment and deserve to be impeached?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

With all the talk on the article page, where is the article itself? No really, should this be labeled Debate? Editor at CP 14:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Good point. Perhaps we should hold the debate on this page? Or perhaps more sensibly move the current contents to here?--Bobbing up 14:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)
OK did that.--Bobbing up 14:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Asshole debate:[edit]

I'm not sure he can be defined as an "asshole," unless by "asshole" you aren't using the popular definition (being a jerk, or a mean person) and are instead using your own ("someone who does things I don't like, regardless of personal demeanor"). Lurker 20:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, I'd say he qualified as the first sort of asshole quite easily, thanks. --Kels 20:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)
My bad. I'm not very familiar with blog articles about unsubstantiated accounts of things that happened last century... Lurker 20:37, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Bullshit. This is a well publicized excerpt from an interview with Tucker Carlson, who's hardly obscure, originally published in Salon, which is also anything but obscure, that's only talked about in that particular entry. If you're going to dodge, you'll have to try harder than that. --Kels 20:46, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, from when I was 10. Sorry for not being one of those kids. I've also never heard of Salon, sooooo... Lurker 20:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)
So maybe you're one of those kids who defends the guy's character without knowing anything much about his character, nor the many stories of his testiness, condescension and general ill-temperedness that have been pretty well reported on over the past, I dunno, nine years. Have to remember that. --Kels 21:17, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Mocking a deathrow inmate's intention to live seems asshole-ish to me. Nice troll-baiting, Lurker. NorsemanWassail! 21:27, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Lurker and the mob[edit]

Actually troll-baiting wasn't my offence; my offence was *gasp* questioning the mob!! Every time I go against the grain someone throws some sort of insult at me and every time I say to myself "darnit! Why can't you remember that this place is just like CP? Stop rocking the boat already!" But then I forget and it happens all over again. Lurker 12:52, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I don't get it. If we're just like CP, why haven't you been ban-hammered into oblivion long ago? Negligence practically bordering on the criminal, if you ask me. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:17, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Right, that is the only difference. CP finds pleasure in watching people beg for mercy, so they ban at will. RW takes pleasure in playing with their prey, so they only ban if they think it will provoke a response or if someone's going on a rampage. Banning me won't bring about a response (at least not the one they are looking for) so I have a clean slate. (Until right about now, I presume). Lurker 14:32, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Title[edit]

Hate to say this, but do I detect a possible breach of our "no personal abuse" guideline in the title of this debate?--Bobbing up 13:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

They're just guidlines. We break them when we feel like it. [1][2] Lurker 13:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Yeessss. But we don't have that many of them- and it's nice to remind ourselves that we have them from time to time - otherwise they feel all lonely and ignored. Also I don't really think these kind of expressions help our cause that much.--Bobbing up 13:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Agreed. Lurker 13:26, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Would anybody mind if I changed this to "George Bush has displayed questionable judgment and deserves to be impeached"?-Bobbing up 13:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)
No, I wouldn't mind. --Edgerunner76 13:39, 10 December 2007 (EST)
OK, I've renamed it.--Bobbing up 13:51, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you! Lurker 14:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Grounds for Impeachment[edit]

Could any of our legal experts tell us what re the possible grounds for Impeachment in the US?--Bobbing up 05:36, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Or perhaps add it to the impeachment stub?--Bobbing up 05:51, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Having a majority of Congress in the opposite party that thinks they can get away with it. --Gulik 23:16, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Very, very vague. Probably intentionally so. Researcher 23:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Interesting. So what could we get Pres Bush on then? "Bribery"? Don't see it. "Treason"? Hard to see it. "Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" hell yes, there must be a chance there. What was the charge against Clinton?--Bobbing up 12:36, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Lying about a blowjob under oath? --Gulik 14:45, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Yeeeeees - but what was the legal jargon for that?--Bobbing up 15:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Perjury. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:09, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Don't forget about "obstruction of justice" for supposedly trying to get other witnesses to lie too. (It should be noted that there were originally 4 counts against him, two of which did not make it out of the House.) Researcher 15:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)
OK, can we get Bush for either of those?--Bobbing up 15:13, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Obstruction of justice seems like it should be a shoe-in. However, actually getting it to a vote in the legislature needs two things: Democrats with a spine, and a 2/3 majority willing to vote for it. This would require a fair number of Republicans to break Party Loyalty, and thus will not happen unless Bush eats a live baptized white infant on national television. --Gulik 15:15, 14 December 2007 (EST)
With the elections less than a year away, that's not going to happen practically no matter what. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:22, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, but we are concerned with what is right - not what is expedient.--Bobbing up 15:25, 14 December 2007 (EST)

For the record, some House democrats have introduced bills to impeach him; they've just gone nowhere. Researcher 15:28, 14 December 2007 (EST)