Comments on: The Flailings Of Megalomania http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:49:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: tom http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/comment-page-1/#comment-38046 tom Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:24:49 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/#comment-38046 its not abuse, its me getting sick and tired of your nonsense. why do you think that bush would voluntarily leave office? why do you think that his underlings would turn on him? you assume so much that just likely isnt reality and you come up with nonsense hypothetical situations. why am i even replying? i like having the last word. that word is "fool", as in "you are a fool." its not abuse, its me getting sick and tired of your nonsense. why do you think that bush would voluntarily leave office? why do you think that his underlings would turn on him? you assume so much that just likely isnt reality and you come up with nonsense hypothetical situations. why am i even replying? i like having the last word. that word is “fool”, as in “you are a fool.”

]]> By: Jonathan Versen http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/comment-page-1/#comment-37931 Jonathan Versen Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:17:18 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/#comment-37931 tom, your abuse is unnecessary, and childish. I don't know if you don't understand or simply pretend not to, but this is not my concern. Yes, Impeachment AND removal from office is a 2 part process. Actually it's 2 separate but related processes. You vote in the senate to remove a president and VP, but you don't have to bring criminal charges against a vulnerable president who wouldn't want his misdeeds investigated-- Bush would leave office if you started the process against him and it was demonstrated to him that if he didn't leave, his criminality would be brought to light. He'd fold, especially with the prospect of lots of other smaller fish like Rumsfeld copping pleas to rat him out. Ok, to be fair, I guess I DID need to spell out the dynamics of that scenario for you to understand. And yes, before you object that all of this could not have been accomplished over the course of the summer, I realize that-- but if meaningful proceedings start, they have to start sometime. Finally, although I have no great love of Denny Hastert, yes, I DO believe that if the GOP demonstrated that they had the balls to remove THEIR president, they would have held on to congress. I'm <em>not</em> saying that this would be a more favorable turn of events in the long term-- that's an altogether different question. tom, your abuse is unnecessary, and childish. I don’t know if you don’t understand or simply pretend not to, but this is not my concern. Yes, Impeachment AND removal from office is a 2 part process. Actually it’s 2 separate but related processes. You vote in the senate to remove a president and VP, but you don’t have to bring criminal charges against a vulnerable president who wouldn’t want his misdeeds investigated– Bush would leave office if you started the process against him and it was demonstrated to him that if he didn’t leave, his criminality would be brought to light. He’d fold, especially with the prospect of lots of other smaller fish like Rumsfeld copping pleas to rat him out.

Ok, to be fair, I guess I DID need to spell out the dynamics of that scenario for you to understand. And yes, before you object that all of this could not have been accomplished over the course of the summer, I realize that– but if meaningful proceedings start, they have to start sometime.

Finally, although I have no great love of Denny Hastert, yes, I DO believe that if the GOP demonstrated that they had the balls to remove THEIR president, they would have held on to congress. I’m not saying that this would be a more favorable turn of events in the long term– that’s an altogether different question.

]]> By: tom http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/comment-page-1/#comment-37855 tom Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:35:56 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/#comment-37855 impeachment is a two part process, you cant just impeach someone and throw them out, they need to be convicted of the crimes by the senate. so even if you took out bush and cheney by impeaching and convicting them with 2/3 majority in the senate(which i highly doubt would have happened under the best of circumstances), then hastert would have been president. and yeah, his record on iraq is so sterling, im sure they would have held on to both houses. im not really sure what crack youre smoking, but you really have no idea what youre talking about. impeachment is a two part process, you cant just impeach someone and throw them out, they need to be convicted of the crimes by the senate. so even if you took out bush and cheney by impeaching and convicting them with 2/3 majority in the senate(which i highly doubt would have happened under the best of circumstances), then hastert would have been president. and yeah, his record on iraq is so sterling, im sure they would have held on to both houses.

im not really sure what crack youre smoking, but you really have no idea what youre talking about.

]]> By: Jonathan Versen http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/comment-page-1/#comment-37738 Jonathan Versen Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:05:58 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/#comment-37738 you can impeach a president, a supreme court justice, and yes, a vice president. You don't need to bring criminal charges against the prez, just impeach him and remove him from office. If the political will and momentum existed to do this to George W, subsequently impeaching and removing the even more reviled Cheney as well should be a fait accompli. This is why I didn't specify this, thinking it was such an obvious consequence. you can impeach a president, a supreme court justice, and yes, a vice president.

You don’t need to bring criminal charges against the prez, just impeach him and remove him from office. If the political will and momentum existed to do this to George W, subsequently impeaching and removing the even more reviled Cheney as well should be a fait accompli. This is why I didn’t specify this, thinking it was such an obvious consequence.

]]> By: tom http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/comment-page-1/#comment-37638 tom Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:00:05 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/#comment-37638 impeach him? even if they could get the charges to stick and convict him, he would be replaced by cheney. big victory there. what exactly are you talking about anyway? impeach him? even if they could get the charges to stick and convict him, he would be replaced by cheney. big victory there. what exactly are you talking about anyway?

]]> By: Jonathan Versen http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/comment-page-1/#comment-37594 Jonathan Versen Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:39:25 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/#comment-37594 Supposedly all politicians care about is getting re-elected and making sure their party has the advantage over the other guys. And yet: summer of last year the GOP insisted on an asinine resolution supporting the Iraq war(3 republicans had the cojones to vote against it), whereas if <i>they</i> had impeached Junior themselves in the summer of '06, they could have replaced him with a republican, probably held on to the house and senate, and if said congressional replacement had started a pullout from Iraq that concluded, say, by the time of the 2008 GOP presidential convention, that Republican incumbent would probably win the election with a margin we haven't seen since Reagan in '84. Is my assessment off base? What's the deal-- are they <em>that</em> scared of the house of Bush? Supposedly all politicians care about is getting re-elected and making sure their party has the advantage over the other guys.

And yet: summer of last year the GOP insisted on an asinine resolution supporting the Iraq war(3 republicans had the cojones to vote against it), whereas if they had impeached Junior themselves in the summer of ’06, they could have replaced him with a republican, probably held on to the house and senate, and if said congressional replacement had started a pullout from Iraq that concluded, say, by the time of the 2008 GOP presidential convention, that Republican incumbent would probably win the election with a margin we haven’t seen since Reagan in ’84. Is my assessment off base?

What’s the deal– are they that scared of the house of Bush?

]]> By: tom http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/comment-page-1/#comment-37441 tom Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:54:54 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/01/08/the-flailings-of-megalomania/#comment-37441 what im wondering is who is really behind all of these recent developments? bush has been portrayed in the past as a puppet of rove, cheney, etc. but recently his front seems far less uniform and sturdy. could he be taking the advice of different people since the dems win in the 06 elections? what im wondering is who is really behind all of these recent developments? bush has been portrayed in the past as a puppet of rove, cheney, etc. but recently his front seems far less uniform and sturdy. could he be taking the advice of different people since the dems win in the 06 elections?

]]>