Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Redstorm]
    #8551764 - 06/22/08 07:13 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
I gotta say, winging it in court doesn't say much more for his intelligence than lying does.




It wasn't in court.  He got caught in some inconsistencies over several depositions.  And no, it wasn't very smart.  Same as Slick Willy.


--------------------


Edited by zappaisgod (06/22/08 07:13 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblethedefone
deus ex machina

Registered: 10/06/07
Posts: 1,883
Loc: Gondwana
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8552231 - 06/22/08 09:37 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Armitage said it was him and that he was not ordered to do so. 



Oh.. Well he said he wasn't ordered to do so.  He can't possibly be lying. 

I'll also point out that regardless of whether or not J. Wilson was the most qualified person to do the job he was assigned, his conclusions were in fact correct.  There were no transactions of yellow cake uranium between Niger and Iraq.  Is it a coincidence that the very evidence that Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate and subsequently repudiated, is what the administration used as a foundation for the, "sixteen words?"  It's pretty obvious that this whole scandal is about political retaliation against people telling the truth about the intelligence nightmare the administration was concocting 

To me, this is all more relevant to Kucinich's proposal for the impeachment of Bush, in that it relates more to how the Administration cherry-picked intelligence in order to better sell the war.


--------------------


I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.


Edited by thedefone (06/22/08 09:45 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: thedefone]
    #8552406 - 06/22/08 10:32 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I'll also point out that regardless of whether or not J. Wilson was the most qualified person to do the job he was assigned, his conclusions were in fact correct.  There were no transactions of yellow cake uranium between Niger and Iraq.  Is it a coincidence that the very evidence that Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate and subsequently repudiated, is what the administration used as a foundation for the, "sixteen words?"  It's pretty obvious that this whole scandal is about political retaliation against people telling the truth about the intelligence nightmare the administration was concocting.




Wilson was certainly not particularly qualified to do the job. Even then, though, he did find out - and reported to the CIA at his debriefing - that Ba'athist agents from Saddam's Iraq did attempt to obtain uranium from Niger but were rebuffed by the government of Niger. So the 16 words were in fact 100% truthful in every respect.

Wilson then went on to repeatedly lie about almost every aspect of his mission.

This is old news, thoroughly reported and a matter of public record. It certainly is no grounds to impeach anyone, least of all Cheney. Wilson lied, he got caught at it, end of story. No biggie.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8553090 - 06/23/08 03:54 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Disco Cat said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Ok...

More hyperbole..

What is the impeachable offense?  Citation please and source for claims he commited such.




No, it's not hyperbole. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" is not defending the constitution, it's relegating it as unimportant. You shouldn't need a citation to figure that out.




Yes it is more hyperbole, cuz you, and everyone else so far, simply refuses to identify the offending conduct and the crime.  For an issue you feel so passionate about, I have no idea how you cannot figure you should be able to answer these simple threshold questions... I hope your next response addresses this rather than alludes to obviousness...


"You shouldn't need a citation to figure that out"

Don't equivocate/ change the subject- I didn't ask for proof that Bush relegated the constitution to an unimportant document, so your declaration that I shouldn't need a citation to conclude that he did so is irrelevant.  I asked for the criminal conduct and the citation to the law, you've not provided such.  Yes I do need the citation, I don't know if your implying its trivial or something, but if it is, you should have no problem finding the code making illegal the conduct you claim.

Might it be that you, like every other person so far on these boards, has simply bluffed with confidence and bravado but been utterly unable to find evidence of conduct and establish that it is a crime?  We'll see, so far you've just inferred folks "shouldn't need citations" to establish something you've not shown is a crime... I'll wait for the evidence of the conduct and code criminalizing such

As for the "goddamned piece of paper", yes, I need a citation.  Irregardless, this seems to fall squarely in the first amendment protections of expressive opinion, even if we ignore straightforward claims of executive privilege, and so I don't see how any citation could establish this as criminal.

Nevertheless, I'll await your citation in the first instance, and then we can discuss whether the statement meets that standard and whether if finds refuge in the first amendment or the more abstract executive privilege.


For all of our sakes, I truly hope the constitution isn't so impotent as to not protect someone's opinion on the merit or importance of a legal document- you may find yourself accused of treason if so.  Tyranny is tyranny even if you don't like the target, in fact; this is the most dangerous kind.

I often disagree with the laws of this country, its disconcerting to think that some think that private conversations I have regarding this could be penalized.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDisco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: johnm214]
    #8559028 - 06/24/08 04:37 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Yes it is more hyperbole, cuz you, and everyone else so far, simply refuses to identify the offending conduct and the crime.




No, it isn't hyperbole, because it doesn't fit the definition of hyperbole. Whether the crime has been identified to you or not (and I thought it had been) doesn't change the fact that it is not hyperbole.

Quote:

For an issue you feel so passionate about, I have no idea how you cannot figure you should be able to answer these simple threshold questions... I hope your next response addresses this rather than alludes to obviousness...



Are you sure you're replying to the right person? Just as you confused hyperbole with a flatly expressed observation, you're also oddly confusing a passing comment with passion.


Quote:

Don't equivocate/ change the subject- I didn't ask for proof that Bush relegated the constitution to an unimportant document, so your declaration that I shouldn't need a citation to conclude that he did so is irrelevant.  I asked for the criminal conduct and the citation to the law, you've not provided such.  Yes I do need the citation, I don't know if your implying its trivial or something, but if it is, you should have no problem finding the code making illegal the conduct you claim.



It isn't that, genius. It's that my first post is so unambiguous in terms of what the referred to crime was, that it was un-instinctual to suppose that that was what you needed a citation for. Re-read my original post and see if you still are having trouble with it. If you are, let me know, and I'll show you the specific law.


Quote:

Might it be that you, like every other person so far on these boards, has simply bluffed with confidence and bravado but been utterly unable to find evidence of conduct and establish that it is a crime?  We'll see, so far you've just inferred folks "shouldn't need citations" to establish something you've not shown is a crime... I'll wait for the evidence of the conduct and code criminalizing such



Pop a few anti-anxiety pills to let yourself calm down. The only false-confidence and bravado going on right here is your own, and you can save it.


Quote:

As for the "goddamned piece of paper", yes, I need a citation.  Irregardless, this seems to fall squarely in the first amendment protections of expressive opinion, even if we ignore straightforward claims of executive privilege, and so I don't see how any citation could establish this as criminal.

Nevertheless, I'll await your citation in the first instance, and then we can discuss whether the statement meets that standard and whether if finds refuge in the first amendment or the more abstract executive privilege.


For all of our sakes, I truly hope the constitution isn't so impotent as to not protect someone's opinion on the merit or importance of a legal document- you may find yourself accused of treason if so.




You must also hope that a school-teacher who tells erotic stories of raping children to their class would not find their job threatened by such conduct, due to protection of freedom of expression. But it's irrelevant what you hope. Jobs come with restrictions, and you are fully entitled to not accept any job that does so, if you wish. The job of president of the US entails taking an oath, which doesn't contravene the constitution, but guards it. And if that oath is betrayed, the president is to be removed. They are still a US citizen, and can still believe and say whatever they want.
The reason why Bush has not been impeached for that line is probably because it was said behind closed doors. Regardless, it is a line which is very much in betrayal of the Oath of Office, and there is a specific law that demands his removal for it. Again, if you still have trouble piecing things together here, let me know, and I'll give you the law.

And "Irregardless" is an improper word, because it's a double negative (Ir - less).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Wexler: McClellan's Testimony Justifies Cheney's Impeachment [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8559172 - 06/24/08 05:09 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:


It isn't that, genius. It's that my first post is so unambiguous in terms of what the referred to crime was, that it was un-instinctual to suppose that that was what you needed a citation for. Re-read my original post and see if you still are having trouble with it. If you are, let me know, and I'll show you the specific law.




yes, I'm still having trouble with it, as I've said before.

please provide evidence and the law

Quote:

You must also hope that a school-teacher who tells erotic stories of raping children to their class would not find their job threatened by such conduct, due to protection of freedom of expression. But it's irrelevant what you hope. Jobs come with restrictions, and you are fully entitled to not accept any job that does so, if you wish. The job of president of the US entails taking an oath, which doesn't contravene the constitution, but guards it. And if that oath is betrayed, the president is to be removed. They are still a US citizen, and can still believe and say whatever they want.




No, a teacher has no right to express himself to the students in any substantial manner.

Bush has the right, and the privledge, to express himself to his advisors, i.e. his employees.

Quote:

And "Irregardless" is an improper word, because it's a double negative (Ir - less).




k


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Do Not Name Names, Do Not Accuse, Do Not Say “Impeach”, Do Not Applaud Visionary Tools 439 2 07/26/08 10:13 AM
by Prisoner#1
* HR 799 - The Impeachment of Richard B. Cheney danknugz81 1,791 15 05/01/08 05:58 PM
by zappaisgod
* Impeach Obama
( 1 2 3 4 ... 31 32 )
vetsinspandex 17,231 636 01/31/13 05:32 PM
by zappaisgod
* Scott McClellan You Lying Sack of Shit...
( 1 2 all )
Madtowntripper 2,262 23 05/31/08 12:15 PM
by Yossarian22
* Kucinich says he will force House vote on Cheney impeachment lonestar2004 1,518 9 11/07/07 11:03 AM
by afoaf
* The Impeachment of Bush.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
THE KRAT BARON 12,378 185 08/06/05 09:39 AM
by Los_Pepes
* Congressman Wexler questions Condi on Iraq War Lies Scratcher 259 1 02/14/08 10:23 AM
by afoaf
* Judge Samuel Kent Impeached By House KetamineKatalyst 305 2 06/21/09 09:18 PM
by djmako7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,780 topic views. 3 members, 6 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 12 queries.