Oh, so its Deliverance references, is it? OK, but I get the Burt Reynolds part (the resemblance is striking, really), you get your pick from what’s left.
Shodan, of course, is the wet-brain with the banjo…
He is? Can you provide an example? And perhaps a working definition? I’m interested in exactly what constitutes racism.
Hey, gang! What’d I miss?
Nothing! Shodan and **Liberal **were ragging on you, but I stood up for ya! Don’t even bother reading, pretty boring, really…
This is unworthy of a guy who opened by condescendingly offering to help the other guy’s reading comprehension. But I’ll help you with yours.
Shodan did not say what the Republicans will do if they gain control of Congress. He said that if the Democrats attempt to impeach ex-president Bush, it would provide direction for the Republicans. Shodan had already made clear that in his opinion such an effort by Democrats would be a partisan exercise. And when one side acts in an egregiously partisan manner it provokes more of the same from the other side.
As a practical matter, the Democrats are not going to impeach Bush, so it will not provide any direction to the Republicans. So you can calm down now. Or search for some genuine outrage elsewhere, if you really feel the need for this type of pompous posturing.
[This is not intended as a general comment on Shodan’s posting behavior, about which I offer no comment here.]
Still, much to be said for Poly’s generous outreach, a quality I can fully admire without the slightest intention to emulate.
Yeah, we’ve really let this thread run adrift, what with Shodan this and elucidator that…one would almost believe this thread is about Shodan or something.
Question, sir: As the revelations about Watergate became public, was it a partisan issue? Or did good Republicans join with Democrats in saying that a man who would authorize that sort of thing was unfit for office?
My hypothetical was this: Suppose that sufficient evidence surfaces to tie George W, Bush direcxtly to criminal behavior at Watergate-style levels; in such a case, would anything be gained by going through the impeachment process for a former President who has since left office? It was not accusing Mr. Bush of anything; it was setting up a plausible real-world situation in which Congressmen and Senators of both parties would be aghast at what had been discovered. I used Mr. Bush (and bought into Giles’s suggestion of adding in Mr. Clinton, specifically to avoid partisanship, in order to avoid setting up a complex scenario involving a hypothetical President Westwing and his nefarious acts. As of now, I’m not aware of clearcut concrete evidence tying Mr. Bush directly to some of the things that went on, or are alleged to have gone on, during his Presidency. There may be a fair amount of smoke, but no clearcut evidence that the Electoral College chose an arsonist, so to speak.
It is Shodan’s insistence on turning this into a partisan issue that provoked this post – and further, what you and he missed in reading my hypothetical – that what was discovered would be such as to turn conservative Republicans into thinking that Mr. Bush was a bad guy of Nixonian levels. “The Democrats” would not impeach Mr. Bush (supposing, which was the point of my setting up the hypothetical question, that there were any value in going through the impeachment process for an ex-President); it would be shocked Congressmen of both parties impeaching, shocked Senators of both parties voting to convict.
That’s the key point – the hypothetical Mr. Bush, unlike the real world Mr. Bush so far as we know based on concrete evidence, would have explicitly authorized the takeover of the Justice Department by Pat Robertson’s Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionist theocrats; or he explicitly ordered torture of American citizens suspected on flimsy evidence of terrorism; or he gave instructions to lie to the American people to foment the Iraq war in order to benefit his cronies in Big Oil or Haliburton, or to avenge his father, or whatever. These are not things the real-world President Bush has been shown to have done, no matter how much the circumstancial evidence and the allegations may suggest it. In the hypothetical scenario, he’s someone the Republican leadership would find abhorrent.
Perhaps I should have built an ex-President Clinton who had White House orgies, ordered Vince Foster’s killing, and all the other stuff the extremists on that side have accused him of, for balance. I chose not to go to such an extreme.
And Shodan is reducing it to partisanship: if you impeach a President of HIS party for proven high crimes against the American people, that justifies HIS party, back in control of Congress, throwing impeachment charges for any reason whatsoever.
If I thought that the majority of Republicans believed in what Shodan advoca6tes, I’d be seeking some means of ensuring that Republicans NEVER get control of anything.
There are proper places for partisanship. And there are limits to them. I tried to construct a scenario akin to Watergate, to ask if there were any reasons for going through the impeachment process against a man who has since left office.
What I got was partisan raillery. And I know that Shodan is better than that.
Cite?
The problem is, it’s hard to use a hypothetical President Bush that’s not tied up with the real President Bush, and since the real President Bush has been accused of the things you accuse the hypothetical President Bush of doing, it can seem like a dig at the real President Bush.
Perfect. SHODANIZING a Shodan pit thread. The discussion is about SHODAN. It is not about Elucidator.
I think someone else is doing it too, is not a defense at all.
It doesn’t make any fucking difference, you fucking idiot.
The fucking Constitution fucking says that the only fucking penalties fucking Congress may fucking impose at the fucking conclusion of a fucking impeachment are fucking removing the malfeasor from fucking office, and fucking forbidding him from holding fucking further public fucking office.
Bush is not in fucking office, you fucking idiot. So he can’t fucking be removed from fucking office. He can’t be fucking forbidden to run for President again - the fucking 22nd Amendment already fucking says that.
The “clear direction” it would give them is that Democrats are folks with no fucking clue what the Constitution says, and who waste the country’s time with meaningless horseshit.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, fuck!
Well, that settles that, I suppose. The olive branch has been denuded.
Shodan addressed your hypothetical. What he said is that it can’t be done.
Then he added that since this was the case, if the current and actual Democrats tried to do what your hypothetical Democrats might do, such-and-such would follow.
If you wanted, perhaps you might have tried to criticize Shodan for bringing the issue of current Democrats actually impeaching Bush into what you, with your pure and innocent heart and non-partisan ways, meant only as a purely hypothetical and theoretical question. But what you shouldn’t be doing is pretending that Shodan said that the Republicans actually will impeach a Democratic president as a partisan exercise. It’s obvious that he never said it.
Shodan, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
But he’s still eligible for other public fucking office, as you your own fucking self just fucking said. Impeachment might well be a mostly symbolic act, but only mostly, and it is not the “meaningless” exercise you just lazily and falsely claimed. Once again. :rolleyes:
Do please try to contribute. Just for once.
Edited to remove the fuckings.
But he CAN fucking run for the fucking House or the fucking Senate, right? And he CAN be fucking nominated for the U fucking S fucking S fucking C, right? So, fucking actually, there might fucking be some potential fucking sense in making sure that the fucking fuck could never fucking hold public fucking office ever fucking again.
Fucking sincerely fucking yours,
Zakalwe
edited to remove everything *but *fucking, and synonyms.
Jeeziz, people, have I wandered into a thread or a Bangkok whorehouse?