Olbermann calls for Bush & Cheney to resign

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=if6was9]
You are completely missing my point! Is it on purpose or are you just daft?

ANYONE, anything, any cartoon, any cardboard image, any ficus plant, would be better for the country than George fucking Bush. How can you possibly disagree with this?

Do you think his golden parachute to Scooter was a noble thing?

Do you think lying to congress and the American people, to get us to invade Iraq, and finish his Daddy’s work was a noble thing?

Do you think outing an active CIA agent (something George HWB would NEVER consider doing… :wink: )because her husband wrote something against you is a noble thing?

Do you think ignoring the laws of the United States is a noble thing?

Do you think ignoring the Geneva Convention is a noble thing?

Get your head out of your ass.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll just sum this up for our viewers back home, “I’m ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! There’s no way I could possibly be wrong, and you’re dumb if you think otherwise!”

I’m sure there’s a local playground for you to go hang out in, why won’t you go do that now if this is the limit to your ability to discuss something.

82

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Actually Reid isn’t “running the show.” He has power to determine the daily business of the senate but doesn’t have sufficient majority to do anything and on Iraq he is in the minority. The president can simply hang on and threaten veto and a veto will be upheld.

Yes, congress has a low approval rating and at least some of it is deserved. But in the face of a pig headed president and with only a tiny majority at best there is not much Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats in congress can do.
[/QUOTE]

I remember people saying that the Republicans couldn’t use a “slim majority” as an excuse for not getting some of their agendas pushed through in the past, so the Dems can’t do the same now that they’re in control of the Congress.

83

[QUOTE=silenus]
I would encourage you, as one of my students, to do just that. Be sure to articulate exactly how I violated your rights as a student, or in any way interfered with your education in American Government. I will be very interested to see how you word and defend this complaint.
[/QUOTE]

If you were a public school teacher then my experience with the educational system pretty much suggests all that is required to get my complaints listened to is loud enough bitching. In all honesty I have no idea why a public school teacher would feel the need to engage in partisan proselytizing. I don’t think you’d be violating anyone’s rights by doing so, but I think you’d be providing a piss-poor education and I’d make sure my children never set foot in your class room. Educators should give people the knowledge required to make their own, informed opinions, not supplant their own opinions on students. This applies even if you’re a college instructor.

84

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
No, why would they tell him that? Nixon was actually under imminent impeachment, Congress had already started literally moving to impeach him. Nixon wasn’t just suffering bad poll numbers, he was faced with an actual impeachment coming his way that would have all but certainly lead to an actual conviction in the Senate and an actual forced removal.

Bush is in no such danger whatsoever. No matter what he does nothing is as damaging as resigning office, there’s no way Congressional Republicans have even suggested he resign.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The Republicans in the Senate went to Nixon and basically said: Don’t make us vote on removing your from office, because you won’t like the result.

The biggest blunder of Bush’s presidency is the Iraq war. And the Democrats know damn well that they were complicit. Not all of them, but enough. If the Democrats want to end the Iraq War, I say bully for them-- go do it. Farting around as if you can’t be adult enough to wait until the next election to get rid of Bush is just childish.

85

[QUOTE=if6was9]

Do you think lying to congress and the American people, to get us to invade Iraq, and finish his Daddy’s work was a noble thing?
[/QUOTE]

Was the invasion of Iraq something that Bush I wanted? Because he could have done that instead of stopping at the Iraq-Kuwait border. And IIRC, in his biopgraphy he states that invading Iraq would be a bad idea, predicting the mess that now exists there. (Which isn’t to say Bush I is a master prognosticator - these are the same problems that the British had when they were there in the early part of the 20th dentury.)

86

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Stunning. Marvelous. If every Democrat in Congress — and Republican, for that matter — had a fraction of Olberman’s courage and passion, this nation’s future would be bright indeed.
[/QUOTE]

No, actually there’s a very significant reason Olbemann is not nor will he ever be in Congress. Ideologues who cannot, will not, and refuse to compromise make terrible representatives. They keep things from getting done, not the opposite.

As much as Bush is maligned for ignoring outside input, I can point to dozens of examples of him making compromises, often times it was with forces in his own party, but he’s done it nonetheless. He’s still a far cry different from someone like Olbermann who has passion but not substantive ability to work in the political system. Guys like Lenin only become successful politicians through force, and there’s a reason for that, because uncompromising ideologues can only bush their agenda through force and not compromise.

87

[QUOTE=Archergal]
But what about that bit about not pardoning an accomplice?
[/QUOTE]

Accomplice in what? Last I checked George W. Bush has never been charged with any crime while serving as President of the United States. So he can’t have accomplices, period. There’s absolutely nothing unconstitutional about pardoning a political ally.

88

Jeez, this’ll teach me to go to bed early. To address some noted questions and concerns, with attribution when I think of it:

straight man - If you can’t see the link with American Government, then I fear for you. Olbermann’s little tirade is the core of American Government. I still like to believe that it is government “by the people,” and when the people get pissed off, they have a right to speak out about it. You know, that whole “Freedom of Speech” and “Redress of Grievences” thing. Olbermann neatly wrapped up a number of issues that have been building in the country, and barring any major events or ideological shift between now and September, his rant will be just as valid. To your second question, I haven’t detailed out the lesson completely, but I was thinking something about “Having watched the video in class, present, in a well-structured essay, your support of or dissent from the opinions presented. Defend your answer, citing relevant data as necessary. 50 points, due Monday. Class discussion to follow.” I figure I can get a couple of weeks easy out of this, in various places in the curriculum. I know it will spark a number of dicussions at the dinner table. (Not mine, theirs.)

Martin - Feel free to demand that your children be fed nothing but pablum, that their ideas and mind-sets never be challenged, that they go through life with blinders on. But in my classes, we challenge ideas. We make you defend your positions. I have never docked a student a single point because of their ideology. In fact, I love getting a bunch of different ideas going in class. That’s how you learn. If the entire class was nothing but rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Leftists, the class would be terribly boring, and I’d be forced to play Rush Limbaugh tapes to jump-start discussions. But seeing as how I teach in a town that is dominated by Republicans, it behooves me to shake the little darlings up a bit on the first day, just to get them out of “Summer Mode” and back into “Oh, crap, this teacher actually expects me to think!” mode. These are Seniors, remember, and they know me either personally or by reputation quite well by the time they enter my classroom. They know the way I do things.

89

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
No, actually there’s a very significant reason Olbemann is not nor will he ever be in Congress. Ideologues who cannot, will not, and refuse to compromise make terrible representatives. They keep things from getting done, not the opposite.
[/QUOTE]
Then it’s too bad GW isn’t in congress. He’s an ideologue who refuses to compromise most of the time so he wouldn’t get anything done. What a blessing.

90

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Ideologues who cannot, will not, and refuse to compromise make terrible representatives.
…
As much as Bush is maligned for ignoring outside input, I can point to dozens of examples of him making compromises,…
[/QUOTE]
Is the ability to compromise important for presidents, as well? I’ve read that voters want a strong, singular leader as president, which is why we’ve been electing state governors to the job, rather than senators.

It’s easy to compromise with people you fundamentally agree with. Can you think of any times Bush has compromised with Democrats?

Bolding mine, Freudian slip yours?

91

[QUOTE=silenus]
Martin - Feel free to demand that your children be fed nothing but pablum, that their ideas and mind-sets never be challenged, that they go through life with blinders on. But in my classes, we challenge ideas. We make you defend your positions. I have never docked a student a single point because of their ideology. In fact, I love getting a bunch of different ideas going in class. That’s how you learn. If the entire class was nothing but rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Leftists, the class would be terribly boring, and I’d be forced to play Rush Limbaugh tapes to jump-start discussions. But seeing as how I teach in a town that is dominated by Republicans, it behooves me to shake the little darlings up a bit on the first day, just to get them out of “Summer Mode” and back into “Oh, crap, this teacher actually expects me to think!” mode. These are Seniors, remember, and they know me either personally or by reputation quite well by the time they enter my classroom. They know the way I do things.
[/QUOTE]

The very idea that you can’t make students think without having them discuss some loser partisan hack’s rant suggests to me you’re a pretty terrible educator.

Are you generally so terrible at fostering discussion that you couldn’t just bring up the Scooter Libby pardon yourself and ask your students for their opinion on it?

Considering most American High School students probably have no idea what the Speaker of the House does I think it’d be great if our High School educators would actually educate instead of spending a class period mired down in pointless debate. Last I checked people can argue their opinions without the watchful eye of a teacher, who has already set the tone of the debate by introducing it via someone who is essentially no better than Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly, the only real difference being Olbermann tends to come off a bit less insane.

92

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Bush on the other hand has implemented a lot of great policies and laws.
[/QUOTE]

He sure has!

And then abandoned the effort to lie us into Iraq.

Yeah, damned leftist Supreme Court. What the fuck are you talking about?

As long as they teach abstinance. It’s more a program of genocide, actually.

Meaning he was around, not that he was the cause of the resurgence.

In other words, he made illegal spying legal. Great.

Heckuva job, Dubya. But please, don’t do us any more favors.

93

At both David Simmons and Robot Arm, I’ve already addressed your points. Bush has compromised all the time, both with Democrats and Republicans. Did you actually follow the whole debate over the immigration bill? He made all kinds of concessions–and if you followed said debate you’d also realize your claim that Republican = someone Bush agrees with already is ludicrous. Bush has had virtually unwavering Republican support in regard to his military ventures, but on virtually every other issue there has been some Republican opposition, in some cases it has even arguably been more significant than his Democratic opposition.

Did you guys follow all of the appointment controversies? You don’t think Bush compromised with Democrats to get people appointed? Last I checked, Harriet Miers isn’t a member of the Supreme Court.

The idea that compromise isn’t important for a Governor, President, or et cetera is ludicrous. Both Governors and Presidents have to work extensively with their associated legislative branches, and every President has made compromises to get their legislation passed.

94

[QUOTE=tdn]
He sure has!

And then abandoned the effort to lie us into Iraq.
[/quote]

Untrue

Read a history of the SCOTUS, I’m not hear to educate people on things that are blindingly obvious.

Both an untrue assertion as well as a misrepresentation about how the money is being spent overall.

You can believe what you want.

Has nothing to do with what I said, nor has he made illegal spying legal, last I checked it’s still illegal.

95

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Has nothing to do with what I said, nor has he made illegal spying legal, last I checked it’s still illegal.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yes, that’s true. He’s actually done worse than make it legal. He’s simply ignored its illegality and gone ahead and done it anyway.

96

[QUOTE=straight man]

Otherwise, I have to ask the OP: Was a fourthpit thread about the Scooter Libby commutation * reallynecessary?* Think about it.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not the OP, but I say it is. Bush is hoping, indeed trusting, that the American public has the attention duration of a gnat. The longer this incident stays in the American consciousness, the less likely it is that he’ll be able to get away with it.

97

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Bush on the other hand has implemented a lot of great policies and laws. He’s taken the Taliban to task in Afghanistan, he’s put some very qualified individuals on the Supreme Court who will role back the liberal leftist bullshit we’d been subjected to from the SCOTUS for decades, he’s given billions of dollars in aid to fighting AIDS in Africa, and he has overseen an incredibly strong resurgence in the American economy after the dotcom burst. Most liberals ignore all of that when they point to the stupidity of the Bush tax cuts, because they can’t see any link whatsoever in lower taxes on capital gains and an incredibly strong economy. Bush also reorganized Federal law enforcement in such a way that will help insure greater cooperation and sharing of information, something that had been a huge problem on the Federal level pretty much since the first Federal law enforcement agencies were created.
[/QUOTE]
Bush gutted the intelligence teams that were actively working to find al Qaida and stop the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to transfer most of them to Iraq where they are unable to deal with the overwhelmingly larger numbers of disparate groups in that unnecessary war while the Taliban has spent the last four years in resurgence in Afghanistan.

Your SCOTUS claims are open to debate, of course.

Bush has no more “overseen” the resurgence of the economy than Clinton “oversaw” the boom of the 90s. The economy was already pretty strong and it is more likely that his long-term cuts (with his incredble debt) will force some future president to re-institute something similar to Cinton’s “greatest tax increase in history” in order to prevent the debt from struggling with Capital thus eventually crippling the economy.

Bush actually did nothing to promote the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and his hacks have done everything they can to maintain the fiefdoms it was intended to reduce. What he has done is watch over a Congress forcing a lot of local departments to take on unfunded mandates to handle problems for which they have never been trained or funded while the reports from oversight groups and inspectors general indicate that there is no more cooperation (except on paper) than there has ever been among actual law enforcement groups–and particularly among intelligence groups.

98

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
If they intended it to be a limited power, they would have crafted it as such. As it is, the Presidential pardon is more or less unlimited in scope, he can pardon any Federal crime he wants with the only limitation being he can’t pardon himself (or others, maybe?) out of an impeachment.
[/quote]

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution; it can end in, at most, removal of the impeached party from public office, not in any criminal penalty; the pardon power would not apply.

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
The very idea that the pardon can be abused is ludicrous. It specifically cannot be abused.
[/QUOTE]

Any power can be abused. An exercise of a given power need not be unlawful to be abusive.

99

That was a lot of blah-blah-blah. With the overly dramatic quoting of founding fathers, movies stars and former prosecutors. A 10 minute spray of red hot balloon juice all over American livingrooms and desktops.

If the critics of this bumbling, dimwitted, formerly dope-addled, monkey like man-child have some proof, of ANY CRIME AT ALL, then by all means, present it. Bring it forth, and let’s run this son of a bitch out of town on a rail.

We KNOW he’s incompetent, we KNOW he snaked his way into the White House on the backs of both a crooked judiciary (talk about your activist judges) and a populace VERY frightened by the spectre of Islamic fascists taking over the free world, enslaving the men, raping the women and converting good, Christian Children into Islamic radicals.

It’s all meaningless chatter and conjecture. If someone has proof he broke a law that requires he be impeached, then shut the fuck up and DO it already. The Pubbies managed to get it done to Clinton, what’s the hold up Dems? Huh? Got nothin? OK, be pissy pants about it, but grow the fuck up, stop begging for TV time to shout from the rooftops about how wrong pardoning this twit was, show us something illegal he did, then ACT ON IT.

Jesus, you people (dems) don’t learn.

Keith Olbermann may have been right in every single thing he said, but the truth is, none of it TRULY matters until he, or anyone else, can dig in, find actual PROOF of this jackass breaking the god damn LAW.

Stomp our feet, wring our hands, scream, cry, gesture wildly, walk back and forth in a huff, mutter to ourselves, pound on tables, desks and walls; all valid reactions to the actions of this, our “President” but it amounts to a hill of shit without action.

I’ll be here waiting.

100

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
No, actually there’s a very significant reason Olbemann is not nor will he ever be in Congress. Ideologues who cannot, will not, and refuse to compromise make terrible representatives. They keep things from getting done, not the opposite.
[/QUOTE]

That does not always keep them out of Congress.