That Crazy Dennis the Menace

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Oh man!  I thought it was a war for OIL.

I can't keep up any more.

[FOTD]

An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......

Is that helpful?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......

Is that helpful?

Not really, but nothing you post ever is...  

First, can you name a war in history that wasn't aggressive?

Second, can you explain to us how exactly this war was for oil?

And lastly, can you provide evidence* of these falsehoods?





* Evidence being defined as empirical, verifiable materials which are substantiated with credible research.  I.E. not a blog.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Oh man!  I thought it was a war for OIL.

I can't keep up any more.

No, silly fool, don't you remember that we went to war was revenge for his father.  Keep it straight.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......

Is that helpful?

No. Too wordy.  

It's a war so we know it's "aggressive."  Duh!

Can't say "falsehoods" because that's a falsehood.  Unless you're willing to implicate the intelligence organizations of 33 other countries too.

You could say "assumptions" or "poor intelligence."

Now for the oil part.  We haven't taken the oil so that's a falsehood.

That just leaves " A war based on poor intelligence."

Oh! but what's the use.  It will change again next week!

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......

Is that helpful?

Not really, but nothing you post ever is...  

First, can you name a war in history that wasn't aggressive?

Second, can you explain to us how exactly this war was for oil?

And lastly, can you provide evidence* of these falsehoods?





* Evidence being defined as empirical, verifiable materials which are substantiated with credible research.  I.E. not a blog.

Ask Ruppert Murderyuck about the war for oil.... Sources? Our own government....Collin Powell...Richard Clarke.....the list is too numerous. But there lies evidence all over. You must spend too much time sucker punching on TulsaNow not to know what's going on.

The Civil War was to defend the Nation....not to go aggressively out and murder your ancestors.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......

Is that helpful?

Not really, but nothing you post ever is...  

First, can you name a war in history that wasn't aggressive?

Second, can you explain to us how exactly this war was for oil?

And lastly, can you provide evidence* of these falsehoods?





* Evidence being defined as empirical, verifiable materials which are substantiated with credible research.  I.E. not a blog.

Ask Ruppert Murderyuck about the war for oil.... Sources? Our own government....Collin Powell...Richard Clarke.....the list is too numerous. But there lies evidence all over. You must spend too much time sucker punching on TulsaNow not to know what's going on.

The Civil War was to defend the Nation....not to go aggressively out and murder your ancestors.

You and Dennis should get together.  He could use the help of a guy like you who obviously knows where all the bodies are buried.

He's like your brother from another mother!

Drop him a quick e-mail. I think he may need a friend. [:I]

You could write far better articles for impeachment!

Do you realize he hasn't used one quirky nickname in his articles!   Shame!

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD
Ask Ruppert Murderyuck about the war for oil....

Why?  What would he have to say, last time I checked he ran Newscorp, not Halliburton.

quote:
Sources? Our own government....Collin Powell...Richard Clarke.....the list is too numerous. But there lies evidence all over. You must spend too much time sucker punching on TulsaNow not to know what's going on.

Evidence of what?  That every nation in the world had the same information?

quote:
The Civil War was to defend the Nation....not to go aggressively out and murder your ancestors.

Someone needs to read a history book, and what does murdering ancestors have to do with anything Shadows?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Cannon, You need to travel outside of your ORU circle to broaden your horizon.

The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Now knock out 6,000 words in response.  You got some time on your hands man.  Idle hands are the Devil's playground, right?

HT, you don't pay attention do you?

My social and religious views would not serve me well in the ORU crowd.  My TU avatar would indicate that I probably wouldn't get along with their sports fans.  And my criticism of the Roberts and other ministries finances probably has me on the outs with all their supporters. Not too mention my constant advocacy for gay rights would probably land me in some trouble.

I don't even like GW.  The war was a poorly executed.  His fiscal plan is spend and worry about it later.  His social agenda is repressive.  My civil rights have been diminished in direct proportion to the executives asserted authority.  And some of the actions that have taken place (did he lie*, what purposes were rendition used for, spying/detention of US citizens) deserve scrutiny.

But I fail to see, and no one has taken the time to read and explain to me,  what most of the document has to do with an actual impeachment.  "War of aggression" is not grounds for impeachment, and it is not a war crime.   You either fail to grasp the concept or simply don't care.  

I go out of my way to be very clear in my positions.  I avoid hyperbole and grandstanding, I do not cast wild accusations, and I actually read and research to support my posts.   You, on the other hand, for some reason assumed I am a GW loving ORU zealot who refuses to look objectively at the situation.  Plenty of evidence to the contrary has been presented, now care to support your opinion in any way, shape or form?  "Discussion" is a means of communicating thoughts and ideas between individuals – you are simply engaged in opinion stating.

DAMN!  Just over 300 words, I couldn't reach 6,000 in the 5 minutes I alloted to read and respond to the forums.  The ability to read, comprehend, and draft a coherent response to several blurbs on the internet should not take significant time.  

*A lie is a known falsehood.  Not persuasion or relying on bad intelligence, it's "I know this is not true but will try to convince others of it's validity anyway."

[iplaw]

CF,

Haven't you learned by now that every time someone disagrees with Hometown, it's because they're a repressive and hateful "christian?"

[Red Arrow]

As bad as GW is, it could have been worse. We could have had Algore or Kerry.  

Time to duck and cover.....

[Gaspar]

Another 1,668 man hours of congressional time wasted.  

Articles dismissed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/bush_impeachment

Thanks for playing Dennis.

When are people going to wake up and stop allowing their elected officials to spend our time and money for personal publicity.


The Esteemed Rep Dennis J. Kucinich

For those of you that don't know Dennis The Menace, this is a summery of everything he has done as a member of the house.  Lets review his contribution to the country.

Since 1997 he has worked very diligently on the following legislature:

1. H.CON.RES.23 : Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


2. H.RES.333 : Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


3. H.RES.799 : Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


4. H.RES.1258 : Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


5. H.J.RES.39 : Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


6. H.R.808 : To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


7. H.R.1234 : To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


8. H.R.2707 : To reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


9. H.R.3183 : -- Private Bill; For the relief of Theresa and Stefan Sajac.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


10. H.R.3400 : To fund capital projects of State and local governments, and for other purposes.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


11. H.R.3875 : To permit the Secretary of Labor to make an administrative determination of the amount of unpaid wages owed for certain violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the New Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


12. H.R.4060 : To assist States in establishing a universal prekindergarten program to ensure that all children 3, 4, and 5 years old have access to a high-quality full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


13. H.R.6000 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on oil and natural gas (and products thereof) and to allow an income tax credit for purchases of fuel-efficient passenger vehicles, and to allow grants for mass transit.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


14. H.R.6150 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio, as the "John P. Gallagher Post Office Building".
Rejected & Referred to Committee


15. H.AMDT.29 to H.R.700 An amendment numbered 4 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new subsection on eligibility.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


16. H.AMDT.246 to H.R.2446 Amendment sought to provide $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010 for a United States contribution to the Post-Operations Humanitarian Relief Fund of the U.N. International Security Assistance Force.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


17. H.AMDT.253 to H.R.2638 An amendment to reduce the appropriation for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management of the Department of Homeland Security by $500,000 and increase appropriation for FEMA by $500,000.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


18. H.AMDT.998 to H.R.2537 Amendment provides that in cases where a source of pathogenic contamination is identified, the State or local government shall make information on the existence of such source available to the public on the Internet within 24 hours of the identification of such source.
Rejected & Referred to Committee


19. H.AMDT.1043 to H.R.5818 An amendment numbered 5 printed in House Report 110-621 to modify the purposes of the legislation to emphasize the increasing rates of vacant and abandoned properties, and change the state-to-local jurisdiction funding formula to ensure that up-to-date vacancy statistics are used to allocate the funds.
Approved

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Cannon, You need to travel outside of your ORU circle to broaden your horizon.

The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Now knock out 6,000 words in response.  You got some time on your hands man.  Idle hands are the Devil's playground, right?

HT, you don't pay attention do you?

My social and religious views would not serve me well in the ORU crowd.  My TU avatar would indicate that I probably wouldn't get along with their sports fans.  And my criticism of the Roberts and other ministries finances probably has me on the outs with all their supporters. Not too mention my constant advocacy for gay rights would probably land me in some trouble.

I don't even like GW.  The war was a poorly executed.  His fiscal plan is spend and worry about it later.  His social agenda is repressive.  My civil rights have been diminished in direct proportion to the executives asserted authority.  And some of the actions that have taken place (did he lie*, what purposes were rendition used for, spying/detention of US citizens) deserve scrutiny.

But I fail to see, and no one has taken the time to read and explain to me,  what most of the document has to do with an actual impeachment.  "War of aggression" is not grounds for impeachment, and it is not a war crime.   You either fail to grasp the concept or simply don't care.  

I go out of my way to be very clear in my positions.  I avoid hyperbole and grandstanding, I do not cast wild accusations, and I actually read and research to support my posts.   You, on the other hand, for some reason assumed I am a GW loving ORU zealot who refuses to look objectively at the situation.  Plenty of evidence to the contrary has been presented, now care to support your opinion in any way, shape or form?  "Discussion" is a means of communicating thoughts and ideas between individuals – you are simply engaged in opinion stating.

DAMN!  Just over 300 words, I couldn't reach 6,000 in the 5 minutes I alloted to read and respond to the forums.  The ability to read, comprehend, and draft a coherent response to several blurbs on the internet should not take significant time.  

*A lie is a known falsehood.  Not persuasion or relying on bad intelligence, it's "I know this is not true but will try to convince others of it's validity anyway."

Cannon, Your one virtue is that you are sincere.  I do wish I had your time to research and respond with more deliberation, but all I have is a few minutes at lunch, if I'm lucky.

Here's a snip from the first thing that popped up on a quick google search.

"Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would 'not be in conformity with the Charter' and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

Let's face it we waged war against an already weakened nation that had made no attack against us or posed no real threat to the U.S.  I know it's not easy to face difficult truths about ourselves or what we have done.

Cannon, one might say, the Devil made us do it.

Now, in my life I've learned that you can do what you want but you'll have to pay the price.

[cannon_fodder]

HT,

The war was certainly an act of aggression, I don't think anyone denies that.  Aggressive acts are not always wrong so it's a moot point.

I do not deny that many view the invasion as against the UN charter.  However, the UN had authorized the use of force previously and failed to revoke the authorization AND failed to issue a proclamation decrying the invasion.  Which is all a moot point - the UN did nothing to actually punish Iraq for mass murdering it's own people or to enforce it's other regulations; so even if it did pass a resolution specifically forbidding the US from invading - it wouldn't do anything about it anyway.

Regardless of all of that, UN resolutions nor international law are grounds for impeaching a US President.

I also stand by the fact that given what we knew at the time the invasion was justified.  As it turns out, we were wrong.  AND if it turns out Bush knew this and took measures to hide the truth, then he should be impeached.  BUT, as it stands all we have is conjecture.  We know Bush wanted to sell the war, but did he do anything actually criminal in his attempt (as bad as it is, trying to persuade a country to go to war is not criminal)?
- - -

I'm not arguing the war was a good idea.  I'm not even arguing that Bush is a good president.  We can even pretend the US just decided to invade Iraq for oil wealth and no other reason (in actuality our presidents who fought actual wars of aggression for actual prizes were much more popular and no articles were ever introduced) - those are STILL not reason under our constitution to impeach a president.  

The truth is the war has been a misguided effort, GW Bush has been a failed president in most respects, and the economic and political position of the US is weaker now than when he took office.  I will agree to those truths, but that has little bearing on the topic at hand... the articles of impeachment are a joke.

[Conan71]

He's gotta be hung like a donkey, wealthy, or both.  Certainly isn't his intellect: