Quake3World

R00k wrote:If he gets impeached, Republicans would have to turn on him. That's no prediction. Not to mention that it will make them look better to do it to start with.

nope...not if dems win the house or senate...of course u know that though...unless ur a moron...

YourGrandpa wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:if bush does not get impeached...

the decision has been made...

i'm not gonna put a time on the prediction...but i think it will happen pretty soon...prolly before elections...

this is real...hold me too it...i will go buh bye if bush isn't impeached...

btw...i never lose...

I'll say my good-bys now.

Later fag.

sry...its already a done deal...

So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Leave already Freakfuck.

Captain Mazda wrote:Leave already Freakfuck.

a homo says what?...

Canis wrote:So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Yes. This is a lose/lose situation for all but two people.

Freakaloin should be the mod

Yea way to make a political stand, im sure this brave and selfless act will send ripples of anarchy through the administration and cause the people to rise up and impeach.


Seriously dude. If this is such a big deal to you, go out and do something about. Organize a local milita, start the impeachment process. Im completely serious, i have a lawyer friend who is thinking of the same thing, ill talk her into helping if you will just quit whinning and actualy DO something.

bitWISE wrote:

seremtan wrote:

bitWISE wrote: No. Technically speaking Bush won because the electoral college gave him the most votes. The electoral college tends to follow public vote but it doesn't have to.

i think he's referring to the supreme court and some vote-rigging giving him florida, actually

I know what he is referring too and I'm saying he is wrong.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

is he now?

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

seremtan wrote:

bitWISE wrote:

seremtan wrote: i think he's referring to the supreme court and some vote-rigging giving him florida, actually

I know what he is referring too and I'm saying he is wrong.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

is he now?

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

bitWISE wrote:

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

please tell me you're kidding. that makes the US no better than the UK, where after an election the queen summons 'her choice' to buckingham palace to form a government. 'her' choice (scare quotes because it's actually her advisors) can be the minority party, as it was once during the 1970s. does that mean undemocratic methods of forming a government are as legal in the US as here?

When the Constitution was drafted, the forefathers didn't want to give complete power to the people. I'm guessing it was because at the time (and apparently in states like Minnesota) the majority were un-educated and would vote for someone in terms of celebrity rather than political talent. What they came up with isn't exactly what we should be using IMO but it's not a horrible system.

I believe there was scandal in Florida but it was up to the electoral college to straiten that out before voting. They voted as they saw fit and in that sense he won fair and square.

seremtan wrote:

bitWISE wrote:

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

please tell me you're kidding. that makes the US no better than the UK, where after an election the queen summons 'her choice' to buckingham palace to form a government. 'her' choice (scare quotes because it's actually her advisors) can be the minority party, as it was once during the 1970s. does that mean undemocratic methods of forming a government are as legal in the US as here?

Most state constitutions employ a winner-takes-all rule where the electors are in fact forced to vote for whoever won the popular vote of the state. If memory serves there have only been two faithless electors in the history of the united states, and while i dont remember their names or the elections, i do know that one democrat elector voted for a republican once when her state was won by the democrats just to make a point. (The elector was a member of the female sex, as you might of guessed) Her vote had no effect on the election and the democrats still won.

edit: looked it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Elect ... s_electors

bitWISE wrote:...the majority were un-educated and would vote for someone in terms of celebrity rather than political talent...

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose eh

On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

All you need to know. The popular vote in no way influences or dictates the electoral vote. Your individual vote doesn't matter, nor does the vote of any group other than the electoral college. Nor does your vote count in anyway to determine who your electoral voter [or their vote].

It really doesn't matter.

so america isn't really a democracy! well done, founding fathers!

ww2 killed real democracy

update: its a cumin...
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

lol, and we all know what tough sons of bitches the dems are. they won't rest until bush is wrist-slapped for arguably the least of his crimes

lol...hey moron...the democrats have nothing to do with this and will have nothing to do with his impeachment...

so who does the impeaching? congress? you think all the republicans are gong to vote for it? moron alert..?

lol...yes they will...they will be forced to...and then everyone will say democracy works...but the guys behind the curtain will be laffing at u...its a done deal dude...look into it...

so bush will be the fall guy for his own presidency, lol

wow geoff, you're on the brink of a genuine institutional analysis instead of the usual bush obsession. keep it up, son

seremtan wrote:so bush will be the fall guy for his own presidency, lol

wow geoff, you're on the brink of a genuine institutional analysis instead of the usual bush obsession. keep it up, son

jeez. don't tell him that or his head will swell and his hair won't fit anymore.

seremtan wrote:so bush will be the fall guy for his own presidency, lol

wow geoff, you're on the brink of a genuine institutional analysis instead of the usual bush obsession. keep it up, son

lol...so morons like u actually believe the president is more then just a figurehead? how quaint...