Author Topic: Inauguration  (Read 21560 times)

stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3899
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #25 on: January 21, 2009, 12:51:58 AM
well, I watched the Inauguration.  twas nice.  Yo Yo Ma is such a good musician!  And Obama sure does know how to speak! (lil hiccup during the swearing in tho haha)

has anyone else seen those "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers?  that is the dumbest shit ive ever seen.  He hasnt fuckin done anything yet!  Even someone saying "Impeach Bush" would be a fucking retard.  
Only because Bush is now out of office ... or can you impeach an ex-president?  I'm a little unclear on the rules.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5858
  • Mmm. Tiger.
Reply #26 on: January 21, 2009, 02:09:35 AM
well, I watched the Inauguration.  twas nice.  Yo Yo Ma is such a good musician!  And Obama sure does know how to speak! (lil hiccup during the swearing in tho haha)

has anyone else seen those "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers?  that is the dumbest shit ive ever seen.  He hasnt fuckin done anything yet!  Even someone saying "Impeach Bush" would be a fucking retard.  
Only because Bush is now out of office ... or can you impeach an ex-president?  I'm a little unclear on the rules.
nono, even while he was in office... there was never an actual reason to impeach him, nor is there at ALL for Obama... people dont even know what impeaching is

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #27 on: January 21, 2009, 02:24:54 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach

Impeachment is just the trial. Bill Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted, so he remained president afterward. Calls for impeachment are all well and good, but if there's nothing to convict the person on, then what's the point.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3899
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #28 on: January 21, 2009, 03:49:08 AM
nono, even while [Bush] was in office... there was never an actual reason to impeach him,

*speechless*  :-X

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Windup

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
Reply #29 on: January 21, 2009, 05:10:56 AM
nono, even while he was in office... there was never an actual reason to impeach him, nor is there at ALL for Obama... people dont even know what impeaching is

Well, just off the top of my head, I'd say that admitting to authorizing a wiretap program that explicity ignored the existing restrictions on such activity falls under the suspicion of "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary for impeachment. It's not that often that a President just comes out and reads a description of his participation in an impeachable offense into the public record, but that's exactly what Bush did. 

Never mind what an investigation by a Congress with even a passing interest in upholding the Constitution would have uncovered.

"My whole job is in the space between 'should be' and 'is.' It's a big space."


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #30 on: January 21, 2009, 07:37:53 AM
The thing with an impeachment is that the public doesn't like it.  Before 2006 the Dems didn't have enough power to impeach him.  After the 2006 election it was so obvious that the GOP was going down hard, there was no reason to go after him.  They would just have hurt themselves.  Now if they go after him for criminal reasons, it just takes away from Obama's incredible political capital.

There has been talk that Obama may unclassify all of the documents Cheney illegally classified.  He would then let different public groups chase after cheney and Bush.  The whole time that was happening he could get on with running the country. 

I kind of like that idea.  I see Bush and Cheney spending their fortunes to defend against lawsuits coming in from every side.  It would be fun to watch.  Also boycotts of any company that paid Bush or Cheney a speaking fee.

As far as impeachable offenses go, everyday they broke the law.  From big to small it didn't matter.  This was a White House that did not care about the law. 

The President and Vice-President are required to put their investments into a blind rust for the duration of their time in office.  This is how Carter didn't know until after he left office that his company had been run into the round and he was over a million in debt.  Neither Bush nor Cheney did this.

Article 7 of The Constitution says that religion among other things cannot be used to determine whether or not a person should be hired for a federal position.  When Bush nominated Harriett Myers, he said everyone should be happy, because she's a good christian who goes to church every week. 

We don't even need to get into the big issues.  Both of those are impeachable offenses.



Corydon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Reply #31 on: January 22, 2009, 12:27:00 PM
Obama has any number of reasons not to go after the Bush administration.  For one thing, in 230-odd years of American democracy, no administration has ever prosecuted the previous administration.  Breaking that tradition would open the door to some truly horrible politically-motivated prosecutions.  While you can make any number of good arguments that the Bush administration broke the law, it's not hard to imagine a new administration, bent on revenge or scoring political points, prosecuting a member of the last one for, say, lying about sex.  (No pun intended.)

I do like the idea of declassifying Bush-era documents, though I don't know how that works legally.  Lots of civil lawsuits directed at Bush and Cheney would be groovy, though I suspect this Supreme Court would probably invalidate most of them.  And I have a suspicion that, if enough of this stuff becomes public, the Obama team will have ways of addressing Bush-era abuses that would be more creative than anything we've discussed here.



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2658
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #32 on: January 22, 2009, 12:45:17 PM
Impeachment is really only a tool to try and get a corrupt individual out of office. Since said individual was on his way out anyway, no point.

And yeah, I can't agree with you Bdoomed.. methinks there was plenty of reasons to impeach the man.

But the "impeach Obama" before he does anything is just braindead hatemongering, along the lines of anything that comes from *rabid right wing polical pundit of your choice's* mouth. Its typical of a particular line of political thinking that involves spewing hatred first and completely eschewing any iota of rational, reasonable thought.



Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #33 on: January 22, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
I am making a plea.  The same plea I made 8 years ago, only the names have been changed.

Can we please just let Bush have a chance to step out of the limelight?  If he'll be a good ex-president and be quiet, can we move on?

Ok, I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion of him, but let's focus on the here and future instead of the past.



Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #34 on: January 22, 2009, 01:03:15 PM
Article 7 of The Constitution says that religion among other things cannot be used to determine whether or not a person should be hired for a federal position.  When Bush nominated Harriett Myers, he said everyone should be happy, because she's a good christian who goes to church every week. 

Miers was clearly a stalking-horse for... Roberts or Alito? I forget which one got nominated once she was withdrawn.

Just to play devil's advocate, I don't think it was necessarily unconstitutional to SAY Miers was a good Christian. Bush is a Christian and makes no bones about it, so in his opinion, that makes her a good choice. Unless he said "I picked her because she's a Christian" (and maybe he actually did; I don't remember that far back) he was just expressing an opinion.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #35 on: January 22, 2009, 01:07:11 PM
I am making a plea.  The same plea I made 8 years ago, only the names have been changed.

Can we please just let Bush have a chance to step out of the limelight?  If he'll be a good ex-president and be quiet, can we move on?

Ok, I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion of him, but let's focus on the here and future instead of the past.

Agreed.

I think Obama's best course of action is to -- to the best of his and the government's abilities -- not reference Bush and not say "I'm reversing Bush's policy on x". Just say "I'm changing x policy to y because I believe it is z." I don't remember Clinton saying anything terribly bad about Bush 41, nor Bush 43 saying anything terribly bad about Clinton. Maybe I'm wrong.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2658
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #36 on: January 22, 2009, 01:29:51 PM
He's a smart guy and pretty politically savvy. I'm pretty sure he will take the high road in that regard.



gelee

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
  • It's a missile, boy.
Reply #37 on: January 22, 2009, 01:45:08 PM
I don't know if it's OK to let 43 off the hook so easily.  I'm an old-school republican, but W has really shaken my faith in capitalism and the "small-government/states rights" agenda that used to be the foundation of the party platform.  I have a hard time seeing 43 as anything but a villain, and I voted for him in 2000.  Remember, Hitler thought he was doing great things for Germany.  My French tour guide insisted that Napoleon's conquests were, in fact, wars of liberation.  Good intentions count for very little, especially when pursued in a "ends justify the means" manner.
If we let him get off scott free, we set the precedent that the Prez can do whatever he bloody well likes, and constitution be damned.



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2658
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #38 on: January 22, 2009, 02:09:11 PM
Hehe, Godwinned!

There's seriously no point in dragging this through the muck. Our response to the 8 years of Presidential shenanigans was to elect someone who promised transparency in government and actually seems to already be taking an earnest stab at it (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/on-day-one-obama-demands-open-government).

A lot of things would likely be difficult to prove in court. We're talking an extended, expensive legal battle. That time and money is best served by fixing the country. 




stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3899
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #39 on: January 22, 2009, 02:23:06 PM
Hehe, Godwinned!

There's seriously no point in dragging this through the muck. Our response to the 8 years of Presidential shenanigans was to elect someone who promised transparency in government and actually seems to already be taking an earnest stab at it (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/on-day-one-obama-demands-open-government).

A lot of things would likely be difficult to prove in court. We're talking an extended, expensive legal battle. That time and money is best served by fixing the country. 


I'm of the opinion that it might help to "fix the country" by preventing further abuses of power, if a clear message were to be conveyed that an elected official cannot commit such abuses with impunity and expect to get away with it.  Making an example of the Cheney/Bush administration could be very productive toward this end.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #40 on: January 22, 2009, 02:31:22 PM
Is Hillary Clinton giving a stump speech?  I thought she was Secretary of State.



Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #41 on: January 22, 2009, 03:27:20 PM
Gelee and stePH, I don't mind people going after Bush and Cheney for the reasons you have listed.  You don't seem to have a personal vendetta.  You are concerned about the future of the Office.



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2930
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #42 on: January 22, 2009, 04:41:31 PM
Is Hillary Clinton giving a stump speech?  I thought she was Secretary of State.

I don't think you realize how much the State Department's career service personnel have felt marginalized in the Bush Admin. Having a Secretary of State that will push for the Department and a President that wants to run diplomacy through them and not the Pentagon means for a lot of them that they can finally do their jobs again.

It's traditional for the incoming SecState to give a speech to the department when they arrive.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #43 on: January 22, 2009, 04:45:04 PM
Is Hillary Clinton giving a stump speech?  I thought she was Secretary of State.

I don't think you realize how much the State Department's career service personnel have felt marginalized in the Bush Admin. Having a Secretary of State that will push for the Department and a President that wants to run diplomacy through them and not the Pentagon means for a lot of them that they can finally do their jobs again.

It's traditional for the incoming SecState to give a speech to the department when they arrive.

I'm used to the tradition of change of command speeches.  I was in the military, I understand them.  She started off fairly normal, then she turned on stump mode.  I was unaware of the marginalization of the employees, but this still seemed a bit over the top.  Thanks for pointing that out.



Alasdair5000

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1020
    • My blog
Reply #44 on: January 22, 2009, 05:01:10 PM
Incidentally everyone, could I just take a moment as a citizen of both the other side of the Atlantic AND the internet to congratulate you all on the nicest, most civil discussion of this I've seen in genre fandom?  Seriously, some of the bearpits out there scare the hell out of me and you're all rational and intellectual and polite and articulate and stuff.  You stay classy, EA forums.

...

You're all going to have an immense punch up the second I leave aren't you?



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2930
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #45 on: January 22, 2009, 05:05:11 PM
...

You're all going to have an immense punch up the second I leave aren't you?

*Walks in halfway through with a flamethrower, slowly, quietly, backs out*

I'm used to the tradition of change of command speeches.  I was in the military, I understand them.  She started off fairly normal, then she turned on stump mode.  I was unaware of the marginalization of the employees, but this still seemed a bit over the top.  Thanks for pointing that out.

She's a seasoned politician, any speech is going to acquire the tonalities of the stump speech because that's the kind of speech she's been giving for a decade.

The marginalization and politicization of career employees was at a lot of departments in the last administration, probably most egregiously in the Justice department.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 05:09:02 PM by Heradel »

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #46 on: January 22, 2009, 05:19:10 PM
Alasdair, I've been blasted in some other forums from both directions! 

President Obama took the Oath of Office again.  I've heard conspiracy idiots say he did this so he didn't have to take the true Oath on the Bible.  Yup, I'm not kidding. 




Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2658
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #47 on: January 22, 2009, 06:04:56 PM
Alasdair, I've been blasted in some other forums from both directions! 

President Obama took the Oath of Office again.  I've heard conspiracy idiots say he did this so he didn't have to take the true Oath on the Bible.  Yup, I'm not kidding. 



Let me guess, freepers?

(ugh. UGH. I wish humanity wasnt so inclined to rampant, raging idiocy)



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #48 on: January 22, 2009, 06:38:26 PM
I was unaware of the marginalization of the employees, but this still seemed a bit over the top.  Thanks for pointing that out.
The marginalization and politicization of career employees was at a lot of departments in the last administration, probably most egregiously in the Justice department.

Just after the John Ashcroft hospital incident the entire second and third tier of employees at the Justice Department threatened to resign en masse.  It scared the shit out of 43.



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2658
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #49 on: January 22, 2009, 07:53:22 PM
Huh. I hadn't heard about that. Reading up on it now, quite interesting.