Impeachment proceedings

I've heard and read a few items recently that claim California, Illinois and Vermont are taking action to move forward with impeachment of Georgie boy. Apparently, Congress has re-instated a set of laws laid out by Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson's rule or Jefferson's scarecrow) that allows a state to bring charges of impeachment from their state legislature. There are quite a few Google hits concerning the matter, but they are all very left leaning and hardly unbiased. So, I would like to pose a few questions. Do you support impeachment of Bush if it means that Cheney will inherit the presidency (I know, everyone thinks he's the pres already). California has included Cheney in it's impeachment and if that were to play out, who should then become the president? Do you feel that impeachment is a tool that should definately not be exercised and we should wait till '08 and let the voters decide then??

The voters are screwed in '08 since W's not going to be available anymore............

Hey !
Maybe Bush-Cheney can just swap seats.............

hell yes. impeach bush.....the job will kill cheney in no time!

I guess I could use a little history lesson here. When Nixson resigned, Agnew was right behind him. Did Agnew have the opportunity to appoint Ford as Vice and then leave office of was Ford appointed by the senate?? I'm pretty sure Ford was then able to appoint Rockefeller, right?

FTP - Agnew had resigned before Nixon, it was something to do with bribe money from New Jersey. So, when Nixon resigned, his sitting VP - Ford - became President.

Thanks, eddie

I don't know if impeachment would serve much purpose, but at the very least bush should be censured. There has to be a precedent set so future presidents know they just can't get away with this kind of crap. Thanks to our current set of congressional leaders, they know they can't have consensual oral sex in the Oval Office. I would think some of the issues today have a higher priority than that, but then I'm not a card-carrying neocon.

From what I've heard, the threat of Cheney being president is the only reason bush is still alive.

When the Dems win back the house and hopefully the senate real investigations will be conducted and I think impeachment will be the very least.
Personally I believe he should be tried for treason.

Don't worry about the money AuntyM, it will trickle down just like before..........been prooved.

Well, I guess we know better than to doubt the experts.......


Exxon will hopefully invest their money in ventures designed to make even more money, which creates jobs, which generates revenue for Uncle Sugar....who doles it out to those who can't or won't work.

More money for Exxon = More money for your socialist programs.

Everybody wins !

Someone needs to brush up on their corporate welfare knowledge before making the statements they have. More revenue for the oil companies = more money for the Government? Only if you mean the Bush family and his cronies. If you are talking about the Government supposedly representing the people then you probably ought to look into how much tax big oil pays vs the handouts it receives.

If you are saying that todays level of oil consumtion is the maximum we will ever use, then please elaborate...........

Never mind, my friend GOOGLE showed me........

I think PEAK OIL is a term describing a marketing stradegy, even though I read on the internet that it is an unstopable condition........

Carter claimed that peak oil occured during his administration, I'm not sure that's the case but we did have that nasty oil crisis in the seventies. From what I have read, back then the pumps could only draw so much of the oil from their wells, leaving many gallons in the reserve untouchable. Finally somebody discovered that you could pump water back into these wells and extract more oil out that way, separating the water out once is was it was freed from those pesky wells. Scientists have been able to calculate the amount of oil left in these depleted reserves by the percentage of oil versus water return. All of them agree, we are on short supply. By as sson as 2012, from some sources in the peak oil trade (meaning macro-economics people that study specifically oil as a market) we could be consuming more oil than we are able to produce. This doesn't mean all of the oil will be spent, but at the current rate of consumption, with other markets like India and China ramping up, we do not have the capacity to satisfyh everyone's needs. Hence our excursion in Afghanistan, Iraq, headed to Iran, lookin real mean and giving the ugly eye to Chavez (democratically elected dictator) and are completely embarassed by Brazil and Greenland. Oh, and let's not forget at how pissed we are with China, who brokered a deal behind our backs with Saudis to take 13% more oil from "our" share in trade for arms and technology.

Back to the whole impeachment thing. I realise that impeachment before the dems take control back, unless they fall flat on their face, doesn't seem like much, but I think some people may be afraid that if we wait too long we will have already entered into a war with Iran. This admin is already going through almost the same exact motions that they danced through before we hit Iraq, under the same pretenses and circumstances, batter up, strike two.

I read the definition of Peak Oil, and a nice long article with those details included, I'm saying the whole thing is crap........

They predicted when they would have the oil in the ground all divied up, not when it was running out........


Umbrella salesmen anouncing the sky is falling....except they do have something we want/need.

Oil is finite, your logic is crap.

Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I'm guessing English was a more difficult subject for you in school.

Exxon is the guy who invented the marketing/scare tactic called Peak Oil.........what could be better than making more money and pumping less oil ?


All I have to base the idea of waning supplies on is the word of the guy who makes money when the price goes up, could there be a more suspicious messenger ?

Maybe Walmart will start drilling and bring the price down.

Call me astute if you will, one article on Peak Oil speaks volumes......


Next...

That's funny, reading comprehension again, I'm not sure where you got that. Hubbert was the guy that came up with Hubbert's Peak (commonly known as peak oil) which was a calculation used to determine the peak and decline of a well or a region or the world, sometime back before you were born. He was a geophysicist from Shell.
(psst, not Shell's not Exxon). Chevron also recognozes that their is a peak oil problem. Supply and demand, why do you think gas is 3 bucks a allon?

I think we all know about supply and demand, now let's ponder assumed (declared)supply and demand...

I not only comprehend what I read, I can also see that it is a hoax spawned by those who could get even wealthier/more powerfull if enough sheeple believe it.....

So which is it AuntyM, is the world going to come to an end because we ran out of oil (Peak Oil), or is the world going to come to an end because we have too much oil (Global Warming) ?


Hmmm, looks like a couple of stories about the sky falling, which team are you on ?

You know what, Org, you are absolutley correct. The world has an unlimited supply of oil. When we start running out of dead dinosaurs in the ground to pump out the world magically reabsorbs the carbon deposits in our atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and reconstitues them into oil miles under the ground again. You are a genius, How could any one have ever possibly have beleived that there is only a limited quantity of abything? It just goes on forever indefinately without end??

I have never said there was no end to our oil supplies, just that I can not take the word of business people without corroborating evidence........and not evidence they had their puppets provide either.

"I read the definition of Peak Oil, and a nice long article with those details included, I'm saying the whole thing is crap"

uhhh...hmmmm...??

The definition of peak oil is that eventually we are consuming the second half of a finite amount of oil. So did you not understand or "comprehend" the definition of peak oil was when you made that statement??

I completely understand the definition of Peak Oil, and I also understand that there are people who say we are at Peak Oil, and doom is lurking...


I'm saying that their story about production tapering off at a predictable level is PURE CRAP, same for the Bell Curve story.........Let alone the crystal clear images of the future 10 years ahead of time......


Sure there will be a time when oil is harder to get, therefore less available, but technology changes, and so do estimates of the volume of oil in the ground.............probably for more than one reason too.

Hubbert's Peak was originally used to calculate the taper affect of single wells as well as regional wells. His formula has been used longer than you have been on the earth to predict the outputs of wells locally and regionally. It is a fundamental tool for geophysicists. It's like Ohm's Law, it;s the metric that allows tem to make money and stay profitable.

Shades of some of the Science Fiction topics the authors used to write about. Energy Wars. Society is hooked on cheap energy, obviously it won't stay cheap, and as the third world discovers a need for more the price will soar to unbelievable levels. The nation or group of nations that are first on the bandwagon to implement renewable sources will have a long term advantage. Reactors, hydrogen fuel cells, biodesel, Ethanol, wind and wave tapped sources will all have to be explored along with geo-thermal possibilities. Mammoth Mountain and St Helens, to mention a couple, sit on pools of molten magma. Pump in water harvest steam. Sounds easy, obviously not.

Yeah I know. Some of the Green Weeny concerns are valid, some are not. Some of them need an introduction to Round Up.
Nuclear energy is too good to pass up. If, I say If, reactor technology was approached in the manner of space program in the early years there would not be a problem. What makes nuclear energy scary is the lo bid process. I wonder how many astronauts lives were sacrificed to the lo bid demon. Originally Nasa did what it took to get the job done. No political mile posts to tilt, no media circus to entertain. Just get the job done. Reactors could be operated in the same manner. I can hear the screams now. Halliburton doesn't deserve that contract. etc etc Give it to Wal-Mart. The Chinese will do it cheaper. Aaagh