An impeachment is being pressed on Bush?
Didn't even know about that. What's it for? (Sorry, in a rush here and don't want to reread the past couple pages I missed.)

Check out CNN. Dennis Kucinich was attempting to impeach Bush for his general stupidity and other (criminal) decisions he's made.

RaidonMakoto wrote:

If its successful, we're looking at either Condoleeza Rice, Robert Byrd, or Nancy Pelosi replacing Bush for all of a month.

Wait, that part got me confused. Bush will be changed for one month only? Or will be changed in a month?

If an impeachment is successful, there's like only a month until the President Elect would step in and become president, as the Democrats won't start an impeachment until after the General Election in November. As such, there would need to be an acting president, who would be doing Bush's job until the President Elect comes in.

If its successful, we're looking at either Condoleeza Rice, Robert Byrd, or Nancy Pelosi replacing Bush for all of a month.

Wait, that part got me confused. Bush will be changed for one month only? Or will be changed in a month?

Bye bye, probably. And Obama will replace him?

If its successful, we're looking at either Condoleeza Rice, Robert Byrd, or Nancy Pelosi replacing Bush for all of a month.

Hm, I see.

So what will happen to Bush then? Bye bye?

I'm like to see Kucinich's impeachment proposal go through after the election.

So what will happen to Bush then? Bye bye?

So Obama was the right choice after all?

(Hey, I'm on the northern side of the US-CA border so I don't hear that much there.)

Just about any Democrat would have been good. See, gas prices are so high at the moment because President Bush and *bleep* Cheney are heavily invested in oil futures. The higher gas prices go, the better it is for Bush and Cheney, and as such, they aren't lifting a finger about high gas prices. Think about it for a second, why are gas companies reporting record profits if the price for gas is going up because of "increased oil consumption in China and India, Middle-Eastern wars, and scarcity of oil?" The truth is that's all bullsh*t. Hell, the demand for gas dropped last week, and as such, the price of a barrel of oil went down, but guess what? The price of gas went up. It only costs them about $2 to manufacture a gallon of gas, the other $2.50 is just gauge. Bush could stop this if he wanted to, but he isn't.

Barack Obama, however, is not invested in oil, and as such, has no interest in rising oil prices. This is why we're going to see huge prices this summer, and then a drastic reduction in prices come election time (in order to support McCain), and then (providing Obama wins) they'll shoot back up momentarily while Bush is a lame duck, and then gradually diminish back to $3 a gallon come January 20, 2009.

(Hey, I'm on the northern side of the US-CA border so I don't hear that much there.)

Well, right now we don't need to lose more money. The only thing that bothers me is that the vast majority of Americans don't care about anything but one issue. So if one canidate promises lower gas prices, they'll vote for them, not caring what they'll do without the extra money.

Actually, roughly a third of the country is concerned about our failing economy, as opposed to the sixth that is concerned with gas prices. Once the economy is fixed, gas prices will go down. Hell, if Barack Obama is elected, gas prices will go down, because gas companies don't want to f*ck with a president that actually cares.

Misogyny at its finest.

Sounds horrible.

Then she would lose to McCain because Obama's supporters would have most likely not support her. I know a couple of GROWN ADULTS who said that if Clinton won, they would leave the country.

I think its the other way around. Most Obama supporters would support Hilary for President, just because we can't have another four years of Bush spiritually carried out by McCain.

Misogyny at its finest.