NEWS: Democrats Might Slap The Shit Out Of Bush’s Wrist

They actually don't need 60 votes to defund the war. They only need to not vote on another funding bill. That would end all funding. Dems could then just say to Bush, "you have until March 2008 to get the soldiers out." It is the only way this will end. But it takes balls.

LOL

Actually he probably doing a couple of lines of blow, while trying to figure out where to fist fuck the Democrats next

Yeah......... that will just mean the troops will have to fight with less funding..... ie..... supplies/ vehicles/ armor....... Fuck That!

Okay, and whose fault would that be? If the will of the people and the will of the Congress is that the occupation of Mesopotamia should end, but the Executive elects to defy them, then that is on his shoulders.

Let us please try to keep in mind that he represents but one branch of the government and they all serve the people (or at least they are supposed to.)

Agreed .......but I think that as long as Bush is president nothing will change, I have to admit for being a dumb texas ranch-boy, the guy has alot of juice and no-one has been able to stop this crusade so far. I think were stuck until hes out of office. I feel sorry for whoever succeeds him and has to clean up after this mess..............

"Service is the epitome of self-control, and that's the line you crossed about 5 miles back. This is your tip."

This is more useful than censoring because you can write it on the back of a check when you have a bad waiter who doesn't refill the coffee.

Democrats have no balls! They are as much to blame for the horrors of the Bush administration than the Republicans.

When the Nazis came for the Jews and the "good Germans" did nothing, they were just as culpable. The Democrats are the "good Germans."

As far as I'm concerned, censure is a good thing. Whether or not it does anything directly at the moment, at least in the future people will look back and there will be an official recognition that this administration and president was inept at best. If only for the history books...

Incidentally, I think there's a date wrong in the original article. Unless there really was uninterrupted control by a single party for over a century, which would seem pretty strongly contrary to what I learned in history class.

Nope, you're wrong.

I wish congress would tell me that I was bad every time I did something illegal rather than actually uphold the law.

This is a decent point. I would hate it if people never knew what a terrible president he was. However, wouldn't it be even better if we could actually try all of these mother fuckers for their crimes rather than just let everyone know that they did a bad job.

I'm MOVING to Australia.

No, he's right. Andrew Jackson's censure was overturned in 1837, not 1937.

I was just teasing. I need to start being more obvious. I just thought it was obvious that a single party didn't have uninterrupted control of the government for over century. No?

Well, in my estimation it's kinda like saying, we would have tried all the fuckers (and we really really wanted to), but the fatalistically flawed Bush loyalists prevented us from doing so. Kinda like a murderer who gets off on a legal technicality: "well, we just wanted everyone to know the douche was a real bastard."