[extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered?

[spike]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
...
> 
> When you returned you set aside your own suggestion and
> posted on this topic after the 22nd...

Yes you are right.  I know I have been all over the map
on this.  I apologize, I do not know what is the right
thing to do.  So I am now suggesting we continue with last
week's agreement: go ahead and post politically-oriented
stuff, keep it civil, keep it extropic.  

> I didn't know that you were away. You didn't say. The
> list had no moderator during that time apparently...

Ja I had to run out on short notice.  Did everything I
could to postpone the trip until after newtonmass, couldn't
get out of it.  We did fine without a moderator this week.  ExI-chat
went years without moderating anyone.  We should be able to
do that again without being offensive.

> I was trying to work out how to continue to talk with Hal to
> refine our bet without doing that, without posting in bad
> faith into a thread that was obviously going to be seen
> by some numb nuts as being about nothing more than
> party politics...

We see it as more than party politics Brett.  I have learned
a lot listening to the debate, for I am not an expert in
legal matters.  I was under the impression that the 
president takes an oath to uphold the US constitution,
not international law.  We do not vote for leaders of
any international body, and I know of no international
constitution.  I know there are international courts,
but I do not know of any international army that would
enforce its rulings. 


> 
> > ...  If I were
> > to buy into that bet, I would need to think for
> > some time to decide if I wanted to buy a yes for
> > 23 cents or a no for 77 cents.
> 
> My gripe with Americans is that there never is a time when
> they do take that time out and take stock and your elected
> officials are factoring that in now...

Ja, why is that a gripe?  How else would one appraise
the value of a wager, other than factoring everything
that impacts the outcome of the bet?

> They are factoring in,
> that you don't understand and they are factoring in that you
> don't care and they are using those things to undermine the
> freedoms that people enjoy overseas now and the ones
> that you enjoy at home later...

We care.  We vote for someone else.  Are there elections
coming up soon in Australia?  Vote for the guy that
opposes the current US administration.  If that doesn't
seem to be enough, campaign for the guy.  If that still
isn't enough, donate money to the campaign.  That's what
we do here.  

Last time it didn't seem worth donating either money or
time: Badnarek was hopeless, little chance of even
showing up on the map, the two front runners were the 
same guy in different suits.  What do you suggest?

Regarding impeachment of the current leader, I wouldn't 
estimate the chances any higher than Ideas Futures is
suggesting.  A US president cannot be impeached for
violating international law, only US law as far as I
know.  There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping
was against US law, depending on how the war powers act
is interpreted.  I am waiting for the courts to decide
that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be
found legal.

> I don't want to bet on just any old bet I want to bet
> on this particular thing because I want to bring a bunch
> of dopey American extropes attention to this particular
> problem...

You have done that, thanks.

> 
> If you are going to ignore the problem of  having a
> nation state run by Presidents that act outside the rule
> of law than it will, it must, inevitably get worse...

Ja I am hoping the libertarian party can produce a
viable candidate for president in 08.


> > Prime numbers are delightfully weird, but political
> > matters are completely incomprehensible.
> 
> They are only incomprehensible because you haven't
> tried...

With politics there are no underlying principles
analogous to mathematical theorems.  We have the
US constitution, which the leaders and the military
swear to uphold, but these are words.  Words are
subject to interpretation.


> And Spike your not trying is an abrogation of
> responsibilty...

I try.  I voted for the other guy in the past
election.  We didn't even show up in the noise.  To
be honest however, Badnarek didn't have all the
answers either.

Granted I didn't actually donate to
the libertarian party last time, and I agree
I probably should have.  It just seemed like
such a long shot.

With that in mind, we are now in a weird loop, for
anything good that happens in Iraq is an argument
for the invasion.  for instance, gts commented:

>I'm very critical of the invasion of Iraq, but I'm glad to see the Iraqis
voting in such large number. Bush got us into trouble but it looks like the
Iraqi people might bail us out.

Is this not a weird loop?  If the Iraqi people bail
us out of trouble by voting, then why did not they
start voting five years ago?  Why did they not write
a constitution, and elect the government that they 
have now?  If they get us out of trouble by voting
and the invasion gave them the opportunity to vote,
and the invasion got us into trouble, then they
would get us out of trouble by not voting, which
is what caused the trouble to start with.  If one 
holds to UN law as the ultimate authority, then the 
US-led invasion was illegitimate, consequently the
current Iraqi government is illegitimate, as is the 
act of voting in Iraq.  I notice the New York Times
and the local "news" paper avoid even talking about
the Iraqi elections.

For now I must admit that it is a paradox.

spike