BS: Vote to Impeach Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

I don't think the discussion is idiotic. I don't think Ramsey Clark is an idiot, but a very intelligent, articulate activist.

But I don't believe the "impeach Bush" tactic is an effective one.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

Gojira- you strike me as one angry person. I simply suggested that you make your point based on logic rather than personal insults. Every post I've read with your moniker attached has included smoking insults and nasty comments.
As for my comments vis-a-vis Clinton? They were pretty bland- I have 3 kids in the house and I didn't want them to hear too much about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:48 PM

I'm sure your three kids, if they've been in school for any amount of time, have already heard something about fellatio. That being the case, I'm also certain that they could teach you a thing or two about the topic . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:50 PM

Sorry to disappoint yet again, Gojira, but I homeschool them.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:01 PM

Believe me, Beccy, from all that I've seen you say, you aren't important enough to disappoint me . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Giddyupgo
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:41 PM

Gojira:

Your vocabulary detracts from your credability. Suppose you restate your opinions in a mature context.

After that you can tell us what you think should be done to eliminate terrorism and promote world peace.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:44 PM

Well, I guess that clinches it. Gojira is just rude. Thanks for the insults. I think you're either one of those people who confuses meanness with humour or you're a very lonely person. Either way, I'll just continue my discussions with those fabulous Mudcatters who aren't into personal invectives.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Tweed
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:45 PM

That's enough of that. Gettin' a little too far out there.
Yerz,
Tweed

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:47 PM

Agreed. Gojira, you need to lay off the personal insults. It just drags the discussion into the sewers.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM

I'm so chastised . . .
   You're right. I should be ashamed of myself: I really shouldn't match wits with the witless - it isn't fair to intellectually incapacitated people like Beccy and Old Guy.
   But, I will add this: it seems that most of the people who are offended by my acerbic attacks on Boy George are his warmongering supporters. Why don't you people, who don't give a damn how many Iraqis this country is going to murder, climb back in the sewer with Bush and his right-wing sycophants . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 03:28 PM

Gojira, I'm glad you said 'most' because there are some of us who are not 'warmongering supporters' who think your tactics and your very mindset are offensive; worse yet, they are counterproductive. Passion is fine, I think, attack is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 03:35 PM

Hmmm ! From the East Side of the Pond doesn't Impeachment require "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" ??

If misuse of Presidential Authority is impeachable then FDR could have been impeached - after all what was the USS Ruben James actively doing when she was sunk ?? And most of Europe is happy to honour the dead of the Ruben James.

There may well be crimes etc. in the history of the Shrub, his involvement in the S&L scandels come to mind - But grounds for impeachment ???.

No - organise and vote him out in 2004.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,oldguy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 03:36 PM

Gojira:

It is just that nobody pays any attention to someone who resorts to name calling, bad language and personal insults. People have to seem respectable in order to be respected.

Imagine your words coming out of the mouth of someone you respect.

What have you got to say that is constructive and not a personal attack on someone?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 03:47 PM

Sorry, Ebbie, but I find Bush and his supporters offensive - offensive like a pile of dog feces at a debutante ball. Like their cowardly little idol, who was sniffing coke when other people, who couldn't get a draft deferment, were dying in Vietnam, the right-wingers now are satisfied to sit at home and send someone else off to kill, and die . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 03:53 PM

Old Guy: I apologize for using bad language like "Bush," "Conservative," Republican," "Right-wing . . ." Ooops, there I go again . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: DougR
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 03:59 PM

Gojira: I don't want you to think that Ebbie, Beccy, and Old Guy are the only ones on this forum that find your posts offensive. If you want to be taken seriously, and have us consider your ideas seriously, cut out the crap. Attacking fellow Mudcatters is not the way to do it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 04:00 PM

If you can't take the heat . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

Gojira:

It the heat remark was directed at me, I am taking the heat very well and I have responded to every question I have seen.

You have not answered a single question that I am aware of and continue with personal attacks, insults and nothing constructive.

What do you propose to eliminate the threat of terrorisim and ensure world peace?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 04:25 PM

I've responded to your questions, Old Guy, but you simply don't like my answers. Sorry . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:16 PM

Gojira:

I think I have all of your postings gathered together here.

Which one was an answer to a question posed buy anybody in this thread? What do the three periods mean?

-----------------------------------------------------
To hell with impeachment: the little pseudo-messiah should be hauled up in front of the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague. Too bad that he doesn't probably know where The Hague is, though . . .

Obviously some people find fellatio in the Oval Office (and granted, lying about it) to be more egregious than the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians . . .

"Dick" Cheney is already in the driver's seat - with Boy George comfortably ensconced on his lap, with a huge grin on his face . . .
Here's an even more disgusting image: Boy George is Dick Cheney's hand puppet - sort of like Lambchop . . .
Yeah: like Karl Rove, "God's man in the White House." Wayne Madsen calls him America's Joseph Goebbels . . .
A good, but scary book is "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential," by James C. Moore and Wayne Slater. Talk about the power behind the outhouse throne . . .
Thanks for the link. The Suskind article was very interesting. It reminds me that Hitler loved little children, and puppy dogs, too - as long as they were good, Aryan kinder, and presumably, good Aryan hunde, as well . . .
Did you know it has been made illegal to hold marches near the UN Headquarters in New York . . . ?
   "Citing 'this time of heightened security,' a federal judge ruled yesterday that the city did not violate the First Amendment when it banned anti-war demonstrators from marching near the United Nations on Feb. 15.
U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones said the demonstrators' First Amendment rights were not violated by the city's decision to confine the protest to a plaza near the U.N. complex. She said the city's need to protect the public outweighs the right of demonstrators to proceed with plans to march past the U.N. or to march at all.
'While the court recognizes the distinct importance of marching, the city's restriction on marching is not a restriction on pure speech, but rather a restriction on the manner in which plaintiff may communicate its message,' Jones wrote . . ."
   Well, you may want to surrender your freedoms for a few whiffs of illusory security, but the rest of us don't . . .

Giddyup: if you and your idol Boy George are so right, why don't you both go over to Iraq, and remove Saddam Hussein yourselves, or are you like that cowardly little turd in the White House: a person who'd rather have someone else do the killing and dying for you . . .

Well, "GUEST,johnm," you must be an idiot, because you've just contributed to this idiotic discussion . . .


Beccy: I suppose Boy George calling Vladimir Putin "Pootie-Poo" is the type of maturity that we should all look up to. And while we're at it, I wonder what type of mature comments you had to utter concerning Bubba's little tryst in the Oval Office a few years ago . . .

I'm sure your three kids, if they've been in school for any amount of time, have already heard something about fellatio. That being the case, I'm also certain that they could teach you a thing or two about the topic . . .

Believe me, Beccy, from all that I've seen you say, you aren't important enough to disappoint me . . .

'm so chastised . . .
   You're right. I should be ashamed of myself: I really shouldn't match wits with the witless - it isn't fair to intellectually incapacitated people like Beccy and Old Guy.
   But, I will add this: it seems that most of the people who are offended by my acerbic attacks on Boy George are his warmongering supporters. Why don't you people, who don't give a damn how many Iraqis this country is going to murder, climb back in the sewer with Bush and his right-wing sycophants . . .

Sorry, Ebbie, but I find Bush and his supporters offensive - offensive like a pile of dog feces at a debutante ball. Like their cowardly little idol, who was sniffing coke when other people, who couldn't get a draft deferment, were dying in Vietnam, the right-wingers now are satisfied to sit at home and send someone else off to kill, and die . . .

Old Guy: I apologize for using bad language like "Bush," "Conservative," Republican," "Right-wing . . ." Ooops, there I go again . . .
If you can't take the heat . . .

I've responded to your questions, Old Guy, but you simply don't like my answers. Sorry . . .
-----------------------

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM

I think the time has come to discus the objectivity and record of "Gojira".

Checking back on the records I find that in his brief membership of the Mudcat "G" has posted 81 times.

None of those posts are on music threads. Folk and Blue are the core activities of the Mudcat

"G" first appears as a member on the 6th December 02. Between the 6th and 9th he posted 18 times.

He next appears on the 12 January 03 with 5 posts.

20th January 1 post

On the 16th February "G" stated posting again. Some 59 posts that I can find to date 1600 hrs GMT 18th February.

"G" posts are charecteristic in thier vituperation of all those who disagree with him, interspersed with obscenity.

Conclusion

"G" is a North American Male, poorley educated, and suffering from an inferiority complex, or 'Touretts Synadrom' (SP?)

"G"'s posts seem to come in bursts, posibly indicating "G" has escaped from his medical supervisors, and gained access to a computer.

"G" does not appear to be a physical threat to the safety of any other Mudcatters, or indeed any the Government of the United States, or the President.

Mudcatters should treat his posts with the distain that they deserve, and trust that his medical supervisors will gain control and find a cure for him.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 01:25 PM

I think he is a troll, a driveby shooter.

At one time he said: "America rescued my country twice in the last century--something we will never forget. Today we stand side by side in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. France is the largest contributor of troops to NATO operations. Our friendship is a treasure, and it must be maintained, protected, enhanced."

Then he goes off on a tangent.

I think he just gets his recreation this way so if we ignore him he won't have any fun.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: TIA
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 01:36 PM

Careful now, we've been hearing a lot from people who have never posted in a music thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 03:33 PM

I read Ramsey Clark's articles. He makes many accusations, but unless I just outright missed it, presents no actual evidence to support these accusations. He says that the present administration has authorized and condoned assassinations, but doesn't say who has been assassinated, when the assassinations were authorized, etc., etc.

Naturally, those of you who don't like the President are keen to jump on the bandwagon without asking yourself why. It just seems like the thing to to, so you do it.

Say that Bush does nothing. Say that next year, Hussein drops a load of smallpox on us. Then you'll all be wanting to know why he didn't do anything. But you are the same people who think the President should be held to a higher standard as long as it doesn't involve blow jobs and interns.

I find it extremely interesting, that no one, at least not that I have seen here, has mentioned the torture reports of Amnesty International. If they are true, then Saddam Hussein has already killed and maimed many of his own people, and others. If you are for human rights, do you not believe he should be punished? Is it okay for him to gouge out eyes and electrocute genitals? Is it okay for his goons to rape a man's mother while he is forced to watch?

Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 04:28 PM

Dear C.A.,

To the best of my knowledge, nobody who regularly contributes to this forum has ever defended Saddam Hussein. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the U.S., outside of a very small group of Islamist extremists, who would defend Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a cruel, tyrannical dictator whose only concern is the brute power that he wields. He has absolutely no concern for human rights or human decency. He deserves to be removed from power. If there were some way for Mr. Bush to target Saddam, specifically, I'd be glad to help the man push the button.

The issue is strictly the method which is being contemplated for removing Saddam from power. That method, as we all know, is total war. It is impossible to prosecute a war against just the leadership of a country. By its very nature, war is waged against the country's entire population.   Iraqi men, women and children who may well despise Saddam more than any American does will become unwitting enemies and, hence, casualties just by virtue of where they were born.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 04:36 PM

So Bruce? Best to leave the tyrant alone to continue his oppression of those people you expess so much sympathy for? I suppose one could have made the same arguments about Hitler, Mussolini and Hirihito during WW2.

They had to be replaced, but there was no way to just attack the regimes then either.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 04:59 PM

It seems to me that the only way to target JUST the leader, is by assassination, because this particular leader isn't going to just dry up and blow away.

As we have an executive order that prevents assassinations of heads of state, perhaps the way to go about it is to have him removed as a head of state, then he would be fair game.

It is unfortunate, however, that there are some in this world who will not capitulate to negotiation, reason, or pleasant conversation. Those sorts of people understand nothing but violence, because they live violent lives.

Perhaps a round of Celebrity Boxing could decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: TIA
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 05:53 PM

Bruce said "To the best of my knowledge, nobody who regularly contributes to this forum has ever defended Saddam Hussein."

For DougR's benefit, I will add (with full credit to Bruce)...To the best of my knowledge, nobody who regularly contributes to this forum has ever defended leaving Saddam Hussein alone.

Come on all you war supporters (notice - I hate the derogatory phrase "war monger" as much as I hate "peacenik"), is the ONLY alternative to all-out war cuddleing up lovey-dovey with Saddam? If you think it is, you've admitted that you are outsmarted. I noticed in grade school that the one who threw the first punch often did it because they weren't clever enough to come up with any other move.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 06:09 PM

Jeez guys! The Mob's been gettin' rid of cats just as mean as Saddam for years with hardly an innocent bystander being hurt. You do it with $$$$ MONEY $$$$. Just offer a multi-million dollar reward for the fucker's head! That's not even assassination 'cause it's one of them pulling the trigger! Certainly none of us delude ourselves that Saddam's generals, ministers etc. are that loyal. If somebody close to Saddam can't be bought I'll eat my banjo.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 06:14 PM

If a cook in the White House reported that he had sighted a cockroach, Bush would want to get rid of it by blowing up the entire kitchen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 06:53 PM

As for the last assasination by the US, if I am not mistaken, was President Diem of South Vietmen and well, history does not bode well that assasination changes the events that follow.

But back to the impeachment discussion. The first major PR push for an attack on Iraq with Condi Rice saying somehting along the lines of, "When are we going to believe that Saddam is a threat? When we're looking at the mushroom cloud over us?" Now we all pretty much agree that there was a little more than puffery involved in statement, especially since we now learn that Iraq's missles are limited to around 100 miles.

But, unlike the "Mushroom Cloud Lie", the Bush administration is quite busy on trashing the 1st and 5th Ammendments and taking the country to war without a Congressional declaration. Oh yeah, so have others, you say. They should have been impeached too.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM

The idea of a regime change in Iraq was first proposed by Paul Wolfowitz.

There have been several wars in which America has not made a declaration of war.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 01:29 PM

Yes, "There have been several wars in which America has not made a declaration of war," and some of us have a problem with that fact. Our Constitution, places the burden of declaring war upon Congress for a very good reason: to insure, insofar as possible, that war is the will of the People, not the whim of an overzealous Executive. Some of us folks that have been hung with the tag "liberal" are actually so conservative in our thinking that we believe that if a war must be fought, a Declaration Of War should be issued by those who represent us most directly - our Congressmen - just as The Constitution provides.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:09 PM

I thought Congress voted and gave Bush the authority to do whatever he thought was necessary.

They did the same thing right after 9/11 when congress was mostly Democratic but some people said that was not good enough so it was voted on again in November.

There was also the Patriot's act that gave the administration powers to do the things that are now being declared unconstitutional. I think every single change is vital to the safety of the population as a whole and it does not bother me a bit.

If congress is not following the will of the people we should elect some different people. I voted for the people I want to represent me. I am satisfied with the results. I haven't heard other people say who they voted for in this forum.

There were some people that said we can't do anything with out a UN resolution. A resolution was passed unanimously. Even Syria voted for it.

How many votes and resolutions do we need to satisfy the dissenters? I am satisfied. I have been satisfied 3 times.

Old Guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Troll
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:36 AM

Bruce, the problem with taking out just Saddam is that he knows that the possibility exists and he has had years to prepare for any attempts, According to experts , he has at least three body doubles, he never sleeps in the same place twice, he takes his meals at od times and places and uses food tasters, his bodyguards are near him at ALL times and, according to one bodyguard who defected, he has pistols "all over his body".
He is a survivor and he has killed members of his own family whom he thought were dangerous. Right now, members of his advisory staff are under "house arrest". One of them is his son's father-in-law. Remember, just 'cause you're paraniod doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: DougR
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:33 AM

Old Guy: I find it interesting that no one is addressing your last message. Facts are not what keeps these discussions going you know.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:52 AM

I don't understand why so many people here just keep on bellyaching about what is going on like Chicken Little. They keep repeating the same mantra about 3000 explosive, destructive bombs aimed directly at millions of innocent victims. They pay no attention to the types of bombs, how they are being deployed or what the strategy is. There are already millions of innocent victims that the war would help and I don't think they are the target of the military.

Everybody's quality of life gets better every day here in the USA. Even for the downtrodden I think their quality of life is not too good but it is getting better. How is the quality of life in Iraq and NK? These bellyachers don't consider how things are going down hill for others in the world. When they tear down Bush they are causing despair to the people that are under a dictatorship. They can't express that despair.

I have seen posters held by people in other parts of the world saying "Help us Bush". A news man in Baghdad was eating by himself in a restaurant and someone whispered to him behind his back "good luck America". These are not of the magnitude of millions marching but these people cannot express their feelings and these small glimpses tell me that the administration is doing good and not evil. They are giving hope to people in bad situations that have no other way to get out.

Then again you can always listen to the opinion of people that escaped from Iraq. I have never heard of anybody that escaped from America; spill the beans about how bad things really are there.

Wars have been fought, people died and people were liberated. Would we be living in Utopia if there were never any wars?

If assholes like Saddam and Kim Jung IL get their way, what does that do for the quality of life 5 or 10 years from now? The citizens of those two countries will still be under tyranny and it will be many times harder to do anything about it. Plus other dictators will follow the lead.

I just don't see any logical way that war can be avoided or any reason to make it harder on the alliance to win the war.

All this stuff about inspections working is Déjà vu all over again. If we depend on inspections, in 10 years we will be right where we are now but in a much weaker position to disarm Iraq and cause a change of regime.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:14 AM

Old Guy
"Then again you can always listen to the opinion of people that escaped from Iraq".

The trouble is, just like any other group of people, the people who have escaped from Iraq have different views from eachother. Some are from seperatist parties and have their own agenda for war on Iraq. Others were on the the peace march in London. One of them wrote this.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 10:56 AM

Bagpuss:

Go down to the bottom of that page and click where it says Voices on Iraq

Read our collection of 29 exclusive interviews

Then after reading all 29, add up the yeas and nays and tell me the score.

An exile is different from an escapee. Some people, even escapees, have family there that will be tortured and / or executed if they speak negatively, Some can also be forced to speak positively to keep harm from coming to their family.

Have you read about the lists of relatives that the "minders" flourish around a scientist when they are asked for a private interview by the inspectors?

The coercion, lies and propaganda by the Saddam regime could not be more obvious.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM

Oldguy, my point wasn't about the numbers on each side, but merely that by your words you were implying that all Iraqi exiles would be pro the war - i merely cited example of many that were against it. Your point about escapees still being frightened (due to fears for their family) to speak out doesn't really seem to apply to the examples I gave. The guy who wrote the article wasn't exactly glowing with praise for Saddam. And I hardly think Saddam has a list of everyone who left and is checking off those who did and did not attend marches...

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:46 AM

Here's an intersting analysis by Huffington on what makes one of your unelected pseudoheros, Dick Cheney, tick:

The Bottom Line On Iraq: It's The Bottom Line.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:48 AM

Old Guy, I read the 11 pieces actually written by Iraqis, and I only counted 4 who were for the war. Did you read the same ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Peg
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:53 PM

DougR wrote:

Old Guy: I find it interesting that no one is addressing your last message. Facts are not what keeps these discussions going you know.

DougR

First off, *I* find it interesting that someone who NEVER backs ups his claims with anything factual should be appearing to champion this trait in another. However, that's neither here nor there since the attribution of "facts" to the post by Oldguy is wrongly applied...

Let's look at it:


Old Guy wrote:


I thought Congress voted and gave Bush the authority to do whatever he thought was necessary.
--this is such a vague, generalized statement that it is hard to know where to begin. In he good old days of this nation, the approval of Congress was needed to decalre war. This law has been eroded steadily since the days of Bush Sr.'s decision to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
"Whatever he thinks necessary" is stunningly vague and simplistic. And simply not true.



They did the same thing right after 9/11 when congress was mostly Democratic but some people said that was not good enough so it was voted on again in November.
--there was a great deal of dissension post-9-11 regarding the need for increased "security" measures. The government has decided to go utterly against public opinion on this, much as they are in this newest war effort in Iraq. Don't make it sound like a landslide. The significant bit of information you're leaving out is that the "new" laws passed which are destroying constitutionally-protected rights to privacy and freedom of speech and protection from unwarranted search and seizure (in other words, the First and Fourth Amendments) were drafted and in place WELL BEFORE 9-11; how on earth could such lengthy and complex documents be composed so quickly? Answer: they weren't. These attempts to turn the USA into a police state have been on the books for some time, waiting for just the right sort of biblically-brainwashed puppet to implement them...



There was also the Patriot's act that gave the administration powers to do the things that are now being declared unconstitutional. I think every single change is vital to the safety of the population as a whole and it does not bother me a bit.
--the word "gave" is problematic here. Makes it seem like power was granted and everyone was somehow in favor. No one I know of approved this plan. Did you vote on it? I thought not. Again, this was a document drafted long before Bush's arrival in the White House and that should be obvious to anyone who has read it. Its sole purpose is to eliminate political dissent and activism and to allow the federal government to seize a tyrannical hold upon its populace. Using a silly jingoistic name like "patriot" for such a document does not camouflage the inherent void of Democratic spirit at its core. But it sure seems to help lull your average American (who is these days little more than a bloated, apathetic consumer who has no problem with the fact that their own government is polluting their own water systems, sabotaging their own Social Security, genitically modifying their food supply and blithely sitting back while our systems of health care, education and social service are irreparably shattered) into thinking good old Uncle Sam is looking out for them. Yessirree, my backyard and my wallet look just fine. Except unemployment keeps rising, the oil ain't gonna last forever, and the high rates of cancer in this country are directly attributable to careless disposal of toxic waste and chemically-laden foodstuffs, home furnishings and building materials.

America was founded by people who wanted freedom from tyrannical government. The Patriot Act will insure each and every American will be subjected to government monitoring of their choice of reading material, to name but one insidious permutation of this "new" set of laws. Now we are subjected to the greedy and misanthropic whims of a jaded band of corporate-controlled Fascists. The Patriot Act makes McCarthyism look like a damn ladies' garden party.


If congress is not following the will of the people we should elect some different people. I voted for the people I want to represent me. I am satisfied with the results. I haven't heard other people say who they voted for in this forum.
--I think all of us are well aware by now that our votes don't actually count for much in this country...our president didn't even win the election...so much for democracy. But lest that also be seen as an oversimplification, may I remind you that elected seats in Congress are not up for turnover as often as most other offices...



There were some people that said we can't do anything with out a UN resolution. A resolution was passed unanimously. Even Syria voted for it.
--You're not being very clear. What UN resolution, precisely, are you talking about? And at what point did our president appear to give two shits about what the UN thought? He and his administration are stupidly challenging two of our long-time European allies. This guy's understanding and implementation of foreign policy is in his ass.




How many votes and resolutions do we need to satisfy the dissenters? I am satisfied. I have been satisfied 3 times.
--I hope you're satisfied when all these horrid chickens come home to roost.



Old Guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,old guy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 04:22 PM

Bagpuss:
I could not tell if one of the 11 were for or against. I couldn't tell if one of the remaining 10 was Iraqi or if he was for or against. Of the remaining 9, I counted 5 as for and 4 as against. Two of the fors are subject to interpretation. You will interpret them as being against and I will interpret them as being for so we are at a stalemate. It did seem to me that the ones that left Iraq a long time ago when conditions were good, were against war more than the ones that left recently when conditions are bad.

I think to be objective, the for or against war numbers should be taken from people that had to escape and not people that left when leaving was possible.

My original statement was to ask the people that escaped if they are for or against war.


Yasser Alaskary Iraqi. For
Hamid Ali Alkifaey Iraqi. For
Salah Awad left Iraq in 1979. For (I think)
Soran Hamarash in Iraq until 1991. For
Jabbar Hasan Cant tell it he is Iraqi, For or against.
Dr Salih Ibrahim left Basra in 1981. against
Amani Iraqi refugee. against
Nuri Jacob left Iraq about 23 years ago. against
Nadia Mahmoud Iraqi dissident against
Sayyid Muhammed Musilmeen left Iraq. For (I think)
Maysoon Pachachi spent part of childhood in Iraq. Can't tell if For or against.

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:46 PM

Peg:

I am sorry if I did not make my statements in the context that suits you. If "giving" is not exactly the same as passing, I don't think it implies that there was anything other than the votes were adequate to pass the bill. The meaning was that the bill that was passed by congress "gave" him the authority.

The UN resolution referred to is 1441. Does this change what I said?

People bitch and moan about the constitution getting trashed. It reminds me of the rantings of those Militia Men extremists that spawned Tim McVeigh.

Then there is a group of demonstrators that want to take all the guns away regardless of what the Constitution says.

I don't see it. For example: now the CIA or FBI can go into a public meeting to see if there is any intelligence about terrorist activities to be gained there, whereas they were previously blocked by some bill passed some time ago.

That makes good sense to me.

I am not sitting here cowering in fear of the black helicopters. If the FBI or CIA want to scrutinize me, I don't care. Let them read my mail, look in my garbage, listen to my phone calls, whatever. I am not doing anything wrong so I don't have anything to worry about.

The onlything that worries me is the possibility of a terrorist attack. The government is trying its best to prevent that and at the same time they are being criticized by protestors.

Let the chickens come home to roost and let the voting begin in Iraq.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 06:03 PM

Peg:

"And at what point did our president appear to give two shits about what the UN thought?"

When he sends Colin Powell there and when he goes himself. Where is Saddam at the UN meetings?

"He and his administration are stupidly challenging two of our long-time European allies. This guy's understanding and implementation of foreign policy is in his ass."

What is all this I hear from the American public about boycotting French products? Renaming french frys to liberty fries? George Bush did not think that up. Maybe he should revoke people's freedom of speech and tell them to shut up and quit picking on France.

Why are your speech patterns so annaly oriented?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Peg
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 06:50 PM

Peg:

"And at what point did our president appear to give two shits about what the UN thought?"

When he sends Colin Powell there and when he goes himself. Where is Saddam at the UN meetings?
--he's not the one declaring war and threatening to attack the U.S....

"He and his administration are stupidly challenging two of our long-time European allies. This guy's understanding and implementation of foreign policy is in his ass."

What is all this I hear from the American public about boycotting French products? Renaming french frys to liberty fries? George Bush did not think that up.
--perhaps he could not spell "liberty."

Maybe he should revoke people's freedom of speech and tell them to shut up and quit picking on France.
--again, this vast oversimplification and overgeneralization...who precisely is the "American public?" Do you really think every single American thinks and speaks the same way? That is just stupid.


Why are your speech patterns so annaly oriented?
--perhaps the word you seek is "anally."



People bitch and moan about the constitution getting trashed. It reminds me of the rantings of those Militia Men extremists that spawned Tim McVeigh.
--I really don't see the leap of logic you're trying to make here...


Then there is a group of demonstrators that want to take all the guns away regardless of what the Constitution says.
--the second amendment was written in the days of the slow-loading musket. Surely our forefathers did not foresee a day when schoolchildren would bring 9mm handguns and semi-automatic weapons to school...
taking all the guns away from schoolchildren sounds like a fine idea to me.

I don't see it. For example: now the CIA or FBI can go into a public meeting to see if there is any intelligence about terrorist activities to be gained there, whereas they were previously blocked by some bill passed some time ago.

That makes good sense to me.
--then you're about as blind and gullible as I suspected.

I am not sitting here cowering in fear of the black helicopters. If the FBI or CIA want to scrutinize me, I don't care. Let them read my mail, look in my garbage, listen to my phone calls, whatever. I am not doing anything wrong so I don't have anything to worry about.
--oh, I see, because there is absolutely no possibility whatsoveer that they might make a mistake about you or your loved ones?


The onlything that worries me is the possibility of a terrorist attack. The government is trying its best to prevent that and at the same time they are being criticized by protestors.
--the protestors are protesing a needless war in Iraq. Explain, please, what connection this immanent attack upon Iraq has to do with "preventing terrorism?" Attacking a bunch of innocent civilians with bombs has nothing whatsoever to do with "preventing terrorism."


Let the chickens come home to roost and let the voting begin in Iraq.
--I'd lay in a lot of bottled water if I were you.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:04 PM

Peg:

Peg:

"He's not the one declaring war and threatening to attack the U.S"

I already knew that, but if he gives two bowel movements about the UN why isn't he there? Or do only people that are declaring war (or being sued for not declaring war) have to show up? Maybe the ones violating 16 or so UN resolutions do not have to show up and the ones seeking to enforce the 16 resolutions need to show up.

"perhaps he could not spell "liberty."
We have him submit to a spelling test immediately to prove or disprove your point.

"again, this vast oversimplification and overgeneralization...who precisely is the "American public?"

People other than the government. Some things are simple.

"Do you really think every single American thinks and speaks the same way?"

Nope. Just look at the difference between you and me.

"That is just stupid."

I haven't called you any names. It would be disrespectful.

" --perhaps the word you seek is "anally."

Yes. The word I sought was anally.

"I really don't see the leap of logic you're trying to make here"

Seek some help in the logic department.

"the second amendment was written in the days of the slow-loading musket."

Fairly common knowledge. They even had pistols that could be concealed on ones person.

"Surely our forefathers did not foresee a day when schoolchildren would bring 9mm handguns and semi-automatic weapons to school"

I guess you think they were stupid like me.

"taking all the guns away from school children sounds like a fine idea to me."

Good. It would be even better to have the parents keep them away from their kids. What I was referring to is the outlawing of guns and I think you knew that.

"then you're about as blind and gullible as I suspected"

I have no response to that except to say you can call me what ever you like if you think it proves your point. It does not hurt my feelings and does not disprove my point.

"-oh, I see, because there is absolutely no possibility whatsoveer that they might make a mistake about you or your loved ones?"

Yes. I can see that here is a possibility that they can make a mistake about me or my loved ones. They could do that before any of the security bills passed after 9/11 But they will most likely be zeroing in on terrorist groups or people supporting them because now it will be easier. Perhaps the word you sought was whatsoever. I have never seen and never will see anything that is 100% foolproof.

"the protestors are protesting a needless war in Iraq. Explain, please, what connection this immanent attack upon Iraq has to do with "preventing terrorism?" Attacking a bunch of innocent civilians with bombs has nothing whatsoever to do with "preventing terrorism."

I fail to see this scenario of "attacking a bunch of innocent civilians with bombs." Everywhere I read about the strategy to bring about a regime change talks about avoiding civilian casualties. Where is this coming from except other war protestors? Just telling me I am stupid, gullible and blind does not prove your point or disprove mine. I can just say you are stupid, blind and gullible too but that is not a valid method of debate.

Where in the news have you heard that the armed forces are going to attack a bunch of innocent civilians with bombs? Why would anybody do that anyway? It would not help attain a regime change and it would be a waste of bombs that would be better targeted at the Iraq military. I read and I watch the news and I do not pay attention the talk shows. I don't see any indication of an attack on the civilians.

As for preventing terrorism, Saddam Hussein supports, finances, aids and abets terrorism. On small example of that is he openly sends money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, thereby encouraging others to do the same. This money is diverted from the money should go to the citizens of Iraq.

" --I'd lay in a lot of bottled water if I were you."

I already have on advice of Homeland Security.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Peg
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:15 AM

Old Guy;
if you really think an attack upon Iraq is not going to result in massive civilian casualties, you're even more naive than I thought before. But everytime I read your responses I see more and more the disingenuous and vague retorts of the right wing apologist.

It's not "war protestors" making things up out of thin air. The understanding that an attack upon Iraq would result in loss of civilian life is based upn the huge loss of civilian life which took lace during the Gulf War in the early 90s. Why would this be any different? Are you saying the U.S. military at that time declared they WOULD kill civilians needlessly, and now they're saying they WON'T? I am pretty sure you can't mean that. You have a lop-sided and fantasy-based understanding of our recent history. Placing your faith in "homeland security" seems foolhardy to me. Those jack-booted thugs stand for everything BUT security in my book.

heil Hitler,
Peg

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:42 AM

Peg, just what was the "huge" loss of life in the Gulf War among the civilian population. "Huge" is a little vague, a trait you were just lambasting Old Guy for.
I know of no state where children are allowed to have guns legally so disarming the school kids sounds like typical hysteria tactics to me.
If you want to mouth off and spout your anti-semitic slogans when you are with your friends, feel free.
BUT DON"T DO IT HERE! It is highly offensive to me and, I'm sure, to a lot of other people on the Forum. I don't give two whoops in hell how clever you thought you were being, it is offensive. If you don't have the sensitivity and common sense to realize that, nothing more that I can say will make one iota of difference but I will recommend a trip to a Haulocaust Museum. Maybe, just maybe, you'll start to get the message.

troll