 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 16 Feb 03 - 12:44 AM This is a link to an organization that is led by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and humanitarian. He wants these hoodlums to be held accountable and so do I. If you agree, go to the page and cast your vote. http://www.votetoimpeach.org Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Melani Date: 16 Feb 03 - 01:00 AM Thanks, Bruce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 16 Feb 03 - 01:02 AM Thank you, Bruce. I saw someone with that website addy on their protest sign at the rally, today. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Bobert Date: 16 Feb 03 - 08:45 AM Hey, I thought I'd never vote for anything related to the knothead but hey... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 08:54 AM 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 . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:12 AM Sorry Bruce, but until he gets his hat blown, I can't go along with impeachment. Just as soon as he gets a blowjob, I'll sign.....Now that's an impeachable offense. Oh yeah, he has to lie about it too, but he should have no problem with that. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Dharmabum Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:16 AM While you're at it. Here's something else to consider.I saw this link on a protest sign yesterday. http://www.votenowar.org. DB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Giddyupgo Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:39 AM Now let me see. We had two embassies blown up, a ship and some other things shaped like a cigar during the Clinton watch. And oh yeah, the North Koreans accepted our freebies while they pursued their nuclear program under the guise of "Diplomacy". And there was that arms dealer that was pardoned in return for campaign money. And During the Bush administration we have had one monstrous attack. Since then nothing. The Brutal dictatorship of the Taliban has been deposed in Afghanistan and Bush is trying to do the same in Iraq. Looks to me like he is doing a lot better than Clinton did. I will commend Clinton engineering the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. He left it to the military and they did a superb job. Why don't these protesters should immigrate to Iraq and start an impeach Saddam movement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: boglion Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:44 AM I'm afraid the ball's in your court, Guest. If you're so keen to kill Saddam get over there and do it yourself. Don't involve hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers and millions of civilians. Go for it Giddyupgo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Giddyupgo Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:54 AM big lion We have a government to do it. I think we should shut up and let the government do it's job. If you had your choice of countries to live in, which would you choose and why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:54 AM 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 . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Frankham Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:55 AM The Taliban is very much alive. They are still active in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Our guest is very naive. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Tweed Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:56 AM Impeach him? Heck yes. Drag the whole lot out and stone them in the streets! They've said they would use the nukes and for that utterance they should step down. Tweed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Amos Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:12 AM Ya got me buddy! I'm there! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Alice Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:49 AM So then... Dick Cheney obviously in the driver's seat? I can't see that impeachment would make any difference now. It would be business as usual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Tweed Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:56 AM Alice, Go and check it out, they're calling for the whole bunch of them to pack it up and go! http://www.votetoimpeach.org/ Yerz, Tweed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:01 AM "Dick" Cheney is already in the driver's seat - with Boy George comfortably ensconced on his lap, with a huge grin on his face . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Amos Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:05 AM What an obscene image! Charlie McCarthy child porn!! Politics as usual.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Alice Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:14 AM Yes, that is why I wrote "obviously" in the driver's seat. Right now it is not obvious to some people how much power Cheney has. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Gern Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM I would, with pleasure. Guest drags out the same old horseshit about protest and patriotism and love-it-or-leave-it drivel that nearly prevented us from stopping the last war. Forget grudges about Clinton's treatment, which was self-inflicted, and focus on today's crises: war against civil liberties, tax cushions for the rich, opportunistic and nebulous 'wars' against select dictators and terrorists. The Justice Department is scheming further assaults against our privacy and long-standing legal procedure, under the banner of security. Hitler hid under that same banner. Our Secretary of Defense openly ponders the effect of nuclear weapons on Iraqi cities, and we wonder why people around the world perceive us as the greatest threat to peace. I resent the fact that the actions of criminals like Cheney and Rumsfield can kill in my name and at my expense. Thank you, protestors, for finding the courage to speak out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:17 AM Here's an even more disgusting image: Boy George is Dick Cheney's hand puppet - sort of like Lambchop . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Bill D Date: 16 Feb 03 - 12:12 PM I suspect the reins of power go much deeper than Cheney...he is the front man, and a leading player, but 'policy' is being funneled in from names we barely recognize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 12:31 PM Yeah: like Karl Rove, "God's man in the White House." Wayne Madsen calls him America's Joseph Goebbels . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Tweed Date: 16 Feb 03 - 01:46 PM An interesting article on this Karl Rove feller. Fairly lengthy, but a good read and enlightening on the policy of no policy. Tweed ---Jeff (PA)--- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 01:50 PM 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 . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Amos Date: 16 Feb 03 - 01:52 PM Tweed, where's that link supposed to go? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Tweed Date: 16 Feb 03 - 01:57 PM Dang!! Here it is again....sorry about that Amos. Iz an idiot.. Ron Suskind article on Karl Rove Here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 03:27 PM 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 . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: leprechaun Date: 16 Feb 03 - 03:30 PM That's right GUEST Giddy, shut the f*ck up. Here we respect other people's opinions as long as they're the right opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Giddyupgo Date: 16 Feb 03 - 03:33 PM Hey Gern: Which war are you refering to? I forgot there has been so many. Granada? Panama? Serbia? Bosnia? Let's have a list of them and which were successful and which were disasters. A little bit of background might be informative. As for loss of rights, I haven't lost any rights except the right to do illegal things. I would strip naked and show my flabby ass to anybody that wants to see it if it makes me safer from terrorist attacks. Or for that matter from zealots like militia men. I think there is strength in unity. If Bush screws up this one we don't have to vote for him and he won't get elected. And for those of you who say he was not elected by the majority, we can vote to do away with the Electoral College which is now a part of our form of government. I believe we should abide by the law until we can vote and change it. That is part of our democratic government. We can even have peaceful rallies to gain support for changing the laws without fear. Giddyupgo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 16 Feb 03 - 03:44 PM 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 . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Ebbie Date: 16 Feb 03 - 04:00 PM If Bush screws up this one we don't have to vote for him and he won't get elected GUEST/gug, if he screws it up, it'll be screwed for years to come. I read the articles proposed for impeachment- and even though it was drawn up in January, it still holds. I signed on with no reservations. Ramsay Clark is a fascinating man. First as a gungho, manipulative hawk for the Vietnam war then as an abashed man who had come to realize that he had been just plain WRONG then as an advocate for diplomacy and now as a militant to stop this administration in its headlong rush to change this country irretrievably. Through it all one thing comes through clearly: an honest man who speaks his mind as to the truth that he knows at the time. Could we all do as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Giddyupgo Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:56 PM Ebbie: "It" is screwed up now. Or do you think everything is peachy and no action needs to be taken anywhere in the world? If you think we need action, where and what action? Give us a plan. Giddyupgo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Ebbie Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:38 AM gug, I don't think we are able to even visualize yet just how badly we can screw it up. All it takes to get the process started is an administration that has no respect for the US Constitution and a president who has a childlike trust that he alone is right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:28 AM Let's see now. You don't like our president. You think he is a moron. You think he should be impeached. Ok. So that's grounds for impeachment? Ramsey Clark is a man who has longed for a very long time to make for himself a positive place in history. However, efforts such as this one is not going to improve the place he already has. It just makes him look like well ...a idjet. Those who wish to climb aboard his effort are welcome to join the loonies. Only my opinion of course. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:31 AM Doug, if you bother looking at the Articles Ramsey wrote, they don't depend on opinion; they are legal charges arguably grounded in cold fact. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:41 AM Then I'm sure your effort will be successful, Amos! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: InOBU Date: 17 Feb 03 - 10:52 AM Hi Dough: Hope things are nice and warm where you are, lots of snow here in new york! As to impeach him cause I don't care for him, no I agree that is a bad idea, impeach him for murder, extrajudicial killing of suspects in Yemmin ... that IS an impeachable offence. I agree that folks are much to quick to go for blood in politics, but in the face of a proposal to remove American citizenship from native born Americans without judicial oversite, yes, the time has come to throw the rougues out and rededicate ourselves to concervative US values. Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: LYR ADD: Ghosts of our nation - Lorcan Otway-InOBU From: InOBU Date: 17 Feb 03 - 10:53 AM I feel a song coming on... Ghosts of our nation word, Lorcan Otway all rights reserved Tune The Shamrock Shore. Farewell to the land, of Jefferson and Franklin Farewell to the dreams of the good Thomas Paine We have sacrificed our freedom, on the altar of security and I fear we may not soon see the likes of both again, For this land was more than a flag or a slogan this land was more than its rocks or its clay This land was a gift given us by great thinkers a dream which lesser men have now cast away The rule of law is hobbled and no rights are now held sacred except the right to steal and plunder in the name of corporate greed While bible thumping patriots, in the guise of elder statesmen rob for the wealth of few from the people in most need Now our prisons are full of the men of no property and back alleys are filled with the hopeless and insane but still we are told, that this is the land of liberty and told to ignore those whom our country causes pain Who can hold up their head, and proud proclaim their homeland while leaders whet the assassins knife by stealth upon the road this is not the act of a land of law and of justice no mater who the target, we must live by legal code What light of hope now shines in the halls of Philadelphia what words of bravery speak out from the senate floor what black thoughts now taint with blood, the hopes of a nation when politician pimps make sweet liberty their whore But I cast my gaze, to the hills of our history, while I stake my few hopes on the words of our past For while a spark shines on, in the ashes of these ruins the light of freedom's fires may dispel the shadows cast And each one of you, who remembers where we came from proclaim your love liberty and reject the cynics sneer cast fear upon the pyre of the promises of tyrants turn away from craven cowards, and true hearts now draw near. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Giddyupgo Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:24 PM Ebbie: All I hear from the Bush Bashers is that whatever plans the administration has are wrong and whatever they do is wrong. I see no alternatives given. No long range thinking. All I hear is a bunch of whining equivalent to "I don't want to clean up my room". No constructive criticize. Only destructive criticism, Emotional statements and name calling. Are we looking for a solution or just complaining? Giddyupgo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peg Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:37 PM giddyup: you are oversimplifying things to an extreme. If you read other threads on the war, you will find specific and well-thought-out arguments for what should be done and why this administration has been so wrong-headed about this "war" from the get-go. This claim that "You just want to impeach him because you don't like him" is childish and does not acknowledge the many legitimate reasons our citizenry has for believing our government has made a lot of mistakes recently and is hell-bent on killing a whole lot of innocent people just to distract from our tanking economy and the ongoing erosion of civil liberties, reproductive rights, acessible and affordable health care, and social security for the aging population, and any number of social and economic ills facing America today that are not being dealt with or prioritized, because all monies and bluster are being poured into the war coffers, and, assuming there are enough people left for a fucking quorum in 2004, this administration will be quite happy to leave this mess to the next (Democratic, surely) president to clean up.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:52 PM 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 . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM I agree with InOBU. Bush, by ordering the extrajudicial killings (read murder) of several suspected terrorists, and those who happened to be sharing a car with them at the time, has committed murder through the abuse of presidential authority. That is a much more severe crime than lying about receiving oral sex. Whether or not they would have been convicted if arrested and tried really doesn't enter into the picture. Anyone who commits illegal acts abusing their authority is not merely unfit to be president, but a menace to society as long as he holds power. Oh, and Giddyupgo, threatening to use nuclear weapons on a psychotic whom you claim has biological and chemical weapons doesn't strike me as "long range thinking." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:06 PM There hasn't been a US president that hasn't been guilty of impeachable offenses, if Ramsey Clark's allegations are the yardstick to be used. However, it is just as important to remember that this is an exercise in futility. US law is very clear about how brings the articles of impeachment, and who oversees the trial. Is there anyone who seriously believes the US House of Representatives, controlled by militant Republicans to the right of Bush/Cheney, et al would actually bring this to the US Senate, which is now also controlled by militant right wing Republicans? Why should the anti-war movement waste it's time on this sort of thing? I much prefer putting time, energy and resources into strategies and tactics that work, not this sort of grandstanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:08 PM Giddyup: If Bushwah took more care at cleaning up his own room, he would be less likely to hear people "whining" "I don't want to commit wholesale slaughter against people who have not harmed me." Maybe you feel more conmfortable with the prospect of spilling blood than some of us do. In mybook it is not something you do lightly, and the only complaint I have against Bush, aside from mendiancy and minicephalicism, is that he trivilaizes human life and dramatizes attitudes which are harmful. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,johnm Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:29 PM Ramsey Clark is a fool, always has been, and seems like he always will be. This whole discussion is idiotic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Beccy Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:33 PM Gee, Giddyupgo... I hope you were prepared to be eviscerated for disagreeing with people! Amos, Gojira and Peg- you just proved Giddyupgo's point when you accused Bush of being a minicephalic (Amos), murderous (Peg), cowardly little turd (Gojira). Please. If you must disagree, disagree, and disagree to the extent of your passion, but insults are juvenile and counterproductive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:35 PM Well, "GUEST,johnm," you must be an idiot, because you've just contributed to this idiotic discussion . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:35 PM I disagree, johnm. I think this discussion touches on some really important questions about what we want our representativer government to be free to do. And dismissing the issue as idiotic is awfully easy, isn't it? Perhaps you have a more considered opinion, something articulate? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: KarlMarx Date: 17 Feb 03 - 01:40 PM 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 . . . |
|
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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:44 AM Peg: What huge loss of civilian life? Were they Civilian or Military? Were they Saddam's numbers? When and where did the US military sate they would kill civilians heedlessly? Do you think I am being paid to oppose your opinions? Where is this charge of being disingenuous come from? Does this mean I am lying? All I am saying is I where this prophecy about millions of innocent people dying from bombs being dropped on them comes from? I am trying to find out what that is based on. The response I get is that I am stupid because everybody knows it but me. Show me the facts and convince me. The best way to learn something is to try to teach it so teach me. I am all ears. Heil to your leader, Do you have a leader? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 12:56 PM Troll: I appreciate you defending me but we must defend freedom of speech too. I can take the accusations and they do not offend me. Let the anti-war protestors express themselves. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. I waiting to see what happens to the people in project human shield. Saddam's men will be hiding behind them with their gun barrels pointing out under their arms while our patriots are trying to topple the Saddam Hussein regime. There will be 500 to 600 media people embedded in to the troops so the world will see first hand what is going on. When Saddam pulls the dead baby bodies that he is storing up out of the walk-in boxes and stages them for evidence of a civilian massacre, we will know the truth. I hope I will see the liberation of the children in the Baghdad prison where they hold the 2 to 12 year olds to be tortured if their parents do not do Saddam's bidding. It is hard to believe that Baghdad which is considered to be the Cradle of Civilization has become the worst example of man's inhumanity to man. Oops, I had better shut up or I will be branded a Crusader as well as a Warmonger. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:04 PM I found something I want to share. It is at Iraqvoice.com Will the anti-war protestors please go to this site, read these polls and voice their opinions. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:18 PM Troll-where exactly did you get anti-semitism from? I didn't read anything that could be thus construed. Oldguy-The "attacking innocents with bombs" comes from the fact that part of Bush's stated attack plan includes leding of the attack with 3000 cruise missiles fired at targets in Baghdad. I imagine that those targets are military, but given our record with guided weapons in the past, some of them will undoubtedly hit and kill civilians. The real question is why is Bush leading of with a bombardment, useful only for destroying fixed emplacements and creating terror, rather than an airmobile attack, which could, if properly executed, disable the command networks of the Iraqi military with much less loss of civilian life? I imagine that the stated reason is to avoid mass casualties among the first wave, but I would like to point out that everyone in the paratroops volunteered for that position, and if they didn't know that their life might be risked when they joined the army, they damn well should have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:50 PM I think I would ask what kinds of bombs. I heard Donahue say "dropping incendiary bombs on innocent children and old people". That is incorrect. The munitions of today are 10 times more accurate than in the 91 war. They will be targeted at their military command and control centers. They are seldom dropped any more unless we are trying to blast down into tunnels and underground bunkers. I am sure that daisy cutters will rain down on the 50 palaces and anybody inside will be doomed. I don't consider them a civilian target. Most of them are smart bombs that are launched. We have E-bombs that are cruise missiles emitting microwaves that fry electrical circuits. They can actually fly down airshafts into bunkers. The main objective of the 3000 "bombs" is to soften them up and disable the army for our ground troops. Another objective is to just psych them out and possibly make the army surrender or stage a coup by showing such massive fire power. I have a suspicion that Special Ops wearing civilian garb will be on the ground even before the air assault begins to disarm the explosives Saddam has had placed on all of the big infrastructure items like dams, bridges, power plants and oil fields. The military would be foolish to tell everybody their battle plans but I have faith that they are bending over backwards to minimize civilian casualties. Otherwise why would they be operating the Commander Solo and dropping leaflets to the citizens? Please take a closer look at what their plans might be before ringing the alarm bell. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peg Date: 22 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM Old Guy wrote: Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy - PM Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:44 AM Peg: What huge loss of civilian life? Were they Civilian or Military? Were they Saddam's numbers? --There was another thread recently which offered figures on civilian and military casualties in the Gulf War...the numbers vary but the range was somehere between 65,00 and 120,000...some of these figures were quoted by the US Army. When and where did the US military sate they would kill civilians heedlessly? --that's my whole point. You seem to think that because they say they won't target civilians, civilians won't be killed. I offered the many dead from the Gulf War as evidence that saying it doesn't make it so. Do you think I am being paid to oppose your opinions? Where is this charge of being disingenuous come from? Does this mean I am lying? --I am not "charging" you with being disingenuous, it is merely an observation. I DO think you are quite naive to believe some of the things you're spouting...perhaps you think the same of me. But much of your rhetoric echoes the military rhetoric being shoved in our faces by the media these days. I teach media studies for a living so I tend to have a healthy disregard for it... All I am saying is I where this prophecy about millions of innocent people dying from bombs being dropped on them comes from? --it's not prophecy, it is, if you will, conjecture based on what happened in the region just over ten years ago. I am trying to find out what that is based on. The response I get is that I am stupid because everybody knows it but me. --sorry, but I do think you are naive to think there will be no loss of civilian life in Iraq as a result of an invasion. Show me the facts and convince me. The best way to learn something is to try to teach it so teach me. I am all ears. --I have trieed to do so but you reject it; I can't do much about that. Heil to your leader, Do you have a leader? --not one I trust....nor did I vote for him and neither as far as I can tell, did a democratic majority...as far as i can tell the Supreme Court utths man in office. Troll wrote: 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. --see above. I had thought it obvious to anyone who is apparently trying to discuss the impending war as if they have some sense of our history; I mean, why would someone be in favor of this invasion of Iraq without at least acknowldging the facst of what happened in the Gulf War?? Seems a logical assumption. I guess I was wrong about that. 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. --I don't either and yet the kids are still bringing guns to school and gunning each other down. I was raised in a house full of guns and never once did any of us handle a gun improperly or remove it from the house except when taking it hunting. There is a PROBLEM in case you haven't noticed and if parents are going to continue to be irresponsible then the only way to deal with it is make the gun laws tougher; that means taking them away from adults who can't demonstrate basic understanding of safety. If you want to mouth off and spout your anti-semitic slogans when you are with your friends, feel free. --I see no anti-Semitic "slogan" in my post. My reference to the salutation of the Third Reich was meant as ironic comment upon where things are headed in this country. Hitler slaughtered more than Jews so if I am being anti-Semitic I suppose I am also being anti-gay, anti-Catholic, etc. and yet you don't include these; why? 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 am offended at the implcation that the impending invasion of Iraq is being bandied about as if it is somehow some innocuous little foray that won't leave thousands dead...it will, and anyone who denies that is being naive. 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. --I am more than familiar with the Holocaust. I meant no offense. I think the comparison with the Third Reich is highly appropriate here. If you have no sense of irony I can't help you, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:05 AM Peg. Very good. You held your temper. I happen to believe that the Government has no right to keep someone from being an idiot. I agree that there are plenty of people who should not be allowed to touch guns. Ever. There are [eople who should not be allowed to walk to the corner store without a nanny. But our Constitution does grant that right and it is not right to take away ANY from everyone because of the abuses of a few. Should Freedom of the Press be abolished because certain newspapres or broadcasters play fast and loose with the truth? I didn't include the Slavs and the Roma either. I suppose I chose anti-Semetic because of my own family. I could just as easily have said Russian or Hungarian. Regarding the numbers of civilians killed during the Gulf War, I feel that you should be more specific when you speak about things that can be and have been counted. You seem to me to have demanded that sort of specificity from others in this thread -for example "again, this vast oversimplification and overgeneralization...who precisely is the "American public?" "Those jack-booted thugs stand for everything BUT security in my book." Do not demand from others that which you are not willing to do. The people who have put together the "Patriot Acts" are not trying to overthrow the Constitution. They are simply frightened little men of limited competence who are trying desparately to protect the country from terrorist attack. They are not doing a very good job but this is all they could think to do; turtle up, clamp down and hope it doesn't happen again. Believe me, these guys are not the Gestapo. They wouldn't know where to begin. If you think the Third Reich comparrison was apt, read up on the restrictions in place in both the Us and Britain during WWII. And if you really want to see a repressive document, rear the UN Declaration of Human rights sometime; you know, the part that says that you can do anything you want UNLESS it interferes in some way with a UN program or goal. And there are people who think that THIS it the greatest document on human rights ever written. I wouldn't worry too much about the Homeland Security Act and it's children. It must first get past the Supreme Court and I don't think it can do that. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:28 AM Peg: I would like to know how many of the between 65,000 and 120,000 dead in the '91 war were civilian. I can't find where you said heedlessly but I want to know where the estimate of millions being killed comes from. I think it is a conclusion, a guess made by people that are looking for a reason to protest which is being repeated over and over. Say it enough times and you will have the citizens of Iraq believing it. It would be foolish for me to say no innocent people will be killed but I have faith that the military is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Of course Saddam will be doing everything he can to cause civilian casualties which he can blame on us. Civilians will be dying even if nothing is done. After Saddam get more powerful will the dying cease? No, there will be a war sometime in the future that will cause even more civilian casualties. I want to hear one anti-war protestor say that it is OK for the people living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to suffer because we should not go to war with the Iraqi regime. They say they hate Saddam and they say the people are suffering but they never say it is OK for them to suffer. That it is in their best interest to suffer. They just go back to their "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine As for Bush not getting the popular vote, the way our founding fathers designed the government, they included a thing called the Electoral College. The Electoral College allows people to win that do not get the majority vote. We cannot fool with any thing the founding fathers wrote can we? There were other states with issues like the hanging chad that were never recounted as many times as Florida so the total number of popular votes will never be known. Let's have some sources and facts to base our opinions on. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:42 AM Old Guy says: "I want to hear one anti-war protestor say that it is OK for the people living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to suffer because we should not go to war with the Iraqi regime. They say they hate Saddam and they say the people are suffering but they never say it is OK for them to suffer. That it is in their best interest to suffer. They just go back to their "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine" Old Guy, I mean no disrespect, but the only appropriate response is DUH! I've said over and over again that the issue is not whether Hussein is a good guy or not, and it is not whether the Iraqi people are better off under Hussein or not under Hussein. You insist on casting people who are anti-war as pro-Hussein. OF COURSE WE WILL NEVER SAY IT IS OKAY FOR THEM TO SUFFER! If you are not familiar with the "straw man" fallacy, please go look it up, and then please, please,please stop succumbing to it. Thank you. Peace, music & compassion my good man. TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peg Date: 23 Feb 03 - 01:19 AM Old Guy wrote: Peg: I would like to know how many of the between 65,000 and 120,000 dead in the '91 war were civilian. --I think the estimate is somewhere around 85,000. But as I said, sources vary on the exact count. I can't find where you said heedlessly but I want to know where the estimate of millions being killed comes from. I think it is a conclusion, a guess made by people that are looking for a reason to protest which is being repeated over and over. Say it enough times and you will have the citizens of Iraq believing it. --well, seeing as the military has plans to unleash firepower amounting to ALL of what was used in the Gulf War during the furst THREE DAYS of any future attack on Iraq, I would guess millions is a pretty safe estimate. It would be foolish for me to say no innocent people will be killed but I have faith that the military is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Of course Saddam will be doing everything he can to cause civilian casualties which he can blame on us. --at least you admit you're being foolish. And why should Saddam blame "us" for inflicting civilian casualties pn his own people? Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? There are plenty of countries where tyrannical dictators are making life hell for their people. Venezuela, for example. Cuba is another. And many areas of Africa are in horribel shape. Why aren't we declaring war on them? Your logic in the statement above sems to be saying we need to attack Iraq to protect the Iraqi people. This is not the job of the US government. Civilians will be dying even if nothing is done. After Saddam get more powerful will the dying cease? No, there will be a war sometime in the future that will cause even more civilian casualties. --what war are you talking about? This is what I mean about you being vague. I want to hear one anti-war protestor say that it is OK for the people living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to suffer because we should not go to war with the Iraqi regime. They say they hate Saddam and they say the people are suffering but they never say it is OK for them to suffer. That it is in their best interest to suffer. They just go back to their "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine --no one wants the people in Iraq to suffer but if the U.S> invades, it will be US inflicting the suffering. OUR bombs. If you care so much about the people in Iraq suffering, then why aren't you supporting a diplomatic solution? Answer: you've bought the war-mongering media hype, just like the government wanted you to. As for Bush not getting the popular vote, the way our founding fathers designed the government, they included a thing called the Electoral College. The Electoral College allows people to win that do not get the majority vote. We cannot fool with any thing the founding fathers wrote can we? --oh for pete's sake are you really this out of touch???? The electoral college had NOTHING to do with Bush getting "elected." It was a highly irregular and clearly illegal decision by the Supreme Court that did that. And since you're askig, yes, I think it would be a fine idea to undo a fair amount of what our "founding fathers" did. They were rich white men who were really only looking out for rich white men like themselves. But the main thing you need to know is that the "founding fathers" (I suppose it depends who you mean here) did not implement the electoral college...your grasp of history is shaky. There were other states with issues like the hanging chad that were never recounted as many times as Florida so the total number of popular votes will never be known. --actually, they were all accounted for but in the wake of 9-11 the media did not put a whole lot of focus on the story...funny, that. Let's have some sources and facts to base our opinions on. --when you start doing the same I'll be happy to oblige. You've offered no facts here and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes, vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 23 Feb 03 - 01:24 AM Peg: Valiant efforts, and I salute you, but it's like wrestling smoke isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:41 PM Peg, just what diplomatic solution would you suggest. Remember, it needs to be one that Saddam will not only accept but will keep. His record for keeping his word is not too good to date. Regarding the Florida vote, there were several newspapers that did re-counts. Some said Gore won and some gave it to Bush. I don't think we'll ever know the real truth. I do, however, agree that their election decision was not the Supreme Courts finest hour. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:02 PM Oldguy-the problem is that, no matter how much more technically accurate our missiles are than they were 12 years ago, human error will still produce mass civilian casualties. If you don't believe me, as the families of the Afghanistanis killed when a wedding was bombed, or of the Canadian soldiers killed by American "smart" weapons. Further, recall that action in Afganistan was mostly fought in open country, where all the experts predict that Iraq will include a great deal of street-to-street combat. No one thinks that the Iraqi people should suffer (Saddam excepted), but there is good reason to believe that a war will not be the most effective option to reduce the suffering of the Iraqis. Peg-the founding fathers did create the Electoral College. It was, however, intended that the electors actually make up their own minds, guided by the votes of their constituents. It was only later that the Electoral became nothing but a confusing complication of the democratic system, and one which relies on a much greater concept of state's rights than is now possessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:22 PM Peg: Your summation of my last post: "You've offered no facts here and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes, vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions." "--I think the estimate is somewhere around 85,000. But as I said, sources vary on the exact count." So 85,000 out of 65,000 to 120,000 is not a vague statement? Sources vary is not a vague statement? No Named sources is not a vague statement? "--well, seeing as the military has plans to unleash firepower amounting to ALL of what was used in the Gulf War during the first THREE DAYS of any future attack on Iraq, I would guess millions is a pretty safe estimate." First you have to stop being so vague on how many civilians died in '91 to make an estimate. "--at least you admit you're being foolish." I am not being foolish unless I say no civilians will be killed. "And why should Saddam blame "us" for inflicting civilian casualties on his own people?" Has Saddam proven to be a man of honor? Why does he place military hardware in the middle of civilian areas? Do you think it is to thwart an attack on those civilians? Civilians can't fight us. There is no reason to attack them. Please don't call me blind and gullible. "Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? " To promote peace and stability in the world. "There are plenty of countries where tyrannical dictators are making life hell for their people. Venezuela, for example." Venezuela is a democracy. After that democracy matures the problems will diminish. Any WMDs in Venezuela? You know that people actually vacation in Venezuela? Do they vacation in Iraq or NK? "Cuba is another." The US acted to get the missiles (WMDs) out of Cuba. A democratic president was the commander in chief. Khrushchev was made to stand down. It could have escalated in a war but we stood our ground. By rights the protestors should have tried to block that action. There probably were some but the end result was good. The people in Cuba are literally dying to come to the US but I hear nothing of torture of children to force the parents to do what their dictator wants. I do not see Cuba is a threat in need of any action. The US is constantly trying to persuade Castro to restore human rights to the people of Cuba diplomatically. That was the mission of Jimmy Carter recently. Do you think we should do something different? By they way, Jimmy carter recently went to Venezuela on a diplomatic mission to try to restore peace there. Do you think an attack would be better? "And many areas of Africa are in horribel shape." There are no WMDs in Africa that I have heard of. The conflicts there as I understand them are on a tribal level. Which tribe should we attack? Is there a dictatorial regime we could "attack"? "Your logic in the statement above sems to be saying we need to attack Iraq to protect the Iraqi people." For the 1000th time, we are proposing to attack Iraq's regime not the people of Iraq "This is not the job of the US government." Whose job is it? If it is the job of the UN are they doing the job? We are saying? If the UN does not do the job, The US will form a coalition and do the job because we feel that The Iraqi regime is a threat to the security in the US. "--what war are you talking about? This is what I mean about you being vague." The war I am referring to in the future is when Saddam builds up his military and his arsenal of WMDs to the point that he can attack neighboring countries, as he has done before. The neighboring countries will fight back and then the prophecy of "thousands of bombs dropped on innocent people" and "millions dying" will come true. The major point being debated here is will the UN inspections and sanctions keep him from building up his arsenal so that he will never be able to attack a neighbor or does he need to be removed because he is too sneaky for the UN inspections and sanctions to be effective. That is the crux of the matter. Your point as I understand it is that the risk of civilian casualties outweighs the benefits of attacking the Iraqi regime so we should stick to the diplomatic sanctions and inspections method. My point is that even if the inspections and sanctions were working, the civilians will be suffering and dying. That needs to end ASAP. My second point is that if things continue as they are for 5 or 10 years "thousands of bombs will be dropped on innocent people" and "millions die" In a war between Iraq and a neighbor. "--no one wants the people in Iraq to suffer" Well, say we should act to relieve their suffering or say it is OK for them to suffer. Quit skipping over the consequences of not acting. "it will be US inflicting the suffering. OUR bombs". This is another iteration of the "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine with out careful consideration of the actual strategy of the military to avoid civilian casualties, "If you care so much about the people in Iraq suffering, then why aren't you supporting a diplomatic solution?" As far as I can see the diplomatic process has been underway for 12 years, it has not worked, Saddam has gained military power and further developed his WMDs during that time. It seems to me that the diplomatic method is not working on this particular dictator and that is why I do not support it. "you've bought the war-mongering media hype, just like the government wanted you to." I think that due to the freedom of press written into the Constitution that the media in America are completely free from government control. I see things that the government wants to keep secret being leaked to the media constantly. The only thing I see affecting the media is that sometimes there is either a left wing or right wing bias in the news. I think the two different biases balance each other if you read both sides and combine them to form your own ideas. "--oh for pete's sake are you really this out of touch???? The electoral college had NOTHING to do with Bush getting "elected." Yes, I am in touch and it was the Electoral College that decided who won the election and every election for that matter. "It was a highly irregular and clearly illegal decision by the Supreme Court that did that." I did not hear a judge bang his gavel and say "Governor Bush is now the President Elect" Mr. Gore ceded the 2000 election to Mr. Bush and he can run for president again in 2004. "And since you're askig, yes, I think it would be a fine idea to undo a fair amount of what our "founding fathers" did. They were rich white men who were really only looking out for rich white men like themselves." I see shades of anarchy here. Does the Constitution need to be rewritten or done away with completely and have "government by demonstrations"? "But the main thing you need to know is that the "founding fathers" (I suppose it depends who you mean here) did not implement the electoral college...your grasp of history is shaky." Help me with my history." I think my grasp of history is firm: "In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. The first design of the Electoral College is described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The first design of the Electoral College lasted through four presidential elections. Congress and the States adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution revising the Electoral College in 1804." "--actually, they were all accounted for but in the wake of 9-11 the media did not put a whole lot of focus on the story...funny, that." Call up the media and demand that they restore coverage on the ballot counting. Right now I think the aftermath of happened on 9/11 is more worthy of news coverage than rehashing the election over and over. "--when you start doing the same I'll be happy to oblige" You can start with some not vague numbers and sources on the casualties form the war in '91. "You've offered no facts here" I think I did offer facts. Tell me a fact you want to know and I will try to track it down. "and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes" Point out the mistakes. "vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions" Where? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:24 PM Lurker, war is not pretty. People get killed. Sometimes non-combatants die. No one wants it to happen but it does. It has always happened, from the beginning of wars probably. The problem is that now we can see the bodies flying through the air as we sit in our easy chairs and it doesn't sit well with us. If I live to be a thousand, I will never forget watching those people jumping from the WTC to escape the flames. One pair seemed to be holding hands. It is one more haunting memors for me to live with. So yes, civilians will die. But if the problem is not addressed now, how many more will die whem Saddam obtains delivery systems for the anthrax or VX gas that he is known to have had since the close of the Gulf War. How many will die when he attains nuclear capability and can blackmail the entire Middle East and possibly eastern Europe? I have seen war. First Hand, If there was a diplomatic solution to be had, I would support it. But I have seen nothing workable put forth and the only other alternative -to do nothing- is too grim to contemplate. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:27 PM Normally, I find that point-by-points improve the clarity and rationality of arguments, but Oldguy and Peg, I think you've taken it to the point of pettiness. Try just responding to a handful of points, and I think people will listen to you more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peg Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:39 PM Old Guy; You're really not worth any more of my energy to debate with because I am starting to think you really are just selectively blind and deaf. Your comments about Africa in particular are stunningly wrong-headed. But one thing I will respond to: "Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? " To promote peace and stability in the world. If we should be promoting peace and stability in the world, then why are our energies focusedonly on Iraq? What about Zimbabwe? The Congo? What about Chechnya? What about (as mentioned before) Cuba and Venezuela? What about North Korea? What about the escalating situation between India and Pakistan? They DO have nuclear weapons. What about Syria, Jordan, and Israel? The United States does nothing to "promote peace and stability" in any of these placesand yet people in favor of an attack on Iraq (like yourself) claim that Iraq is somehow in need of our policing, that they are somehow more of a "threat" to us than countries whose nuclear arsenals are already known and whose political situations are volatile. So why are we so desperate to "protect" Iraq but nowhere else? The answer: oil. All that an attack upon Iraq will do will be to further anger and galvanize the "real" terrorist forces in the Muslim world to further vent their hatred of us. I think this is precisely what the current US government wants; then, under the guise of protecting US citizens, they can invoke martial law and create the police state and "bunkered paradise" they seem to want so dreadfully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 24 Feb 03 - 07:34 AM What about Zimbabwe? The Congo? What about Chechnya? What about (as mentioned before) Cuba and Venezuela? What about North Korea? What about the escalating situation between India and Pakistan? They DO have nuclear weapons. What about Syria, Jordan, and Israel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:48 AM Peg: Are you saying we should attack all of these countries simultaneously? "What about Zimbabwe? The Congo?" I answered your question about African Nations once. Do you have something specific to ad execpt to say I am wrong? "What about Chechnya?" That is a case where Islamic extremists want to take over that country and Russia is fighting back. It is an internal affair. Do you think we should attack Russia or try to help them attack the extremists? Shouldn't the UN "What about (as mentioned before) Cuba and Venezuela?" As I mentioned before what was being done. I asked you if we should attack or what. All I get is the same question. I think we should use diplomacy in cases where human rights need to be restored and force (such as the force we used in the Cuban missle crisis) in cases where the security of the US and peace in the world is in danger. "What about North Korea?" Just as Afghanistan was our main center of focus before Iraq, the next will probably be NK. NK is like a snapshot of what Iraq could be in the future if no action was taken in Iraq. We are also finding out that they are supplying weapons to others that should not have them. NK used the situation of The US being so heavily involved with what needs to be done in Iraq to start using nuclear blackmail on the US and SK. All of the people opposed to action in Iraq yelled "why is Bush ignoring NK" and "can we fight two wars at once?" (This, in itself, indicates somebody is in favor of a war with NK). Then when he moved some more military hardware in that direction they yelled "Bush is playing his war games again". With Japan being in the nuclear club, they should be a strong deterrent for NK. I think the main objective there should be to keep them from developing more nuclear weapons than they already have. If that means an attack, so be it, at least an attack on their nuclear facilities. In the meantime we should offer to continue aid only after they discontinue nuclear development and destruction of their existing weapons and verification that they have done so. This is something that the UN needs to get more active in and do its job. If this country does not comply with the UN it should be Isolated economically and aid should be gotten in somehow to keep the people from starving. Chins would be the last one to cease trade with them but they should be made to realize who their biggest trading partners are. "What about the escalating situation between India and Pakistan? They DO have nuclear weapons." I think you will find that we send diplomats to these countries when the threat of war escalates. It seems their hostilities arise from which one owns Kashmir. This is another case where the UN needs to get involved and do its job. "What about Syria, Jordan, and Israel?" I haven't heard a lot about Syria but again we are diplomatically involved in trying to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Clinton made great progress and a deal was worked out but Arafat walked away from it. Later he admitted that he regrets not having signed the deal. My opinion of what to do about the Palestinian conflict is to force Israel to abandon the settlements in Palestinian territory by cutting off aid until they do so. I don't think they should have been started in the first place and I don't think there will ever be a lasting peace as long as they exist. They are an insult to the Palestinians that constantly reminds them that they are not really in their own country but just occupying part if Israel. Should we attack the Palestinian regime? I don't think so. Is that specific enough or do you want me to start writing battle plans and diplomatic proposals for each of these countries? Old Guy PS I have another question. How many anti-war demonstrators marched in Russia? They are free to do so now thanks to the efforts of "warmongers" like Ronald Regan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:22 PM Oldguy-the existence of a semblance of democracy has nothing to do with Reagan. The collapse of the Soviet Union was due to its own political and economic overreaching. The only thing Reagan did to help it along was get into a contest to see who could get a bigger deficit on weapons that were already superfluous many times over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:45 PM Peg; Stop banging your head against the wall. Spend your energies and talents where they will have an effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Mimsey Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:56 PM At the risk of diverting the thread back to its original topic, here is a scary, thought-provoking article a friend sent me: http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm Deeper, perhaps, than anyone expects? Mimsey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 24 Feb 03 - 08:16 PM Forum Lurker: So his efforts did or did not help? by the way, Regan was often called a cowboy. Tia: Do you have anything to say that is not vague, and nebulous? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:40 PM Yes, plenty. Please don't try to pick a fight with me, I'm not biting. Peace and Music Old Guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:49 PM No, Oldguy, he didn't help. He drove our national debt skyhigh, and set a legacy of disastrous foreign and economic policy which continues to hurt us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: toadfrog Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:16 PM With all due respect, I don't like Bush any more than you don't, but this is the first time I ever heard Mudcat could impeach presidents. Normally the House of Representatives does that, I thought. Am I missing something? Anybody expect the House is actually going to do that? Does this Thread have a Point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:31 AM No. Not really. Lurker, Reagan took steps which caused the breakup of the Soviet empire. He lured them onto a spending contest that they couldn't win.. It was expensive, but that's the price of freedom and believe me, the Russians with whom I lived and worked last year are grateful. As artists (dancers, musicians, etc.) their opportunities for genuine self-expression were severely limited under the Soviet Govt. It is sometimes difficult financially now, sure, but they are free to go where they want and perform as they like. Maybe you don't like Reagan, but they seemed grateful to him and to the US. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:34 AM I don't give Reagan credit for it. First, there were considerable elements of internal politics, which Reagan did not meaningfully contribute to. Secondly, much of the money had already been spent, or would have been spent anyway. Third, if he was going to spend madly, couldn't he have come up with an actual source of funds, instead of just skyrocketing the national debt? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:42 AM My opinion is that the Regan tax cut was followed by a significant upturn in the economy and income tax revenues grew. The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:43 PM Interesting article, Old Guy. Thanks for posting. I doubt it will change any minds that are convinced Reagan was a bad guy though. They hate to be confused by facts. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:13 PM It is true that the Soviet Union sort of imploded because it could not keep up. It was too spread out trying to support communism, which is economically unfeasible, in other countries. The US kept up the pressure by being prepared for an attack with out attacking and provoking a nuclear holocaust. Reagan was a major source of pressure because he ramped it up. When I say some people in America take things for granted, I am talking about things like the fact that the right to free speech was won in a war and the fact that the threat of a war and massive firepower prevented a nuclear holocaust and brought down the Soviet Union. It was not done with peaceful demonstrations that try to counteract the actions of the government. It may happen that NK will implode if we can isolate it but the people will starve in the process. The NK regime is in effect holding them as hostages. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: toadfrog Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:12 AM It seems to me that Afghanistan did the Soviet Union in. It was sort of their Vietnam. And Reagan did his part, by building up Osama bin Laden and Mr. Hekmatyr and the like. Give him credit for that. There is a certain mentality that says, the only thing that makes life worth living is having enemies to conquer. And Troll may draw whatever lessons he wants. One lesson I draw is that a nation that goes around looking for fights will suffer for it. Another is, there is a law of unintended consequences. There is no end of potential enemies in this world, and one is likely to create new ones in the process of beating the old ones. Finding enemies to beat is not one of my priorities. I'm not a pacifist, I just think there is a lot to be said for just adjusting to the fact not everyone agrees with us. Fine with me that the Soviet Union is gone, but was it really necessary to strain every nerve to make them go away? Seems to me they were not all that threatening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:48 AM Oldguy, note that the economy of the country did much more poorly immediately following Reagan, during Bush I's similarly fiscally conservative administration, than it had been doing before Reagan. Is it possible that the effects of Reagan's policies just took a while to materialize? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:32 PM Just like it took some time to realize that the slight recession the U. S. experienced a couple of years ago began BEFORE the end of the Clinton administration? Is that what you mean FL? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 16 May 03 - 12:50 PM An update from Vote to impeach Bush: Nearly two hundred thousand people have already voted to impeach online. We need your help now to press on. We need a million votes and more. Impeachment is the nonviolent means the American people have to take back the Constitution in time to restore honor to our government and find peace with the rest of the world. Get out to vote. Executive privilege to obfuscate the 9-11 investigation; Homeland Security forces tracking a state legislator's plane; Senate Majority Leader's blatantly stated desire to use the FBI to interfere with state politics and have opposite party legislators arrested; power and cronyism run rampant with world domination as their stated goal. Time to take action and vote to impeach!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Ebbie Date: 16 May 03 - 03:14 PM If anyone still doubts the legalities of the impeachment movement, try these grounds on for size (Bush, et al, will understand and approve): Pre-emptive Impeachment Whole studies are done on projection. All they need do is see what has already been done by the Bush administration, already on record as to what they intend to do and the rationale for it, and project from there to likely outcomes. Makes sense to me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 16 May 03 - 04:49 PM Ebbie - was that s'posed to be a link? If so, try again please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 16 May 03 - 07:18 PM Dream on! Bush filed papers today officially announcing that he will be a candidate in 2004, and a re-elect the president team is being organized. Just for the record, congress impeaches, not the Ramsey Clark Impeachment Committee. Those of you who want to follow the likes of Ramsey Clark, have at it though. That guy is nuttier than a fruitcake IMO. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: CarolC Date: 16 May 03 - 10:29 PM If I were of a mind to vote in that site, I think I would be afraid to in case someone's using it to keep track of people who want Bush impeached. If they can use Homeland Security legislation to track down state legislators, seems to me they could use information from that site for further abuses of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,amergin Date: 16 May 03 - 10:43 PM well doug, your opinion has all the worth of a hairy pimple...but anyways...if junior wants to be "re-e;ected" doesn't he have to be ELECTED first? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 17 May 03 - 01:25 AM amergin: yep, you're right. And he will be. Carol C: perhaps!! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Little Hawk Date: 17 May 03 - 01:51 AM Ah... Well, I would put in my vote for impeaching Mr Bush, but I'm not an American citizen, so I can't...I suppose. Way, way back there Giddyupgo asked a familiar question: "If you had your choice of countries to live in, which would you choose and why?" Oh, well, any number of places, for any number of reasons. Canada (where I do live), France, the UK, Denmark, Holland, Trinidad, Norway, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Bermuda...really, it just goes on forever... I might consider the USA too, but with some reservations...it just keeps getting weirder there. It kind of depends where you are and what you're doing. This holding up of any one country (usually one's own) as the automatically "best" place in the World to live is naive and silly, but American self-styled "patriots" have been doing it for as long as I can remember...possibly because they just don't know any better...or maybe they're feeling a little insecure and defensive. Gosh...I wonder why that would be? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,pdc Date: 17 May 03 - 01:52 AM I've been reading this thread -- many people asked about civilian and other casualties during the first Gulf War. A Google search produced many sites: the one below (quoted in part) seems to be comprehensive. In Iraq, the civilian death toll in 1991 - after the massive bombing campaign was stopped - rose to 111,000 people. Shortages of medicine and damaged health facilities contributed to this high rate of "delayed mortality." Of these 111,000 deaths, 70,000 were children under 15 years of age. UNICEF has documented that the combined effects of the Gulf War and over a decade of economic sanctions resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children due to malnutrition, diarrhea, and other preventable diseases. Link:(sorry it's pdf)GulfWarFacts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: CarolC Date: 17 May 03 - 12:13 PM Carol C: perhaps!! So, DougR, how far does the US have to go toward being a fascist dictatorship before you decide it's gone far enough? All those "freedom and democracy" loving people are just a bunch of Communists anyway, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Ebbie Date: 17 May 03 - 12:28 PM Nope. Wasn't trying for a link. That was my ineffective way of trying to suggest a (somewhat) facetious impeachment policy. I should have said something like 'impeccable process for impeachment: Pre-emptive Impeachment.' In other words, if we as a nation can attack another nation pre-emptively, surely that principle is a valid one for other activities? Looking at where this administration has already gone, it's easy - and essential- to become alarmed at where it is going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST Date: 17 May 03 - 09:55 PM "My disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacifists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile and impotent in working for peace, and second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the all-important end toward which we should strive ... I have as little sympathy for them as they have for the men who deify mere brutal force, who insist that power justifies wrongdoing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultra- pacifists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn equally might which backs right and might which overthrows right is to render positive service to wrong-doers ... To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on a par with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and morals." Theodore Roosevelt |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 17 May 03 - 11:13 PM I'm not a pacifist and I believe anything that happens to Saddam is too good for him. Now that that's out of the way: What was wrong with the war with Iraq was that it was pre-emptive. Iraq was said to be a material threat to the US, and all this talk about liberating the Iraqis came late in the day. And the thing that's wrong with a pre-emptive war is the same thing that's wrong with a pre-emptive impeachment, as Ebbie tried to point out. Simple as that. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 18 May 03 - 01:03 AM And GUEST of 9:55PM is being repetitive, posting the exact same quote in different threads. Perhaps having no original thoughts of their own? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Johnny in OKC Date: 18 May 03 - 01:40 AM George Bush filed for re-election today. (I can't think of what to say next.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,pdc Date: 18 May 03 - 01:45 AM The most telling part of this whole thread on voting to impeach Bush is this quote from Carole C: "If I were of a mind to vote in that site, I think I would be afraid to in case someone's using it to keep track of people who want Bush impeached. If they can use Homeland Security legislation to track down state legislators, seems to me they could use information from that site for further abuses of power." How sad that the country has come to this. How frightening. I believe that in a decade or so we all may look back and say, "why didn't we do something?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST Date: 18 May 03 - 01:55 AM Kat. There are so many threads that the quote fits. Why elaborate on what was done so eloquently by someone so renowned as Roosevelt? If you dont like the debate or the tone of the quote, I cant help but pity your posting on this matter. You repeat your vitriolic hatred of Bush everywhere dont you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 18 May 03 - 02:12 AM I wouldn't call that eloquent. I also don't really see its relevance to this thread. And, I try to express my contempt for the shrub in my own words with occasional use of quotes and cites. But, most of all, everyone knows who is expressing that "vitriol" as you call it and I am sure that is something Roosevelt would have understood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST Date: 18 May 03 - 03:10 AM War Powers Granted by Nancy A. Bock October 11, 2002 By overwhelming margins, a bipartisan vote of both houses of Congress granted President George W. Bush the "war-making" powers he sought to force Iraq to disarm. Long Island representatives voted unanimously to support the President, although each attached caveats and warnings to their votes. By a vote of 296 to 133 in the House (Thursday) and 77 to 23 in the Senate (Friday), Congress agreed that the threat from Saddam Hussein warrants the possibly extreme action Bush proposed. "The real questions that we should be asking are not about whether something should be done about Iraq," Congressman Gary Ackerman said. "Something must be done. Our national security requires it." He added, "Saddam Hussein is pure evil." "It is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons," Senator Hillary Clinton said. Yet Congress did exact a promise from Bush that he would exhaust all other diplomatic avenues before taking unilateral action. "A vote for [the resolution] is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed," Clinton warned. Congressman Felix Grucci feels that Hussein poses a continuing threat to peace. "Without fully disarming Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, America and our allies cannot be safe and the War on Terrorism will not be won," he said. "Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power," Clinton said, echoing a sentiment that seemed to run through many elected officials. One impetus for granting Bush the wide ranging power is the expectation that if Hussein does in fact have the weapons he will not hesitate to use them in the U.S. "We must not allow America's major cities to be the testing site for Saddam's nuclear capability," Grucci argued. Congressman Steve Israel agreed, noting, "I fear that unchecked, Saddam Hussein will gain nuclear weapons capability sooner than anyone could have predicted. Bush has insisted he has made no decision to use military force but that the support of Congress allows him to push the United Nations into approving tougher resolution to disarm Iraq. Even with Congress' backing it could still take months to assemble a military campaign to engage Iraq. However, as Israel put it, "fighting sooner is less costly than fighting later." Impeach yourselves.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Little Hawk Date: 18 May 03 - 01:15 PM In the long run you will find that fighting either sooner or later is far more costly than the price of not addressing the real problems in the World which are: poverty, inequality, and ecological destruction. Those problems will not be solved by warfare. They will be solved by placing human life and all other life above temporary financial gain for a few key players. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Don Firth Date: 18 May 03 - 02:54 PM Tell you what, folks: this "Impeach Bush" thing is a cute idea, but let's face it—it has a snowball's chance in hell. Best to spend one's time and energy working on making sure that the Democrats provide a good, strong, articulate candidate (with a genuine spine) to oppose Bush in the 2004 elections—in fact, a whole slate of candidates with a real alternative platform to oppose the Republican Party (here's how), and then work like little beavers to make sure there is a regime change in this country in the next election. The Bush Administration and the rest of the Neo-Cons have every intention of occupying the White House, the Congress, and the Judiciary for the foreseeable future. They have long range plans. And they are not too finicky about the way they manage it (see last "election"). GUEST, it has nothing to do with "vitriolic hatred of Bush." There is nothing personal about this. It has to do with stopping the Bush/Neo-Con agenda before they lead this country down Hell's Highway to a fascist state. You think, "But this is America! It can't happen here!" Okay, then—just sit idly on your keister and wait. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 19 May 03 - 01:55 AM I hate like heck to agree with Don, but he is right on this one I think. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 03 - 02:38 AM I'd have to agree, Doug. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: freda underhill Date: 03 Sep 05 - 09:45 PM Is there a case to impeach George Bush? The Case for Impeachment |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 03 Sep 05 - 09:55 PM Over half a million people have now signed the petition linked to in my last posting. People from all over are going to march on Washington D. C. on Sept. 24th to demand impeachment and an end to the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: LadyJean Date: 03 Sep 05 - 10:45 PM I tried to click on the first link, and nothing went through. You might want to double check. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST Date: 04 Sep 05 - 12:15 AM Names, notations, and URL'S are being Noted
No need for alarm - it is just a routine matter of record keeping since Max went over to Google. In most cases, it will be several years, if ever, that they come for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peace Date: 04 Sep 05 - 12:32 AM "I think we should shut up and let the government do it's job." That remark boggles the mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 05 - 10:55 AM Lady Jean, which link? Mine of freda's? They have both worked for me. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,G Date: 04 Sep 05 - 11:30 AM Yes Kat, that half a million people should get it done. If things were as bad as some of you make them out to be, a person would think there would at least 20 million signatures. Well, it will some more business for the restaurants and hotels in DC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 05 - 11:43 AM Last I heard, general incompetance was not grounds for impeachment. Bush is a disaster, as are his policies, but unless there are clear & compelling **legal** offenses, there is no chance for impeachment. Sorry, folks, but all we really need to do is ELECT someone with a bit of intelligence and decent moral principles next time....and yell loud and hard at this poor excuse for a leader for the next 3 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 05 - 12:29 PM But surely what determines whether a president gets impeached or not is actually nothing to do with the legalities, it's just a matter of votes in Congress? The rest is just talk. (And of course if Bush was impeached you'd be stuck with Cheney...) Rather a shame you don't have the same system for popular recall and a fresh election nationally for presidents that they have in California for governors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 05 - 01:07 PM Rather a shame? *grin*....ah, Kevin...you just can't comprehend what it would be like if 'popular recall' were available on a National basis. In the UK you have a system for calling elections and 'votes of confidence', I understand...(much as they do in Israel and other smaller countries). We are just too big and diverse to make it work....elections are bad enough! In the US it would be chaos, as almost every president would be defending himself against charges and recall petitions half the time! Yes it IS sorta just a matter of votes in the congress....indictment in the House and trial in the Senate....but it would be along party lines unless a BIG issue was found...like with Nixon...and there has been NO sucessful impeachment in our history. Even Andrew Johnson was not convicted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 05 - 01:14 PM (I will say that I often yearn for a smaller, more efficient, multi-party system that more clearly reflected the political realities and allowed 'adjusting' of the government between major elections. This "only two serious parties" nonsense creates some VERY strange alliances and awkward manuverings.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 05 - 02:10 PM Articles of Impeachment, put forth by Ramsey Clark. More of what Clark has researched and written considering the Articles of Impeachment. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: freda underhill Date: 05 Sep 05 - 04:15 PM Those are impressive articles in favour of impreachment by your former Attorney General, kat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Tam the man Date: 06 Sep 05 - 06:17 AM Well some Americans like him I don't know how but they do. I don't. Tam frae Scotland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Tam the man Date: 06 Sep 05 - 06:38 AM Hi my name is Tony Blair, I pretented that my name is Tam the man, I think that is really terrible you really should be trying to get rid of Me. Tam frae Scotland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Amos Date: 06 Sep 05 - 11:03 PM "hile proclaiming freedom his credo, George W. Bush has done more to destroy freedom and the human dignity which it nourishes than all other Presidents in our history. Who would have dreamed of Abu Ghraib, scores of prisoners murdered, assassinations and summary executions, Guantanamo, thousands imprisoned in the U.S. without Constitutional protections, or sent to be tortured in client states with impunity, all for a President and those acting for him? What prior President has proclaimed himself above the law, coerced more than 100 countries into bilateral treaties promising never to surrender a U.S. citizen to the International Criminal Court? The world watches and wonders why, if the American people are free, they fail to resist the criminal violence of their President. The only act that can redeem the United States in the hearts and minds of those still capable of forgiving and believing our government can change its violent ways is the impeachment of George W. Bush and the responsible officials of his administration before it is too late. The time to begin a final drive for impeachment is now. Together, we are not helpless. Power is in the people united for peace. Perseverance through the midterm Congressional elections in November 2006 can force incumbent members of the House of Representatives to impeach President Bush or face defeat. Failing that, it can restore integrity and honor to the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution, written with the abuses of King George III painfully in mind, is unequivocal in the action required for criminal conduct of civil officers of the United States: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article II, Section 4." Excerpted from a Ramsey Clark email flyer. A |
