 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM I am sorry I can't see the Emperor's new clothes like you Amos. I am glad I missed out on the same important advance in philosophy that you embraced. Now that Captain Bligh is no longer steering the ship, what is going to change? I understand the salty old bastard made into a port after being set a sea in a launch, to command 11 more ships and ended up as an Admiral but his ship was scuttled by it's new masters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM Lousy analogy, Queequueg. Your slavish support of an oppressive regime does you no honor. A better metaphor: you wield a harpoon for a demented master, stumping the quarterdeck in the dawn watch with his pegleg, and muttering over and over his private curses on the White Whale. You may somehow survive the collapse of the Pequod, floating off on a surplus coffin. But that's as far as it goes. You and your beloved leader have trafficked in death, and it is on your hands ineradicably, perfume it how you may. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:56 PM Call me Ishmael my man because your stance that if you agree with me and hate Bush you are therefore smart or you must be in love with Bush and therefore stupid is but another attempt to use false logic (false dichotomy, no middle ground) to prove an argument. Aren't there still some die hard hate Truman people around that you can team up with or did all they all give up? Despite all you hooting about proven facts anf legions of evidence, there is nothing to base an impeachment on. I though Bush was going to pardon Scooter, one of his partners in the alleged crime of spreading propaganda to justify a war. Did he mess up that one too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:16 PM Yep. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:33 PM Amos's "truths" he brings to us: The Steering Committee noted that Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who helped carry out Bush's plans, suggests the possibility of an attempted self pardon by Bush in the future. Ye shall smell land where there is no land. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 09 - 12:48 AM You two still dancing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:57 AM It's kind of like dancing with a manatee. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:04 PM Or a cactus. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:22 PM I don't know anything about dancing with Manatees or Cactii. Jan 29, 2009 SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Gov. Rod Blagojevich was unanimously convicted at his impeachment trial and thrown out of office Thursday, ending a nearly two-month crisis that erupted with his arrest on charges he tried to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat. Blagojevich becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment. After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat. Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, one of his critics, immediately became governor. In a second 59-0 vote, the Senate further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in Illinois again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:26 PM I think Blago's impeachment was almost as well deserved as Bush's. Of course the difference is how much spin control you can buy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:35 AM You spin it for free Amos. Prepare to Impeach Obama if He Accepts Unconstitutional Powers by Ralph Lopez With Obama backpedaling on the investigation of torture and other Bush crimes, his promised rollback of unconstitutional Executive Branch powers seems in peril. On the prosecution of Bush crimes, Joe Biden has already given the standard slimeball cop-out you would expect from Joe Biden: "We're looking forward, we're not looking backwards." On Obama's transition website change.gov, the question which outranked all other questions from the public was on the appointment of a special prosecutor, submitted by Bob Fertik of Democrats.com. The question was disregarded, even though it had the most votes, as having been "already answered." And today in the New York Times Obama signaled his reluctance to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture and warrantless wiretapping, until there was evidence. Bush admitted to approving torture, illegal surveillance, there is blood all over the floor and five bodies heaped in the corner. But we need evidence. But the case can be made that if Obama refuses to do his duty to uphold the Constitution, then at some point when he has reasonably been given a chance, the focus of the Bush impeachment movement should transfer to him. By not explicitly renouncing the Executive Branch's new powers to declare American citizens as "enemy combatants" indefinitely, to torture them as they did Jose Padilla, to engage in warrantless wiretapping, and to break the law with impunity, he implicitly accepts these unconstitutional powers. Absent an explicit renunciation of these and their accompanying, unconstitutional legislative counterparts like the Military Commissions Act, he will be acting outside the law, as George Bush was, and he will be passing these powers on to his successor. The economic crisis will deepen into a Darwinian quagmire no matter what Obama does. In the end it will end as all depressions end: with the strongest fatter than ever and everyone else pretty much starting all over again. This is not about another temporary economic cycle. It's about what form of government we will live under for the next one hundred years. Obama is in a tenuous position, and it would behoove him to understand that there are those on his own left who take the constitutional form of government seriously. With powers in his own party already signaling that it will not be an easy ride, by balking at what should be an uncontroversial element in his tax plan, a $3000 tax credit for companies which hire or retrain workers, he is looking at hostility from both the right and the left. It's starting to look like Jimmy Carter all over again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Donuel Date: 30 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM Obama has no plans to restrict or prohibit any investigations into war crimes by the Bush administration. He need only tacitly allow them to continue. When Karl Rove refuses to appear before Congress he can be jailed until he agrees to do so. He probably will then plead the 5th for hours. Palin should visit Karl in jail for priceless publicity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 09 - 11:30 AM Karl Rove? Wasn't he supposed to have been put in prison a long time back on this thread?? Of course how silly of me, to put somebody in prison you must first prove a "prima facie" case before you have a trial and then you have to have evidence that stands up to examination and complies with rules of evidence. This thread if memory serves correct was only ever based upon unsubstantiated rumour and opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:54 PM It is quite true that indicting & conviction requires good evidence. It is also true that good evidence is hard to obtain if the suspects prove adept at hiding, obfuscating , ignoring subpoenas, inventing their own laws, which require tedious legal work to prove those 'invented' laws are false, and generally using every subterfuge known to man to avoid cooperation with ANY inquiry into their activities. We have seen well-respected legal scholars offer opinions that many activities Rove, Bush, Gonzales and others are KNOWN to have engaged in (and often admitted) were illegal, unconstitutional and just plain naughty. This country generally tries very hard to maintain a formal process and fair legal system, but when those at the top, charged with administering aspects of the system redefine anything THEY do as 'legal', it gets kinda awkward. Now Rove and others, who expected their crowd to HOLD power indefinitely, are in jeopardy because they have a new administration looking at the evidence. They are hoping that they can delay and refuse to testify, etc., until we just get tired of digging.....and that all the complications facing Obama & crew (most of which were caused by Bush & crew) will make 437 prosecutions too distracting to pursue. It is embarassing to have major figures of the previous administration on trial...and Obama is 'trying' to get some bipartisan support going. He seems to be considering what will happen if he allows full investigations of the crap we all KNOW was done! Rove, Bush and crew have lawyers who will try everything to USE the law to AVOID the law.....it stinks, but they may manage it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:08 PM I don't think rational descriptions help, here--you are explaining to a stone wall. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM Oh sure, Amos... *grin*...but it needs to be 'seen' in print so 'they' are aware we are not fooled.... just like 947 posts about the Bush administration or similar items. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM Amos: You left out a loonie: Harold Burbank, Connecticut Green candidate for the US House (District 5), is helping to organize a major rally to promote the impeachment bill on Monday, April 14, (3 pm to 11 pm) at the Capital Center for the Arts, 44 South Main Street in Concord, New Hampshire. "Dan Ellsberg, Ramsey Clark and Bob Bowman, all supporters of my campaign, responded immediately to my request of them to speak at Betty Hall's Impeach Bush-Cheney Rally. An aircraft carrier task force organized around the Abraham Lincoln is steaming to the Persian Gulf as we speak to engage Iran. New Hampshire can help prevent World War III if it passes HR 24 on April 16, and it should," said Mr. Burbank, who is also a member of Veterans For Peace. The four candidates seeking the Green presidential nomination -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have all strongly supported the Green Party's call for impeachment. Ms. McKinney introduced a motion for impeachment in December, 2006, her final month as US Representative from Georgia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:58 PM How's the impeachment coming Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:36 PM Don't hold your breath, Sawz. But I think all along my point was to get the story out and the real and valid grounds made known, whether or not the Wanker was ever brought to justice. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM And THAT - all of the preceding - is what makes the world go 'round. It's also a great expression of why freedom of speech is so crucial. Yet, that said, I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread more properly belongs to the non-music section than to this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:33 PM Oh, is Obama going to be impeached? I hadn't heard about that. On what basis? Lying during the campaign? Is THAT an impeachable offense? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:37 PM Speaking of the Wanker I saw him on TV 3 days ago standing/weaving to and fro to Obama's left while Clinton stood motionless with his hand holding his other wrist. This was to be an announcment of solidarity of Presidential power to come to the aid of Haiti. I swear ol George weaved so much that he intentionally bumped Obama's elbow all the while grinning his coed cheerleader smile. Since then CLinton has his international group poised to make a 10 year commitment of aid to Haiti. $26 million in corporate donations and more from private donations through the Red Cross and others. Since then Obama has mobilized and meshed aid to Haiti with the US armed forces, Navy, Marines, Army,Coast Guard and Air Force, Russia and Europe. Since then George has pledged the same unswerving dedication that served to help all those who were caught in Hurricane Katrina's path. He offered to relocate Haitian's to tents on the Guantanemo base inside the barbed wire and land mines to insure a zone of freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:08 PM DougR - "Lying during the campaign? Is THAT an impeachable offense?" HA! If only. ;-) We could impeach Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan....hell, probably ALL of them since George Washington till now! Did I say "probably"? How about "definitely"? Those no longer in office could be impeached retroactively and denied television for a year as punishment! Or if they were dead, then they could have an impeachment notice put on their gravestones. That would be for outright lying, mind you. For just being misleading, disingenuous, manipulative, lying by ommission, exaggerating to a ridiculuous extent, and using gross personal innuendo of a totally unscrupulous sort against their opponents we could merely censure them and give them thirty whacks with the Cat o' Nine Tails on their bare behinds. This could also be done for all those who ran against them and didn't win...such as McCaine, Gore, Kerry, etc...might as well spread the punishment around in a fair and equal manner, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:35 PM DougR: As a penance for intentionally being obtuse, your assignment is to read this whole thread and identify the impeachable offenses listed therein. Let me add that blowjobs are not an impeachable offense. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: mousethief Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:47 PM As a penance for intentionally being obtuse, your assignment is to read this whole thread and identify the impeachable offenses listed therein. Let me add that blowjobs are not an impeachable offense. Not hardly. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: DougR Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:31 AM Uh ...what about softly? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: mousethief Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:13 PM Is that even possible? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:24 PM "Since then George has pledged the same unswerving dedication that served to help all those who were caught in Hurricane Katrina's path. He offered to relocate Haitian's to tents on the Guantanemo base inside the barbed wire and land mines to insure a zone of freedom." Flashback: "Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp [Guantanamo], Clinton changed his mind [Lied???]. As a result, the [Haitian] refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals. Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them. The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased." Impeach Whom for what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM 47 Guantanamo detainees to be held indefinitelyABC News Jan 23, 2010Two unnamed US officials say 47 Guantanamo Bay detainees will be held in prison indefinitely, without charge. They are reportedly too dangerous to be released, but cannot be tried either because the evidence against them is too flimsy or was extracted by coercion. The outcome will dismay civil liberties groups who hoped US President Barack Obama would end the practice of detention without trial. Moazzam Begg was a Guantanamo detainee and now directs a prisoner rights organisation, 'Cage Prisoners'. Mr Begg says he is dismayed but not surprised by the committee's findings. "The reality is that although they're talking about holding these 47 prisoners without charge or trial, the sad reality is they've been held for eight years without charge or trial," he said. "So it's not as if they're going to be entering into any new arena, there's no new discussion or dialogue. The whole talk about the change has come to America was simply a lie." The Presidential taskforce has recommended 35 of the 196 detainees left at Guantanamo Bay face prosecution. They could be heading to the United States be trialed in either a federal court or a military commission. US Attorney General Eric Holder has already said five of them, including the alleged September 11 mastermind, will go on trial in New York. Today marks Mr Obama's self imposed one-year deadline to shut down the prison camp, although he conceded last year that it would be missed. C'mon Amos, pass out the pitchforks and light up the torches. This guy needs to be impeached. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:42 PM You need one of these Amos. |
