 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Merde, alors! Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:19 AM Thus speaks Mr. Complacency. Obviously never read the Constitution, apparently never read history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:48 AM Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President, Vice President and 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." Treason is defined in Article III Section 3 as: "Treason against the United States, only in levying War against them, or in adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." So by levying war on a nation under false pretexts, Bush has, by constitutional authority, committed an act of treason which is an impeachable offense. The sixth article of the Bill of Rights states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particlularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Here, the 4th amendment tells us that when no warrant is issued, there is no probable cause and when there is no probable cause, the search is then considered "unreasonable." What is at issue here is whether this should be considered impeachable should this amendment be vilated (and clearly Bush has violated it). I believe it will be found so because Article II Section 4 is open-ended about what is impeachable. Clearly when a president's oath is to protect the Constitution, a violation of that oath would certainly fall under offenses impeachable. For Congress to refuse to look into this would be crminal on their part. And the best way for the republicans to take the wind out of the democrats' sails is to imprach Bush themselves and give him a good pee-pee whacking, i.e. "We'll overlook it this time, but don't do it again!" That would likely satisfy most Americans and they simply won't have the patience to sit through another impeachment process should the dems take Congress. In fact, the whole scheme is so Rovian in nature, I wouldn't be surprised if he engineers something like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 24 Dec 05 - 01:05 AM Correction: I mistyped the statement above, it should read: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 07:12 AM No Constitutional scholars here. Me either although I do keep a copy within reach as there are so many misquoting. (well before this thread started) Where does it say "so by levying war on a nation under false pretexts" is treason? I have never said my thoughts, opinions, etc. are correct. I simply ask for truth in the debate. Still waiting for the Law that has been broken by GWB. The Law, not personal feelings, wishes or attitude generated reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Dec 05 - 07:51 AM "The experts on what is wrong like Boobert, do not have anything to say when you ask them what should be done. All they know is what they don't like. They have no ideas to offer, just negative comments on everything". I think, Old Guy, that you must be blind, if you haven't noticed that Bobert & Co HAVE said repeatedly what should be done.....Impeach the bastard! Guest A, and all the others who keep asking which law GW has broken, I think I may be able to help. Even if one accepts that SECTION IV refers only to search and seizure, I would contend (and I'm sure precedent exists) that wiretap IS arguably a form of S & S, where the seizure is information. However, there is another side to this. If GW has broken his oath to defend the constitution, he is also guilty of the crime of perjury, an offence punishable upon conviction with fine, or imprisonment. Do you allow criminals to serve as President? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM I think there is more evidence that GWB is serious in his oath to defend the Constitution, whether one agrees with his approach or not. Not to ignore the Constitution, but many, many modifiers have taken place in the past couple hundred years. One is the Executive Order of 1979 which pertains to the requirements in FISA. I need to stop beating this 'live horse'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 08:13 AM And I also do not want to allow criminals to serve as the President. So, if you find one that fits that description, let me know and I will write my Representatives regarding his resignation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 24 Dec 05 - 09:35 AM The President is not above the law. HE IS THE LAW or so say his Atny Gen and St Dpt |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 10:19 AM "I need to stop beating this 'live horse'." Yes, please do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 05 - 10:59 AM SOme of the ways in which he "defended" the Consittution: 1. By over-riding the protections of the 4th Amendment 2. By perverting the freedoms of association and speech by creating enforced "Free Speech Zones" 3. By by-passing the separation of church and state with faith-based initiatives that are pro-Chriostian. 4. By promoting that the Constitution should become a vehicle for dictating moral choices to the citizens, such as the definition and privilege of marriage, thus adulterating the entire dignity and scope of the instrument 5. By undermining and perverting the formal process of declaration of war by (a)declaring war on a non-person which creates unlimited conditions of war and by (b) abrogating the rights to govern war-making away from the Congress, in whom it resides by Constitutional law. These are just a few examples off the top of my head. Maybe he shouldn't be impeached. Maybe he should be tried for crimes against the nation instead. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:22 AM "Bush won't be impeached because he has not committed a impeachable offence." To quote a line from an ol' movie ("Hombre"), "That's to find out." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:36 AM Hey, A! Yes GUEST A who claims to keep a copy of the Constitution readily available and who claims to have read the document: 'Where does it say "so by levying war on a nation under false pretexts" is treason?' As was pointed out to you, "Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." Copy of the Constitution for GUEST A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:39 AM "Correction: I mistyped the statement above, it should read: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." That statement was from GUEST AR282. Just in case you didn't read that, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:25 PM Read it a few more times, Peace. "levying war against them" is refering to the United States. My copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America is copyrighted 1998 by the Cato Institute. And before you say anything about them, I verified with a copy of the original. I read '282's post but one only has so much time for correcting people. And Amos, your 10:52 AM is off the top but I am not sure what. Wishful think on your part is all I can surmise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:26 PM Will see ya'all next week. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:38 PM 1984. We've met the enemy and it is us. Domestic Spying In The US |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:39 PM That link is to the Mudcat thread for future reference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:47 PM GUEST A: Regardless the BS that goes on between you and me, I do wish you a good, happy and safe Christmas. Hope your New Year is wonderful for you and yours, and that one way or another we are able to have peace on this planet. Take care and keep well. Like the old cartoon about the sheepdog and the wolf, "See ya tomorrow, Ralph." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 05 - 01:33 PM I can only assume you meant the one about the ways in which he, Bush, has weakened or tried to weaken, ignored or overridden the United States Constitution. The wishes involved are all his Imperial self's. You think, for example, that corralling protesters into concrete-barriered "free speech zones" is not dirtectly and flagrantly contrary to the intent of the freedom of the people to peaceably assemble and exercise their freedom of speech? If so, we are from too far apart to see eye to eye. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 24 Dec 05 - 01:51 PM Unforgettable: Unreliable in every way And confused as hell That's how he'll stay That's why its so damn incredible That someone so unelectable Thinks God chose him, He's delusional too You're detestable that's what you are Reprehensible in peace or war Like recounts that were denied to us You invent a war and ask for trust Never before Has some one been more.. Misunderestimatable and such a whore To neocons who wish for war While men and storms are attacking us You're vacationing and forgetting us George double U You verbally challenged us too. please feel free to add some more lyrics re: his other crimes against the constitution and world societies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Troll Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:23 PM Donuel, do you truly believe that, when a president (any president) takes a "vacation" that he is not working? Do you think that he just kicks back and does nothing while the country runs itself? Why do you think that he could do a better job in Washington than in Texas, Camp David or Cape Cod? Think about it. I agree that poetic license is always a factor in song writing, but really... BTW, the New York Times did a recount of the votes in Florida, the whole state, not just the three counties that Gore wanted, and Bush won. Sorry 'bout that. Don't misunderstand, I don't care for him myself, but but he's a long way in front of the candidates that the liberal parties have put forward in the last couple of elections. Why not focus on who you are going to work for in the next election. The chances of impeachment are slim to none and you are all wasting a lot of energy on it. Complaining about Bush is not going to accomplish anything worthwhile. They couldn't get Clinton and they won't get Bush. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM After all the FLAK thrown at us by the repubs for using the New York Times as a news source, suddenly it's the definitive authority on the "recounts" that prove he won Florida. Sorry mate, but a recount needs to be done at the time, when the ballots are available, and at the place in which they are counted. Anything else is unreliable, though perhaps not as much so as the LIE-bold machines. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:55 PM "liberal parties" That's an interesting statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 24 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM >>Read it a few more times, Peace. "levying war against them" is refering to the United States.<< You'll have to clarify this, A. It refers to the president as far as impeachment goes. If you mean a foreign power levying war against the U.S., how can that be treason??? Imagine Iraq trying Bush for treason over the invasion. He didn't betray Iraq, he attacked them. He betrayed the U.S. by forcing a war that should not have happened and for which he had no grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 04:41 PM Check out this commentary "Unwarranted Executive Power" by Thomas G. Donlan found in Barron's Online The caption below that article's title reads "The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws." Here's an excerpt from that article: "...Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment. It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law..." -snip- BTW: Barron's is published by the conservative Wall Street Journal. So it's not only liberals who are suggesting that Bush be subject to impeachment hearings. You can read the entire article by clicking on the hyperlink provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:16 PM angentially-related article about judge approving cell phone monitoring without requiring prosecutors to show evidence of probable cause: http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Judge+lets+Feds+track+cell+phones/2100-1028_3-6006453.html How extensive is NSA's spy program: http://news.com.com/Just+how+extensive+is+NSAs+spy+program/2100-1028_3-6006326.html An earlier roundup of blog posts: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nsa_surveillanc.html Articles asking whether President Bush commited an impeachable offense: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200512%5CPOL20051220a.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/24/MNGBOGD4FF1.DTL http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 24 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM Bush is still not being impeached yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 27 Dec 05 - 03:56 PM Peace: "Or not" In your case, not. Why do you keep complimenting me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:09 PM Because you need all the compliments you can get. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Irish sergeant Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:22 PM I think from strictly a time standpoint, President Bush will not be impeached. It would be a hard sell with his party holding a majority in both the house and the senate. Let me state That I personally disagree with Guest A and Guest AR282 et al. However. Bush has not under the constitutional definition of treason comited that act. I believe that he has tromped freely on the constitution but I am not a lawyer or a cop. I believe he got us into Iraq under illeagal and false pretenses however,I believe we have to bring the war in Iraq to a victorious conclusion. By the way I speak as a combat veteran. I believe also that any abuse of the constitution gives out enemies in Al Qaida and Iraq lovely gobs of propaganda they can use and that does help our enemies. Just some thoughts and my own opinion. Best to all, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM I wouldn't bet on Bush being impeached. Neither would I bet on Martin being banned. ;-) Of course, I'm not into gambling anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:54 PM Just a good try would be worth seeing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:57 PM Y'all just watch the market take a dip when it looks like he might be impeached. Fertilizer will drop by at least fifty points, and Prevarications R Us will sell at five cents on the dollar. Mark my words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:52 PM Bush has violated the Writ of Habeus Corpus as well. Article I Section 9 reads: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Doesn't say anything about whose rights have been suspended. A president sworn to defend and protect the Constitution cannot violate its principles in any way. Bush and his indefinite terms of imprisonment for detainees even after having been found innocent is sickening and unconscionable as are his "renditions" where he authorizes the CIA to abduct anyone they wish and kidnap him to foreign lands to be interrogated and tortured and held indefinitely. He makes me ashamed to be an American. This is an outrage and cannot be allowed to continue without somebody in congress putting on the brakes and taking a good look at what the hell is going on here. If we allow him to go this far, what next? Spying on calls within the country? You bet. How can you battle terrorism without it, right? Cameras on every street corner next because, after all, you'd be so much safer with them watching. How long before war protestors become the new detainees? How long before somebody goes through all your records (the Constitution calls these "papers") and then tells you if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't be complaining? What would your family do if you should suddenly disappear--all the worse if your rendition was a case of mistaken identity? Maybe it won't be so drastic, maybe they'll just make sure you lose your job. I ask you how long because you people had better remember something: Bush won't be in office forever and if there is no investigation into his activities, he will walk out of the Oval Office leaving a huge rip the Constitution and you'd better beware whoever comes into office after that because that person will have power the Constitution never intended and you'll find out why and you'd better believe that power is going to be used and abused until someone stops it and it had better get stopped right now because the longer we wait, the harder it will be. Some boundaries need to be defined and they need to be defined firmly and quickly. Somebody need to be made to understand that he'd better not cross those boundaries or he needs to be taken out of the picture as our Constitution permits us to do. Bush cannot be allowed to leave office without the matter being settled because it is too important and too dangerous to our fundamental freedoms to ignore it. He is bypassing the Constitution he is sworn to protect and defend. He is spitting on it. He is regarding it as so much of a bureaucratic red tape process that hinders him in his power, his ability to act. Well, holy sheepshit, that's what it was meant to do!!!! In Washington on December 18, 2002, Bush so wittily quipped: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." People thought he was joking but, as we see, he was not. Dubya doesn't have much of a sense of humor, folks. Dubya really does see himself as this kind of "benevolent" dictator who doesn't need that darned Constitution telling him which way the wind blows. And if we do not reign him in, he will leave the door wide open to future dictators who will not be so benevolent. There is nothing alarmist about what I am saying. This is not fear-mongering--that's the current administration's job. This is common sense. The very purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the president from becoming a dictator!!! We cannot let this man turn the Constitution into a mockery. Everything that makes us a nation and a people--a free people, more importantly--lies in the inviolable nature of that document. I spent 6 years of my life--some of it in the Middle East--defending it proudly. I do not want to see those 6 years wasted on the likes of this uncouth, bellicose, crude non-inteligent organism in the White House who thinks he's Abe Lincoln, William Pitt and Tiberius rolled into one. The Constitution is useless to defend you if you allow your president to discard it at his whim. It is the ONLY thing that defends you. Think about it. Bush needs to be called to account. We need to start asking questions, folks, and we need to demand answers. And we'd better do it quick while it is still legal. "The people never give up their freedoms but under some delusion."--Edmund Burke |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:00 PM MG's perpetual response to intelligence, to feeling, to concern, to real people in real life is the same: invalidate and nullify. Great. You're doing a bang-up job, Marty. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:38 PM AR 282; Funny you should mention Abe Lincoln So what is the big deal? A. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus. Give me ONE law this President has broken. Just one and then maybe I will listen. All your typing is about feelings, conjecture and probaly wishful thinking due to your personal wishes or hatred for anyone not of the Democratcic party. Your last post is based on supposition, and, very weak. What is your problem? Besides naming that one law that you think has been broken, give us one "right" that you think has been taken away. Just one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:41 PM ........and Peace, hope the same was for you and as Ralph would say, "see you tomorrow". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:43 PM "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1)" Try that for starters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 27 Dec 05 - 10:12 PM >>AR 282; Funny you should mention Abe Lincoln So what is the big deal? A. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus.<< I'm well aware of that, sir. That's why I mentioned it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 27 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM >>Give me ONE law this President has broken. Just one and then maybe I will listen.<< No, sir, you will not. He suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus and even Lincoln had a bonafide rebellion on his hands which is why he did it. No one seriously thinks detainees locked away in Gitmo constitute an invasion. He has no grounds for what he is doing. He has violated the 4th amendment. This is so clear that anyone who refuses to see it is not someone who is going to listen. When you have some democrat you loathe looking up your ass with a microscope sometime after 2008 by exploiting the constitutional violations we allowed Bush to get away with, THEN we'll be hearing from you about how the president is overstepping his boundaries. Just remember who to thank for it. >>All your typing is about feelings, conjecture and probaly wishful thinking due to your personal wishes or hatred for anyone not of the Democratcic party.<< Ridiculous, sir, there are several republicans right now who would get my vote if they ran in 08. But none of them associate with neocons--the real focus of my hatred and distrust. You allow yourself to be blinded by democrat and republican labels. You have to look behind those--they are meaningless. I trust many republicans but I do not trust neocons. They are a cult and, like any cult, are obsessed with obtaining power and holding dominion. Like any cult, they are destructive and full of suspicion for the world around them. So they cover themselves with a label like "republican" because they know fools like you will give them free reign to do whatever they wish. >>Your last post is based on supposition, and, very weak.<< Thanks. I'll take your shrewd analysis to heart. >>What is your problem?<< The same one you're going to have if we don't clean some house--the White House. >>Besides naming that one law that you think has been broken, give us one "right" that you think has been taken away. Just one.<< Sorry but that's getting old. You're not going to accept anything anyone tells you unless he's a republican pundit with his head up his ass. I don't have time for it, sir. Good day to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 10:29 PM "a republican pundit with his head up his ass" Strange people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:43 AM No, dingleberry, it is not my "real life". I just happen to be someone who speaks the truth whether in real space or in cuber space. This saves me the trouble of your ellipsoidal contortions of thought to keep your two faces sorted out. You have no compunction about falsifying who you are and what you think. It is easy for you to treat people as turds. This is not a virtue, no matter what you may have heard. It is a deep character disorder. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Dec 05 - 07:31 AM Dingleberry? Now I ask you if that is not in the same vicinity of "treating people like turds?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Dec 05 - 07:41 AM .....and I must aagree some of what I have been requesting is getting a little stale. I shall wait to see if an Impeachment attempt against this sitting President comes to be. That will tell me that an error has been made. By the way, if I was incorrect about suggesting the defense of the Democrate party was the reason for such anti-Bush rhetoric, then I take it back. It just appears that way with election results brought up continously and that the economy and lifestles are going down the crapper. None of which is true. As Little Hawk said here and elsewhere, the Congress is a mess. Maybe not his words but they have forgotten much of why they are in DC. I am not happy with either side of the aisle but we seem to blindly return them to office. Perhaps a mandatory retirement age of 65 will be a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina Date: 28 Dec 05 - 08:06 AM I have to agrre with A on one point... Yes, Congress is a mess... Rather than a manatory retirement age perhapa a better idea would be *real* campaign finacne reform that doesn't require a Senator to raise $8000 a day to have enough money to refinace his next campaign??? It's no wonder that there tens of thousands of paid lobbiest crawling all over D.C. with tons of cash and it'sw no wonder than what we have seen over the last couple of decades is more and more legislation that in corporate friendiy at the expense of the poor and middle class... No, thbis ain't exclusively about the rival fraternities on campus becuase they both are taking cash from the fats cats... But, I will say that the cuurent batc h of Repubs have reduced fund raising to something that more resembles the "protection" money that the Mob used to collec t from the mom-n-pop corner stores with their "pioneers" and "rangers" out there 24/7 srtrong-arming folks for dough... As to the impeachment, I stated originally that it was unlikely because the Repub fraternity controls both houses of Congress... But that doesn't mean that Bush has bot comittes impeachable offenses... I think that a lot of folks are confused as to jusdt what "impeachemnt" means... It doesn't mean that a president "is" guilty of anything... It means that there is enough evidence that Congress should hold a trial to excamine the facts and make a detefrmination... Given the circus of well financed impeacement of Bill Clinton, not that I liked his one danged bit, I believe that Bush is well beyond the Clintgon threshold... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina Date: 28 Dec 05 - 08:06 AM I have to agrre with A on one point... Yes, Congress is a mess... Rather than a manatory retirement age perhapa a better idea would be *real* campaign finacne reform that doesn't require a Senator to raise $8000 a day to have enough money to refinace his next campaign??? It's no wonder that there tens of thousands of paid lobbiest crawling all over D.C. with tons of cash and it'sw no wonder than what we have seen over the last couple of decades is more and more legislation that in corporate friendiy at the expense of the poor and middle class... No, thbis ain't exclusively about the rival fraternities on campus becuase they both are taking cash from the fats cats... But, I will say that the cuurent batc h of Repubs have reduced fund raising to something that more resembles the "protection" money that the Mob used to collec t from the mom-n-pop corner stores with their "pioneers" and "rangers" out there 24/7 srtrong-arming folks for dough... As to the impeachment, I stated originally that it was unlikely because the Repub fraternity controls both houses of Congress... But that doesn't mean that Bush has bot comittes impeachable offenses... I think that a lot of folks are confused as to jusdt what "impeachemnt" means... It doesn't mean that a president "is" guilty of anything... It means that there is enough evidence that Congress should hold a trial to excamine the facts and make a detefrmination... Given the circus of well financed impeacement of Bill Clinton, not that I liked his one danged bit, I believe that Bush is well beyond the Clintgon threshold... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 09:41 AM Ok, I take back the dingleberry part. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Mrs. Beasley, your old English teacher. Date: 28 Dec 05 - 03:11 PM In fact, Martin, do you even know who William F. Buckley is? I didn't think so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 28 Dec 05 - 04:39 PM >>By the way, if I was incorrect about suggesting the defense of the Democrate party was the reason for such anti-Bush rhetoric, then I take it back. It just appears that way with election results brought up continously and that the economy and lifestles are going down the crapper. None of which is true.<< The state of economy and Bush's election via swing votes in his brother's state are definitely legitimate gripes but they have nothing to do with my dislike of what Bush is doing to the Constitution or whether he is republican or democrat or liberal or conservative. This is the only Constitution we have and once we bury it, we're done for. It is the heart and soul of the American nation. Without it, we are no better off than impoverished peasants in a brutal banana republic. All political stripes must DEMAND that Bush adhere to his oath. Anything less is truly un-American. What Bush is doing is un-American. Anyone who supports what he is doing is un-American. Anything that nullifies or ignores the Constitution is inherently and inextricably un-American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:47 PM Once more, what has GWB done to nullify or ignore the Constitution? I can't seem to find one 'fact' that would lead me to this conclusion. supposition as opposed to fact? |
