 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Crowbar Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:05 PM Go ahead and try to impeach Bush. It will make even bigger asses of anyone who believes thay can. Did not Kennedy wire tap Martin Luther King? Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" The Washington Post July 15, 1994: "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers." Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." "It was a political scandal of unprecedented proportions: the deliberate, systematic, and illegal misuse of the FBI and the CIA by the White House in a presidential campaign. The massive black-bag operations, bordering on the unconstitutional and therefore calling for impeachment, were personally approved by the president. They included planting a CIA spy in his opponent's campaign committee, wiretaps on his opponent's top political aides, illegal FBI checks, and the bugging of his opponent's campaign airplane. The president? Lyndon B. Johnson. The target? Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate" Where were all these constitutional experts then? All you need ia a big fat capital D in front of your title and you are immune to any accusations of wrongdoing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM I don't doubt you couldn't find one fact. In your many posts to the Mudcat you have so far found NO facts. You troll, and you are very good at it, IMO. But after all that's said and done, you are nothing but a Republican apologist for a corrupt administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:08 PM Oh yeah, A, you want book, chapter and verse... Problem is that it ain't that simple... Oh yeah, I'm sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that you will say that back when it was Clinton lieing about a blow job that book, chapter anfd verse was front and center in yer narrow little thinking yet... ...here we are andf we have another guy, who just happens to enjoy a majority in both houses of Congress, who has trampled gthe 4th ammendamnt and tried to do an end around of FISA and, in your opinion, this ain't worth a second look???? Is this your opinion, A????? Yes___________ No___________ Maybe_______ Maybe Not __________ Ahhh, could you repeat the question___________ Ahhhh, no tircks here so feel perfectly comfy just picking anyway you want to pick.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: CarolC Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:13 PM So Crowbar, how do you feel about those examples you posted? Do you feel that that sort of behavior should be allowed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM A answers no questions at all because he has no answers. He is a Republican troll who visits to cause folks to waste their time trying to say something he would understand. Best thing to do is ignore him. He will go away and return under another guise. BUT, be clear, his 'mission' is to waste your time. Read one of his posts and you'll see just how much of a waste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 29 Dec 05 - 02:35 PM Aside from posting misleading snips taken out of context, Crowbar seems to think it's ok for Bush to break the law because others have done so. Not only did the others not break the law, it isn't acceptable to do it because others did it. I suppose if Clinton rounded up 200,000 citizens and gassed them to death in a secret concentration camp, it's perfectly acceptable for Bush to do the same. But it's the anti-Bush contingent who are a bunch of ignorant kooks who think they are Constitution scholars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 29 Dec 05 - 02:48 PM What a charming negative generalization, AR. I don't suppose you have anything substantive to say to support your mudslinging? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,donuel Date: 29 Dec 05 - 03:30 PM Today Conyers took the podium in Congress and called for the impeachment of George W Bush. It has begun. next: foot dragging hearings for 2 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 29 Dec 05 - 03:43 PM a word of caution for those who would rush to judgement with that particular fish hook - always use a wire trace |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 29 Dec 05 - 04:11 PM Here's a link to Conyer's statement. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/releases/iraqreptreleasepr122005.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,capnrobbierlb@aol.com Date: 29 Dec 05 - 05:08 PM If anyone has time to read this far down in an overall dialog of tripe, understand this: YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE AND YOU MUST PARTICIPATE TO BE DESERVING AND REMAIN ENFRANCHISED. Let's face it, over the last 20 years a lot of very good citizens who believe in civil liberties, diversity, human decency in their personal and community lives and many other values that they were introduced to by parents, teachers, ministers, priests, rabbis and other people of honest intent and good moral quality - well, they got lazy. WE are responsible for "w," dickless dick cheney, FOX propoganda channel and a host of ills it will take a couple of decades to correct - if we work very hard at it and have luck and some help from our friends. The question is not: "Should bush be impeached?" The declarative statement is: "bush must be impeached." Not because he is a now-dry alcoholic, cocaine user, slow to learn, messianic born-again beanwad and a pseudo-Christo fascist, but because he broke the law, lied and has lost the people's trust as well as having besmirched the good name of America around the globe. He did not do this alone. Understand, "dickless dick" runs this administration along with karl rove, defense contractors and international construction company CEOs and a host families of international old wealth, including, of course, the saudi royal family. Do you think "w" (and let's make it a small "W" from now on) tries to award a contract to lockheed martin to run the Texas welfare system on a whim? No, he's bought and paid for. He is not alone; dickless dick's wife, lynne cheney, for years served on Lockheed's Board of Directors for which she received $120,000 annually. She is not an engineer, has no MBA, has no knowledge about weapons or aircraft design - in fact, if you look into her background, she is one startlingly mediocre mind. Now, understnad, she did not show up at an office or a plant 220 working days a year like most of us do. So the $120,000 / yr to make a few board meetings was really paid for ???? That's RIGHT! Plain old-fashioned graft, pay-o-la, filthy lucre. What we all must do is hunker down and decide to spend time and precious resources to: 1. Elect people of QUALITY (Democrats, Republicans or Independents) in 2006, 2008 and beyond. 2. In the near term, target members of congress like Delay, Sessions, Frist and other staunch neo-con, bush/cheney-loving, sold-out, money laundering, influence peddling, corporate tit sucking shills and drive them out of office (national and state). 3. Work with fellow liberals (and that's still a proud title) to reestablish a platform of local, state and national government that makes sense for the future of this nation and other soverign nations before assholes like bush & co. lead us into a nuclear confrontation that begins with a dirty bomb on Wall Street and ends with a launch on a city in Iran or some other insane act of retalliation. 4. Take back the airwaves (T.V. & radio), reclaim the major newspapers and keep hold of a free internet. America is the most propagandized country on the planet currently and pseudo-news talk pundits need to be driven into their own dung by campaigns to boycott and otherwise harrass advertisers who promote right wing stupid shit- talk. That is not to say meaningful opposing thoughts should come under unreasonable attack. I'm talking about bombastic shout-down tripe that now fills the national semi-consciousness. I could go on, but this is not the time or place. If you get it at all, you get my point. Don't waste time on creeping assholism. Get past it and WORK on local and state campaigns for candidates who support your views and write to them, make appointments and demand to go see them or their associates and form small groups to talk through how to take back government and make it sane and responsive to the people. Remember - its your sons, daughters, grandsons, nephews who will fight and die for corporate profit in a foreign land and your tax dollars that will be spent to make bastards rich as they return the people you love to be cannon fodder in some dusty city in the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 29 Dec 05 - 05:20 PM Read my lips, GWB will not be impeached. Some are allowing blind hatred or a poor losers' attitude to tske over their thinking. Franklin Roosevelt went thru the same accusations and diatribe that Bush is. Donuel, nothing has begun. Conyers must have felt lonely today as there was no session. Perhaps that is the reason he picked today. Nothing more than a meaningless press release. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 29 Dec 05 - 05:26 PM Peace, I concur. "In your many posts to Mudcat, you have so far found no facts." I will, however, continue to strive to find one. When I do, you will be the first to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 29 Dec 05 - 06:56 PM When in doubt, Nullify, eh, A? A talent you and MG seem to have sipped from the same dried up old teat. I wish you the joy of it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 29 Dec 05 - 07:43 PM GUEST A: "But after all that's said and done, you are nothing but a Republican apologist for a corrupt administration." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 29 Dec 05 - 07:57 PM >>The question is not: "Should bush be impeached?" The declarative statement is: "bush must be impeached."<< Correct. He has broken the law and violated his oath. He must be impeached to reassure the public that the Constitution is intact and still works for them. Even John Dean says Bush broke the law and he kows a thing or two about bugging opponents' rooms without a warrant and going to jail for it--you betcha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 29 Dec 05 - 08:22 PM Congressman John Conyers makes me proud to be an American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 29 Dec 05 - 08:33 PM House Resolution 635 House Resolution 636 House Resolution 637 They make for interesting reading. When will a vote take place or has that happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:11 PM Well, well, well... First,might good to be ouuta my son-in law's house and back home in my little holler... Second, thank you, GUEST capnrobbierlb fir yer excellent post... a...and thanks, John Conyers... Yeah, thinks might not heat up like when the neo-cons had a $40M anti-Clinton investigation going on but, hey, things seem a tad warmer today... Tell, ya what, throw just half that $40M at investigatin' Bush & Co an' we'll all be scrambling to the Constitution to find someone in the succession chain that ain't a crook... ...and I ain't kidding... I mean, Bush Cheney, Frist are all out... Who's next??? Tom Delay??? See what I mean??? May come down to the Page County dog warden... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:05 AM Doe it not matter to anyone that Conyers 'company' was not operating Thursday. Was he really there by himself? Nullify? No. Amos, I have not nullified anything. There must be something of substance before time is spent in that endeavor. Bobert, what 'law' did Conyers say was broken when he called for impeachment? And if he has the goods, why-o-why has he not started the ball rolling? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:26 AM Do you understand what an impeachemnt is, A??? Just for starters, there's certainly enough riding here to bring charges of violations of privacy guarenteed under the Consitution... It is a federal crime to cross state lines to commit a crime... That ceratinly was done... 8Now you argue that Congress gave him those rights in their authorization for miliatry action in Iraq if everything else failed to resolve the WMD issue... Given the fact that Bush didn't hold the invasion and occupation as the last option by ignoring Hans Blix's report that Iraq was copperating and that the inpspectors weren't finding anything, this also might be impeachable... Heck, even the way that Bush "pioneer and ranger" hit men are hitting up corportation and wealthy folks for protection money is very posssibly impeachable... The Constitution calls for "high crimes and misdeameanors"... There certainly seems to be a string of misdemeanors worth a Congressional peek... BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:57 AM Yes, Bobert, I know what impeachment is and I assume you do also. If,in your opinion, there is sufficient grounds to formally call for it, why hasn't anyone done so? "Impeach" can simply be to cast doubt on someone. Why has no one done this in a formal manner. Actions certainly speak louder than words. Give us one valid 'misdemeanor' that is plausible, not thoughts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: TIA Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:02 AM Q- "If,in your opinion, there is sufficient grounds to formally call for it, why hasn't anyone done so?" A- Republican Congress |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:06 AM captrobber I accuse you of being too well informed and as such you are a danger to this administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:16 PM Bush's Abuse of Power Deserves ImpeachmentBy Joe Conason, writing for the New York Observer Recklessly and audaciously, George W. Bush is driving the nation whose laws he swore to uphold into a constitutional crisis. He has claimed the powers of a medieval monarch and defied the other two branches of government to deny him. Eventually, despite his party's monopoly of power, he may force the nation to choose between his continuing degradation of basic national values and the terrible remedy of impeachment. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: DougR Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:44 PM "John Conyers makes me proud to be an American." Geeze, Azizi can't you come up with something better than that? Conyers? Liberme' DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Troll Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:43 PM Can any of you constitutional law and political experts tell me why the NY Times sat on the NSA story for a year before they published it? Just before a book on the subject was about to come out? It seems to me that the NY Times is not too concerned with national security OR civil liberties. As for John Conyers announcment, he is on the left fringes of the Democratic party and is given to grandiose gestures. He isn't usually taken seriously by the more erudite political observers. But, whatever makes your day. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: CarolC Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:47 PM Can any of you constitutional law and political experts tell me why the NY Times sat on the NSA story for a year before they published it? Politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:52 PM "John Conyers makes me proud to be an American." Geeze, Azizi can't you come up with something better than that? Conyers? Liberme' DougR **** Okay-I'll come up with something better than that: John Conyers makes me very proud to be an American and a human being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:52 PM House Resolutions 635, 636 and 637 made my day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:21 PM Bob Fertik writes: "My New Year's Resolution for 2006 is to do everything in my power to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. I will support John Conyers' bill (H.Res.635) to investigate and impeach Bush and Cheney. I will express my support for impeachment by calling and writing the media, and by educating my friends and neighbors. In the 2006 election, I will work to elect candidates who support impeachment, and work to defeat Members of Congress who do not." Read Bob's blog here: Link If you agree, why not share your Resolution with your representatives and senators? Link IMPEACHMENT IS POSSIBLE Even before the NSA wiretapping scandal broke, a Zogby poll found that 53% of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he had lied about the war -- and 57% believe he lied. Link 1 Link 2 Since the wiretapping scandal, even libertarians and conservatives have started suggesting impeachment. The list includes former Reagan official Bruce Fein, Norm Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, law professors Jonathan Turley and Geoffrey Stone, and even Barron's editor Thomas Donlan. Link CONYERS LEADS THE WAY Congressman John Conyers has compiled Bush's impeachable offenses in a must-read report: "The Constitution in Crisis." Link Conyers has introduced two bills (H.Res.636 and H.Res.637) to censure Bush and Cheney for withholding evidence from Congress, and a third bill (H.Res.635) to create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Link The following articles highlight some of the findings in Conyers' report: Bush Administration Refuses to Comply With FOIA Request on Pre-War Intelligence Link White Phosphorous: The U.S. Used It; The U.S. Says It's Illegal Link White House Leaked Classified Intelligence to Make its Case for War Link Rumsfeld Admits to "Ghosting" Detainee Link DEMOCRATS TALK IMPEACHMENT Senator Barbara Boxer is consulting four Constitutional scholars about impeachment. Civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis announced his support for impeachment. Urge your favorite Democrats to join these brave leaders in openly discussing impeachment. IMPEACHMENT AS CAMPAIGN ISSUE Impeachment is becoming a campaign issue as well. With your support, www.ImpeachPAC.org has raised $46,261.70 to support pro-impeachment candidates. Our first endorsed candidate, Tony Trupiano of Michigan, is proudly campaigning on his support for impeachment. Please send Democratic Congressional candidates here: Link CITIZENS IMPEACHMENT COMMISSION FORMING We are also forming a powerful Citizens Impeachment Commission of prominent Americans who are willing to lead the fight in the year ahead. Our commission already includes activists Medea Benjamin, Gene Bruskin, Tim Carpenter, David Cline, Steve Cobble, Karen Dolan, Jodie Evans, Mike Ferner, Bob Fertik, Kim Gandy, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Tom Hayden, Doug Kreeger, Bill Mitchell, Bill Moyer, Michael Rectenwald, Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, Jonathan Tasini, and Kevin Zeese; former government officials Elizabeth de la Vega, Larry Johnson, and Ann Wright, Historians and Legal Scholars John Bonifaz, Marcus Raskin, Lawrence R. Velvel, and Howard Zinn, and Talk Show Hosts/Editors/Bloggers/Pundits/Authors David Allen, Dave Allsopp, The Bulldog Manifesto, Tom Engelhardt, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, Justin A. Frank, Doug Ireland, Rob Kall, Susie Madrak, Mark Crispin Miller, Brad Newsham, Liza Sabater, and Jeff Tiedrich. And we're just getting started! Please encourage prominent citizens yo Link IMPEACHMENT BLOGGING COLLECTIVE FORMING If your blog has a news feed containing only your articles on impeachment, we'd like to post the headlines and first paragraphs and link to your site from here: Link Just send the URL for the feed to david@davidswanson.org ALMOST HERE: NATIONAL DAY OF TOWN HALL FORUMS ON ENDING THE WAR Attend a public forum on Saturday, January 7, on the topic of ending the war! There are 76 events already planned around the country, many of them with Congress Members. Link NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY After Downing Street, Progressive Democrats of America, and allied organizations are calling upon you to hold Bush and Cheney accountable. We need you to call your member of Congress and ask him or her to cosponsor Congressman Conyers' bills. Join us on the National Call-In Day, January 9th, 2006. Let's kick off the New Year with a bang. On Monday, January 9th, we ask that you call your member of congress in their home district. Ask to speak to your member of congress. Urge your Representative to cosponsor Rep. John Conyers' bill to create an investigation and make recommendations on impeachment, a second bill to censure Bush, and a third to censure Cheney. Find the phone number: Link Read about the bills: Link HIGH PRAISE FROM THE NATION FOR AFTER DOWNING STREET John Nichols, in the Nation Magazine, writes: "The media did a slightly better job of monitoring political wrongdoing in 2005 than it did during the first four years of the Bush-Cheney presidency -- when it actually would have mattered. But the real work of exposing the misdeeds of the administration is still being done by activist groups. And the most inspired of these in 2005 was After Downing Street, the coalition of groups that describes itself as "working to expose the lies that launched the war and to hold accountable its architects, including through censure and impeachment." In conjunction with Progressive Democrats of America, the able activist group that seeks to create an actual opposition party in America, After Downing Street is pushing the political envelope in exactly the direction it needs to go. Check out their website at After Downing Street's website and keep ahead of the action in 2006." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM The NY Times is just not credible. It's agenda is obvious. Anyone who reads it and then accuses somone of watching Fox News is really on the same page and guilty of the same thing. We have 2 decent papers in Chicago. The Tribune which is a bit right of center and the Sun-Times which is a bit left. Neither one in this day and age can be considered extreme in either direction. There is some integrity there that has a common sense mid-western attitude. You cannot get that from either the NY Times or Fox News. So quoting either one of them is the same thing. Biased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: freda underhill Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:01 PM Bush has admitted that the New York Times reports were correct - and so has admitted he committed an impeachable offense. Warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. Following Nixon's resignation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)was introduced to set limits on electronic surveillance. It created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance. Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law. Bush has outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows. This is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance. All Bush had to do was to go through the FISA court to get those wiretaps happening - but he apparently believes he is above the law. Bad move. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:03 PM Best laugh I've had in quite a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:24 PM Very funny but who would want to? I wonder if Martin is up to the job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:56 PM December 15, 2005 - 58% percent of Americans believe that President George W. Bush should not be impeached and removed from office. 32% take the opposite view. 52% of Americans would be less likely to vote for a Congressional candidate who promised to work for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. 30% would be more likely. It's hell to be part of the minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:58 PM Who gives a rat's ass about made-up stats? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:00 PM Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 181447 responses Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 86% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 5% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 8% I don't know. 2% My stats are bigger than your stats, Old Guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:23 PM The stats are from Rasmussen. I assume you are in the 2% in your stats. I found them too at http://www.able2know.com/forums/about65904.html but your 181447 number is wrong and obviuosly enhanced by you. You lied about that number and you can't be trusted. That this is not a poll by Rassmussen but a "vote" Link on a web page wherin mainly anti Bushites would be reading anyway. Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 164962 responses Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 85% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 5% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 8% I don't know. 2% MSNBC Please vote ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:24 PM You're a real squirrely sorta guy, OG> Me in the "I don't know" 2%?? It is to laugh! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:27 PM Amos: The post was directed at airhead Peace. I know where you stand on any topic, in the vast minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:49 PM See recent Page County Polling Agency stats on "Bush Lied" thread... Hot off the press.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:54 PM Dear Old Guy: I cut and pasted, just as you did. Added nothing at all. Just the facts as they were presented on the site. I have no need to lie to the likes of you, not at all. Here's the site. The numbers seem to be at 181,648. Go check it out, twit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:57 PM Old Guy, are you as stupid as you seem to be? Gawd, even your insults are limp. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM Show me a national poll supporting your percentages. Only dickheads like you visit and "vote" at such sites. And whatever you so ignore the Rassmussen polls. They might prove your are in the minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:25 PM "Show me a national poll supporting your percentages." Nope. I don't like you and just couldn't care less about what you think. Besides, you wouldn't be able to interpret a national poll if it bit yer ass dick brain. (That, btw, is what you get for accusing me of fabricating information.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:26 PM My pollster can beat up your pollster and... ....300. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:28 PM 'er 301... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM That's the way Old Guy counts. "Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition." There is hope yet. Hey, OG, you one of the Premium Members of that site? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:20 PM Peace: Why does it take you so many posts to disprove the facts I present in one post? How do you interperet the polls at Rasmussen? I see you went there and tried to find something to support your minority opinion. All you could come up with was som projections for 2008 where 2 democrats and one republican should win, which you quoted even though you reject everything else on the site. They only facts you acknowledge are the ones that support your lame, minority conception of the real world. Is reality for people that can't handle drugs? I am not a premium member of anything. |
