Thread: Bush MUST be impeached ...

Originally Posted by wvpeach

I agree. I figure after MCCain is president and they attack Iran and the United States is defeated by the rest of the world and brought to our knees that Bush will be tried for war crimes. Chaney and Rummy and a lot of the other Bush dummies as well.

The world will give us that much to lift a defeated countries spirits.

You are absolutely the dumbest person I have ever had any contact with.

Originally Posted by dlrrtx

For Godsake. Do you sit around all day and pray for the demise of the United States? You think we should be brought to our knees? I used to think you were just a bleeding heart, who meant well. I am starting to think you are a straight running nutcase.

She is a nutcase. Full fledged.

Originally Posted by freedomlover1

Let me repeat. Name, EXACTLY, what domestic policies have been put in place to protect the US from another attack. What has this administration done, EXACTLY, that has kept the US safe.

There were eight years between attacks on US soil. Clinton must have been doing something right then also?

And you are fooling yourself on soooo many levels. Al Qaeda is stronger today than they ever were BEFORE 9/11, giving away our constitutional rights only makes for one more threat (our government), and just because we haven't been attacked again thus far, shit, that has only created a false sense of security that some people buy into.

Al-Qaeda is not stronger.

I think the ability to monitor and freeze some of the money of and headed to terror organizations has helped.

There are others as well, but it seems that you don't really want anything done, so I won't bother.

Originally Posted by freedomlover1

We must be reading different reports. According to the NIE, they are indeed stronger in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Africa..........

Or you're simply ignoring the reports since they don't support your partisan agenda.

Counter-Terrorism: Saudi Arabia Declares al Qaeda Defeated

Army Col. Ricky Gibbs: Al Qaeda Defeated in Rashid « The Foxhole

Al Qaeda In Iraq Defeated?, Military Tells Washington Post Group May Be Beaten, Intel Experts Not So Confident - CBS News

{(CBS/AP) Many U.S. military commanders in Iraq believe they have dealt a large enough blow to al Qaeda in Iraq to declare victory over the group, according to a report in the Washington Post.

The Iraq franchise of Osama bin Laden's terror network has been deemed the deadliest threat facing American forces and their allies since shortly after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

U.S. generals tout recent successes against the Sunni militants as evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq, known by the acronym AQI, may have been dealt a blow from which it cannot recover. }

I am simply not willing to give my government the freedom to take my rights from me.

So you can't come up with a single right you've lost, and are just spewing partisan bullshit?

Just as I figured.

Now, what policies, EXACTLY, have made Americans safer?

Not my claim - not my job to support it.

Originally Posted by Back Atcha

I do not wait unitl I loose ANY right...

So you admit you're just blowing smoke? You're whole schpele is nothing but partisan bullshit - no new knowledge there.

infringement is enough for me,

What specific right of yours has been infringed?

You can't answer - all you have is innuendo - total bullshit.

and certainly rises above impeaching for a blowjob.

And here is the truth of it -you want revenge for your little tin god getting impeached.

Originally Posted by Dom1

You are absolutely the dumbest person I have ever had any contact with.



She is a nutcase. Full fledged.




Al-Qaeda is not stronger.

They are in Afghanistan, Africa, Pakistan (according to the NIE, 2007) and for the first time, may have a real chance at getting their hands on Nuclear Weapons.

I think the ability to monitor and freeze some of the money of and headed to terror organizations has helped.

I agree.

There are others as well, but it seems that you don't really want anything done, so I won't bother.

Not true Dom. I think that we should have NOT diverted resources away from going after Al Qaeda, I think that we should have done SOMETHING, ANYTHING about our open southern border, I think that we should have strenghthened port security, I think that we should have poured money into going after VISA overstays, I think that there should be sever limits put on H1 VISA's, I think that we should not have misused our military, I think that we should pour money into correcting any intelligence mistakes and make it stronger.

I don't think that we should have put policies in place that put our military at greater risk, I don't think that we should put policies in place that ruin our credibility, I don't think that we should get down and wallow in the shit with the terrorists, I don't think that we should give our rights away for a tiny bit of FALSE SECURITY.

Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

So you admit you're just blowing smoke? You're whole schpele is nothing but partisan bullshit - no new knowledge there.



What specific right of yours has been infringed?

You can't answer - all you have is innuendo - total bullshit.



And here is the truth of it -you want revenge for your little tin god getting impeached.

I won't have time until later tonight to answer this for you, but for now...

Don't ever reinterpret what I say. If I admit to something you'll know, because I'll say "I admit that...." Aside from that, it's just wishful thinking on your part.

I can answer, and I will... This is not a problem. But more to the point, they aren't MY rights, they're OUR rights. Therefore, it's not a partisan issue. You may get a moment of self-satisfaction from time to time, but you aren't well read enough to win an argument of facts with me. So go on with your mental masturbation, since it's only the self satisfaction you're concerned with.

Bush saved the Clinton mess in North Korea and they are in the process of disarming their nukes.

Al Qaeda is in complete disaray and have been handed a defeat in Iraq.

Iraq is on its way to peace, prosperity and unification long after the democrats proclaimed defeat.

The economy is beginning to turn around even after the democrats non compiance in an energy policy.

I guess it's time to freak out and demand impeachment. The country is headed in the wrong direction in the eyes of the liberals. They need more calamnity.

Originally Posted by cedenot

Bush saved the Clinton mess in North Korea and they are in the process of disarming their nukes.

Al Qaeda is in complete disaray and have been handed a defeat in Iraq.

Iraq is on its way to peace, prosperity and unification long after the democrats proclaimed defeat.

The economy is beginning to turn around even after the democrats non compiance in an energy policy.

I guess it's time to freak out and demand impeachment. The country is headed in the wrong direction in the eyes of the liberals. They need more calamnity.

So... you're saying as long as someone gets a few things right, the wrong they do doesn't matter, is that right? Good news for murderers, rapists and child molesters everywhere. Brilliant!

Mr. Bush's LEGACY was sealed today, and history will not be allowed to "liberally" paint a picture of this American patriot as such as been attempted by the communists of this country. This man might not be the most articulate statesmen that his nation has ever known....but the key word presented is "statesmen", as he has engaged in the administration of his position as commander in chief in true fashion of being labeled...."A STATESMEN" and not a "politician" who's only concern is how others may make judgment upon his actions.

He has always and foremost presented the actions of someone that places the needs of his nation above even the position of his office, as true history demonstrates...he did what was NEEDED to protect this nation in a time of DECLARED WAR....and the proof is in the results, there has been no further successful attacks upon US soil. And personally I could have not been more proud than today....when the fruits were made to bear of his decisions......Finally it seems we a slight majority of people willing to read, research, and stand by the principles that were set forth by the founders of this nation.

As history will indeed bestow the legacy of this administration as being in power when some very intellectually honest people had the courage.....to point out exactly what the 2nd amendment proclaimed in bold print......THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION HAVE THE INHERENT RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES from such as was demonstrated by the four abstainers of this ruling today.....that established the fact known for centuries, yet never set in the cement of precedence, UNDER ARMS WHEN AND IF NECESSARY. As proven in history actual....every fascist reign begins with "disarming" the people....now people have the right to MAKE them take such from their cold dead hands...not at the touch of a communist gavel.

JOB WELL DONE MR. PRESIDENT for having the knowledge to appoint "true interpreters" of the constitution THAT POINT OUT THE FACT THAT IF SOMETHING is TRUE....it need not EVOLVE by quoting external sources (such as European Law)...illegally, by misapplying the power of JUDICIAL REVIEW. Former generations have known that fact from the beginning...."IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT." This one points more than makes up for the many "honest mistakes" made by this man.....who had the courage to stand up to the communists of this nation, no matter what kind of picture they have painted of him, and that my friends is the difference between a STATESMEN and a Politician, in the mold of the expedience used by those from the left....who bend their principles upon the request of every pole that comes forth. A statesmen very well knowns we live in a Representative Republic and not a "Mobocracy"....ruled by men that are just to lazy or cowardly to place the needs of their country above their own political careers, as they go around trying to garner PUBLIC APPROVAL. BD

Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

What specific right of yours has been infringed?

You can't answer - all you have is innuendo - total bullshit.



And here is the truth of it -you want revenge for your little tin god getting impeached.

First, and as you damn well know by now, I have no love for Billy BJ. I don't give a damn about either party. What I DO give a damn about is the PROPER USE of power and the apropriate application of the rule of law.

Now then... on to the infringement of rights. It all starts with the framers of the constitution. Folks that knew first hand, far more about abuse of power, tyranny and the need to vest power in the people than you or I will ever understand reading about it in books. So I cede to their wisdom, not your interpretation. Their advice was, be vigilant, question your gov't, when necessary... voice your disent. They didn't say only qusetion the other party, nor only be vigilant or your fellow countrymen, nor stow your disent if the other guy screwed up too.

Though the Framers believed the oath of
office imposed a solemn obligation on the
president to uphold the Constitution and
defend it from potential violations by coordinate
branches, they were under no illusions
about the oath’s inviolability. The oath was
merely the first line of defense in a system of
checks and balances designed to restrain
abuses of power.
The fundamental defense against such
abuses would always reside in the people.
Nearly a hundred years after Washington’s
inauguration, Grover Cleveland, in his first
inaugural address, described the vigilance on
which our Republic depends:
He who takes the oath . . . to preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution
of the United States only assumes the
solemn obligation which every patriotic
citizen—on the farm, in the workshop,
in the busy marts of trade, and
everywhere—should share with him.
The Constitution which prescribes his
oath, my countrymen, is yours; the
government you have chosen him to
administer for a time is yours. . . . Every
citizen owes to the country a vigilant
watch and close scrutiny of its public
servants and a fair and reasonable estimate
of their fidelity and usefulness

Next, to help set the stage, let's take a look at the attitude of President Bush towards the constitution and his oath to uphold it.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I'm the decider

Having a dictator wouldn't be so bad, so lang as I"m the dictator

It's clear that Bush has no intention of upholding his oath if it in any way gets on the way of his agenda. This makes any infrigement of rights, real or perceived, an extremely dangerous precedent.

On to the rights being infringed...

Among the severe measures adopted by the Bush administration, the police were given permission to intercept conversations between detained suspects and their lawyers. These new regulations allow police intervention on phone lines and communication over the internet, and the authorize agents to enter the homes of suspects and revise their personal belongings without notifying them.

This is a direct infringement of rights concerning unreasonable search and siezure and privacy laws. The tired old protest that "if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?", doesn't fly. For the very reason that "wrong" is now subject to the perception of one man, the prez. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

“Free-Speech Zones”
The Bush administration has also allowed
restrictions on the rights of Americans to criticize
the government on the streets of our cities
and towns. In case after case, when President
Bush makes a public appearance, nonviolent
protesters have been harassed by law enforcement—
either Secret Service agents or local
police operating at their request—and forced
out of the president’s line of sight, to a designated
protest area known as the “free-speech
zone.” The free-speech zones are often behind
fences or obstructions such as “Greyhoundsized
buses” and far out of sight of the media
covering the affair.22 In one case, the 2004 G-8
summit on Sea Island, Georgia, protesters were
kept 10 miles away.23 If protesters fail to comply
with the order to move, they are subject to
arrest and prosecution.
“What the Secret Service does,” according to
Paul Wolf, an Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
police supervisor involved in planning a presidential
visit to Pittsburgh in 2002, “is they come
in and do a site survey, and say, here’s a place
where the people can be, and we’d like to have
any protesters be put in a place that is able to be
secured.”24 During that presidential visit,
retired steelworker Bill Neel was arrested and
charged with disorderly conduct for refusing an
order to move. In an open public area, amidst a
crowd of Bush supporters, Neel unfurled a
homemade sign reading “The Bush family
must surely love the poor, they made so many
of us.” When he refused to move to a freespeech
zone in a fenced-in baseball field a third
of a mile away, he was handcuffed and arrested
by local police acting at the behest of the Secret
Service. The arresting officer testified that he
was instructed by the Secret Service to corral
“people that were there making a statement
pretty much against the president and his
views.”25 In St. Charles, Missouri, on November
4, 2002, activist Bill Ramsey was arrested by
local police when he tried to unfurl an anti-
Bush sign and refused to leave a crowd of Bush
supporters while Bush was visiting a local airport.
The police “said they’d been ordered to
[arrest them] by the Secret Service.” In January
2003, on a public street, St. Louis police arrested
IT worker Andrew Wimmer for refusing to
move his “Instead of war, invest in people” sign
to a free-speech zone three blocks away from
the presidential motorcade route.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The “first principle” of American constitutionalism,
as noted by the Supreme Court in
the landmark case of United States v. Lopez
(1995), is that the federal government is one of
enumerated, and thus limited, powers.99 The
Constitution does not confer on the U.S. government
a general police power, allowing it to
legislate on all matters affecting the health,
safety, and welfare of the American people.
Instead, as James Madison noted in Federalist
no. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government are
few and defined. Those which are to remain in
the State governments are numerous and
indefinite.”100 Most of the federal government’s
delegated powers are specifically set
forth in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution.
And the Tenth Amendment underscores
the principle of limited, enumerated powers,
making it clear that the powers not delegated
to the federal government “are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.”
The genius of American federalism—in its
original design, at least—is dual sovereignty.

The states and the federal government are
each supreme in their respective spheres,
with the states retaining broad control over
their internal affairs. As Alexander Hamilton
put it in Federalist no. 17, the “one transcendent
advantage belonging to the province of
the State governments” was that “the ordinary
administration of criminal and civil justice”
remained with the states.101
At its best, this system of dual sovereignty is
neither conservative nor liberal; it allows for
enormous diversity and choice. It allows the
states, in Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s phrase, to
serve as “laboratories of democracy,” while
also allowing those who object to particular
experiments an easier path of escape, through
the ability to exit. It enhances the political
power of individual citizens by allowing
important decisions of governance to be settled
closest to where Americans live and work.
And it avoids making politics a centralized war
of all against all, where each contested moral
issue is settled in a one-size-fits-all fashion at
the level furthest from the people.

So.. you see... I'm not blowing smoke or shoveling innuendo.

If you'd like me to go on, I can... endlessly thanks to this administration. Now then, if you are going to reply or rebut, please do so to the content and not frivolous side issues such as "you're just quoting someone else, or this is just leftist propaganda, or the like. To do so will be an admission that you haven't a clue what you yourself are talking about. Just spewing your own party rhetoric.

What a joke.

We actually have people still defending the worst president the United States has ever had . A fake Christian who has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people . A man who hands money from the tax payers to his rich buddies . A man who wants to steal from the poor to give to the rich. A man who wants to sell our ports to Dubai. And outsource our military to his buddies as well. A man who ignores the constitution. A man who lets natural disasters cripple states while he spends more and more money in dark corners of this world we have no business in.

A man who ignores the courts and laws and wants to let Mexicans take over the country.

A man who lies and doesn't care who is killed while he outs CIA agents . A man who went AWOL during his time in the national guard. A man who kisses the cheek of and holds hands with saudi kings.

No doubt about it 75% of historians have already weighed in on what will be written about Bush in the history books and none of it is pretty.

George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States.

The history books will verify that.