OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

What are you talking about? President Bush was voted into office, what minorities are you talking about, they are of course people like anyone else!

Please, explain.

-- Boat

Yes, one could argue that Bush "won". But by that, I still say there are contestations against the November 2004 elections and how they were run. Specifically, there were disputes about voter disenfranchisement in Ohio, Colorado, Florida and Nevada. Rep. John Conyers wrote a report regarding the elections, called aptly, What Went Wrong in Ohio (2005). And Greg Palast among others concentrated their efforts on the corruption in Florida.

So, the jury is still out whether the election was "legitimate" or "not". That is how people perceive the official results as well as the backstories complimenting the goings-on behind the scenes.

Speaking about the elections, I found out by reading about the election outcome that there were International Observers there to watch the proceedings in 2004. In fact, Wikipedia says more about them:

United States presidential election, 2004
At the request of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past [14]. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes. Earlier, some 13 U.S. Representatives from the Democratic Party had sent a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking for the UN to monitor the elections. The UN responded that such a request could only come from the official national executive. The move was met by considerable opposition from Republican lawmakers [16]. The OSCE is not affiliated with the United Nations.

International observers faced a number of hurdles. Because U.S. electoral law is largely state law, individual U.S. states could refuse to allow them to observe the elections on various grounds; for instance, a state law may require observers to be registered voters from the area.

Not to mention this little tidbit from the very same page:

One of the largest manufacturers of DRE voting systems is Diebold Election Systems, whose parent company also manufactures ATMs. Diebold's then-CEO, Walden O'Dell, had a distinct conflict of interest since he was a vocal George W. Bush supporter; he made a serious public relations blunder when he pledged in a Republican fundraising letter last year that he was “committed” to delivering the electoral votes of his home state of Ohio to President Bush, which was interpreted by some Kerry supporters as evidence he intended to rig his company's voting machines.

Misinterpretation or not, O'Dell did say it, didn't he?



[edit on 8-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Specifically, there were disputes about voter disenfranchisement in Ohio, Colorado, Florida and Nevada.

Yes, the normal "race baiting", and pure partisan retortic from the left was dished out.

So, the jury is still out whether the election was "legitimate" or "not"

It was a fully legitimate election. President George Bush won my a clear majority. That is a fact. There is no evidence that the election was thrown to the President's favor. Period.

I found out by reading about the election outcome that there were International Observers there to watch the proceedings in 2004.

Wow, good for you! Then you should know that they declared that the elections were legitimate.

In fact you should read from the link you provided!

Even if Congress had voted to reject Ohio's 20 electoral votes, the outcome would have been the same. With 518 valid votes cast (instead of 538), the majority necessary for election by the Electoral College under the Twelfth Amendment would have been 260 votes, which Bush and Cheney, each with 266, would have reached.

Link:

he made a serious public relations blunder when he pledged in a Republican fundraising letter last year that he was “committed” to delivering the electoral votes of his home state of Ohio to President Bush

Yes, he made a foolish statment, but he did not nor could he had thrown or fixed the elections for Bush. He was speaking about fundrasing.

which was interpreted by some Kerry supporters as evidence he intended to rig his company's voting machines.

Those Kerry supporters were incorrect, and that is not a claim that was taken seriouly at the time, nor is it now.

Get real man, President Bush won.

-- Boat


[edit on 9-5-2006 by Boatphone]

Sorry, Boatphone. O'Dell said it. It wasn't a mistake. You don't just say something like that out in public and not mean it.

And, I don't truly believe that the last two elections were legitimate. There are still two many questions surrounding how they were run. And there have not been any investigations except in a few cases. The rest were seemingly swept under the rug.

The only way I'll consider that we have legitimate elections again is through these things:

1)Put the DIEBOLD machines out to pasture and pass a federal law to have a paper trail attached to every ballot box.

2)Pass a federal bill that allows International Observers to view future elections impartially and make a published report of the findings. That bill would overrule the powers of the state in disallowing International Observers on their own discretion.

3)The electors--if we are to have them--must be appointed by the people instead of by the political parties. This, along with a total revamping of the electoral system is demanded.

4)Voters' disenfranchisement cases will be taken seriously and investigated by the Federal Election Commission.The perpetrators, if there are any, are brought to trial. A full, public report on all occurrences and rulings will be published for the public to read.





[edit on 9-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Sorry, Boatphone. O'Dell said it.

It doesn't matter if he said it or not. He could not have won the election for President Bush even if he had thrown the election! Did you fail to read my post above?

O'Dell was talking about fundrasing, he did not say, "I'm going to throw the election". It is clear that you argument is very weak if your using that statement as your main evidence.

-- Boat

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Boatphone]

Whatever. 65% now think that he's doing a terrible job.

Let's say 70% of the people who voted for Bush now feel like idiots for doing so.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Whatever. 65% now think that he's doing a terrible job.

Opinion polls go up and down.

There is no law that says "once a Presidents opinion poll is this, then we must impeach". If that were the case all Presidents would be slaves to public opinion polls, that the ultra rich can have great influence over, by way of T.V. adds, and fancy websites, books, and such...


-- Boat

All right, Boatphone, point made. Are you happy now?

I don't think it matters about popular opinion anyway. What does matter is the fact that Mr. Bush violated laws that need to be examined not only by the Senate, but also in criminal court. If he had any sort of feelings at all, he should at least put himself on trial to prove to the American people that he didn't do anything wrong. That's all I'm asking for.

What's wrong with that? Are people truly afraid that any legal proceeding might prove Mr. Bush actually guilty?

I'm getting the feeling that for people who blindly support him are afraid to put the POTUS to a test. Even a lie detector might disturb their sensibilities.




[edit on 9-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Boatphone: I just find it interesting that even if almost 7 out of 10 of your fellow Americans think that your President is doing a bad job, you support him anyway.

If 99% of the population say he's doing a bad job, you still have to just grin and bear it?

Sounds to me like you are pretty much invalidating the actual wishes of most of your neighbours. YOU support him, so if 7 out of every 10 of your neighbours don't it's too bad.

Are those 7 out of 10 just idiots? Left wing freaks?

If that were the case all Presidents would be slaves to public opinion polls, that the ultra rich can have great influence over, by way of T.V. adds, and fancy websites, books, and such...

Wow, care to explain how the business elite has such influence over public opinion polls?

Are you saying it's the business elite that is skewing these polls to show Bush in a negative light? Despite the fact he's the best thing that ever happened to them? Please explain.

Originally posted by Boatphone
ultra rich can have great influence over, by way of T.V. adds, and fancy websites, books, and such...

Yea it's called Fox news. 24 hours of pure white house propaganda.

DirtyDevil:

Yea it's called Fox news. 24 hours of pure white house propaganda.

So why is Bush so unpopular then? People don't believe the poo from Fox anymore?

Fox news ratings have been falling since the beginning of 2005. They are still number 1 thou. But Cnn and msnbc have been picking up. But in reality they are all a source of disinformation. Big corporations run them so of course they are going to support what those big coporations want. you can watch the ratings on www.mediabistro.com...
I bet Bush's numbers are actually worse then what is being reported. I know I have seen a big change even hearing people talking about Impeaching the bastard at the donut shop I go to in the morning. People are talking finally.

Originally posted by Boatphone
What are you talking about? President Bush was voted into office, what minorities are you talking about, they are of course people like anyone else!

Please, explain.

-- Boat

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

www.tompaine.com...

Did Governor Jeb Bush, his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and her Director of Elections, Clayton Roberts, know they had wrongly barred 22,000 black, Democrat voters before the elections? After the elections did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? The Democrats say the answers to both questions are yes.

This is Database Technologies. This is the company that the state of Florida hired to remove the names of people who committed serious crimes from the voter lists. I have obtained a document marked "confidential and trade secret". It says the company was paid millions of dollars to make telephone calls to verify they got the right names - but they didn't. There is nothing in the state of Florida files that says they made these telephone calls.

So the question remains, why did the Republican leaders of this state pay millions for a list that stopped thousands of innocent Democrats from voting? The first list from DBT included 8,000 names from Texas supplied by George Bush's state officials. They said they were all felons, serious criminals barred from voting. As it turns out, almost none were. Local officials raised a ruckus and DBT issued a new list naming 58,000 felons. But the one county which went through the whole expensive process of checking the new list name by name found it was still 95% wrong. Reverend Willie Whiting was one of those removed from voter roles after DBT wrongly labelled him a serious criminal.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Take your pick.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times.

Well, if they picked more than one canidate, i'm not sure how their votes could be counted. If the cards were unreadable by law then, what is your point??

Whose cards were discarded?

Anyone who failed to correctly vote for one person. Or, failed to record a vote on there ballot. That's who.

You can't blame President Bush if a large number of blacks failed to fill out ballots correctly. Also, lets not forget their were democrats and republicans involved in the hand recounts.

-- Boat

Sigh....Boatphone. What exactly is it that you don't see? Are you that enamored with the POTUS that you are willing to overlook anything that might prove him culpable?

Oh, that's right. You called these simple acts of "voter disenfranchisment" race-baiting, didn't you? Well, I could equally say the same for how the Republicans handled both elections. It would be equally termed "race-baiting" to single out African-Americans and take away their right to vote. The problem is that the African-Americans voting could legally do so. However, it was the fault of those running the elections to "accidently" label them felons to prevent them from voting. And you have to ask yourself why these citizens were "targeted".

Now, that's what I call "race-baiting" in my book.

Originally posted by Boatphone
[
You can't blame President Bush if a large number of blacks failed to fill out ballots correctly. Also, lets not forget their were democrats and republicans involved in the hand recounts. -- Boat

What hand recounts? The Bushies sent in their radicals to disrupt the recount in Florida and then the Republican controlled Supreme Court stopped the recount and enthroned your false god and fuhrer.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
What hand recounts? The Bushies sent in their radicals to disrupt the recount in Florida and then the Republican controlled Supreme Court stopped the recount and enthroned your false god

Well, all votes in FL were going to be counted but, Al Gore demanded that only a few counties. The courts declared that only counting select counties was illegal.

and fuhrer.

You make me sick with your Hitler references. If you think that President Bush is like Hitler, than you fully discredit yourself, that is truly absurd and offensive.

-- Boat

Boatphone:

If you think that President Bush is like Hitler, than you fully discredit yourself, that is truly absurd and offensive.

You know, you're right. Physically they are very different.

Also, Hitler used the Reichstagg burning down as his chance to start denying Germans their freedoms and starting the propaganda machine.

Bush used 9-11.

So some glaring differences.

Also, Hitler wasn't married.

I am sure that comparison offends many Germans, too, so maybe we shouldn't.

Your statments are so foolish, and absurd. I don't even feel the need to address them.

You are turly ignorant.

-- Boat

You're right, boatphone, it isn't polite to call people names. But I never called Bush Hitler. You did.

The term I employed was fuhrer, which is defined as:

"A leader, especially one exercising the powers of a tyrant."

Bush has openly violated his oath of office by taking action to undermine the Constitution he swore to uphold above all else. He has done this in order to usher in a new age of US corporate controlled imperialism. He has undermined individual rights at every turn in favor of despotic control of the unruly masses.

The term tyrant is defined as:

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. (Bush is anti-constitutional and anti-democratic.)

2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. (Bush advocates and practices torture and indefinite incarceration without criminal charges or judicial review.)

3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person. (Bush is disinterested in the application of reason, let alone scientific method, to resolve problems or disputes. He is a ham-fisted despot whose mind rejects curiosity or liberal thought for dogmatic application of one dimensional policies with a hatchet. When the predictable and forewarned consequences are horrifying (abu ghraib, gitmo, bagdad, 9/11, etc., etc.) there is a cover-up and a rejection of accountability.

Accountability is defined as:

1. Liable to being called to account; answerable. See Synonyms at responsible.
2. That can be explained: an accountable phenomenon.

There is no accountability within the Bush government. There is the opposite. Accountability is necessary for acknowldgement of failure in order to create a new path to success. This administration will never have meaningful success because it refuses to be accountable, refuses to use reason to come to decisions, and chooses to fight fact and science with fear and violence.

This is your fuhrer, like it or not. It's your chosen reality. Enjoy it or change it. Many of us don't like your chosen reality and are trying to change it to one that respects reason and scientific inquiry as well as requires accountability in an endeavor to evolve as a species, or if not evolve, at least have a decent place to raise our children.