"Resignation Mr President" MSNBC Commentary, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 33 times


reply posted on 5-7-2007 @ 12:10 AM by MidnightDStroyer
Originally posted by Black_Fox
Perhaps some of you will wait to view the end of this experiment we call democracy.

There was no need for the USA to "experiment" with Democracy because history shows that every Democracy leads to Tyranny. The Classical Greek Era was one exception to that because they were invaded by foreigners before their Democracy could sink that low...But it was already well on the way when the invasion happened.

And it looks as if the whole world has been watching this Democracy sinking into Tyranny already...I may be wrong, but I think the USA has set a historical record on how fast it's Democracy has been sinking.

Every Government Official who claimed to be supporting a Democracy has been in Breech of Constitutional Oath...Because the Constitution demands a Republican form of Government. The USA should never have been a Democracy in the first place & it's already way past time that the Government learns to adhere to their Constitutional Oath.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Who is this guy to call for the resignation of President Bush? If you translate viewers to approval ratings, Bush is doing alot better than Olbermann.

Why do you even pay attention to "approval ratings" (which are nothing more than what mass media is allowed to tell you)...
Originally posted by undo
I bet the ratings are rigged, too.
Easy propaganda tool, you know?


...when the Office Holders ignore their legally-binding Oath to obey the Constitution is what really counts? If Olberman is telling the truth, then what matter is it what party he's with? Look at their political histories, their voting records (if they actually vote on issues), their honesty & integrity (to not accept corporate money in exchange for "special considerations"). If any candidate fails to show any of these traits, then they don't deserve any Government Office...period.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If you see no wrong in what they do, perhaps you are more like them than we assumed.

If you really want to take a look at candidates & their political histories (as I mentioned above), I'd say that
Ron Paul deserves a look...At least he's never voted for anything unless it's been allowed by the Constitutuion. Even though the other candidates have been trying to knock him out of the race to the Primaries, he's still going strong with the truth behind him.

Originally posted by zeeon
...and every republican I knew (including myself) are voting democratic in the next election.

Same mistake that too many people keep making...Don't vote by Party, vote for the right person! Sticking to "party voting" is what keeps The People easily divided for the conquering. I wish more people would do what I do, come time for voting...I've voted the same way ever since I turned 18 & I've voted the same for nearly 30 years!

If the right person isn't on the ticket, vote "No Confidence." In nearly 30 years, I've never seen any reason to alter my vote, because neither party wants the right person to even get into the election! Until I got to ATS back in 2002, I thought I was the only one who actually used my own mind when I went to the voting booths! I thank ATS for proving me wrong, because my voting experience had been sooo lonely!

Don't listen to the polls, don't listen to the media-hype over any single candidate, don't just pull the "party lever" & don't even listen to me either!...Dig for the facts, dig for the truth that sits behind every candidate, then listen to your reasoning & your instincts. Let's try to make Common Sense appear a bit more "common" among the population!

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Who is he to call for Bush's resignation?
He is an American citizen(and thats all one need be).

I couldn't have put it any better myself.
After all is said & done, what really counts is the Constitution. Why? Because it represents the Peoples' "employment contract" for hiring their Goverment Officials! If you were in charge of a business & based employment upon a standard contract for your employees, what would you do if they constantly broke their side of that contract? You'd fire them, of course!


reply posted on 5-7-2007 @ 12:25 AM by nowayreally
Okay everyone- I'm done! I'm a concerned citizen and mother (of a beautiful, future inheritant of this earth), so my media savy isn't all that great, considering my lack of time. I have no clue 'who' this guy is politically (in referrence to the OP link). Frankly, I distrusted him simply because he is a 'media man' (which isnt good to assume either, but I'm working on that), and 2 minutes into the thread you guys start batteling his credibility Seriously, if I wanted to hear this junk, I'd watch main stream news. Whats the deal?

I have no agenda, or motive for anything but my personal quest for the truth. If any member seriously wants to state that this guy is a 'looney', manipulative, the devil...Fine. But if you're going to state this openly could you at least give me one way/source/information to back up your claims. If not, then you're just wasting more time...or is that the point? Waste our time 'arguing' to deaf ears instead of looking at the real issue?

I'm also done with the defeatist attitude 'we all' (myself included) appear to have towards the general public as well as our government! I watched that clip and immediately e-mailed over 20 people (friends/family/acquiatances), just to spread the word before even reading or commenting.
Honestly its to the point now where I am threatening them not to disregard the message, by asking them if they would take 'ten minutes' to help insure my daughters future! Yeah, it's sad and it sucks that it has come to that, but what should I do, give up?
If you speak loud enough, other people do hear you!


reply posted on 5-7-2007 @ 02:08 AM by MidnightDStroyer
Originally posted by noangels2006
I agree with it all apart from the resign part,he like blair doesnt deserve that right.
Their dirty little lies and the death toll that comes with that is enough in my mind for them to be arrested...
...Why cant all you wonderfull people across the pond say enough is enough and march to the White house and drag that boozing drug addict chimp lookalike out by his short and curlies and replace him...

Hmmm...I seem to have hit upon a new idea recently that goes along that line of thinking.
At another
thread that talks about the illegal alien holding a protest against her arrest (by claiming sanctuary in Church), I wrote an exchange of replies that went like this:
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Originally posted by groingrinder
If the government is afraid to go into the church and haul this person out, then concerned citizens should go in, bring her out and hand her over. Why hasn't this been done yet?

Perhaps the perfectly-legal option of "Citizens' Arrest" has either not been brought to the media's attention...Or this option has been actively suppressed by the media.
Originally posted by Shadowflux
One of the biggest problems is the government itself.

In fact, why not use that same legal option of Citizens' Arrest on the crooks in Government?

Right after that, TheBorg said that he was going to start researching the legal technicalities about this...


reply posted on 5-7-2007 @ 02:56 AM by loam
While listening to Keith Olbermann's commentary, I was particularly intrigued by his mention of James Madison's view of "impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president…"

Keith Olbermann's statement is made in this context:



Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete…

Did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice…

Did so despite what James Madison –at the Constitutional Convention — said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president…

Did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder:

To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish — the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens — the ones who did not cast votes for you.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President… of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party.



In my efforts to read more about
James Madison's view on impeachment, I stumbled upon an equally riveting speech made by Barbara Jordan, in 1974 as a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate Era.





Barbara Jordan: Statement on the Articles of Impeachment

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."



I strongly urge you to listen to the audio of her speech. It is equally riveting...and is as relevant today, as it was then.

( Here is another audio link to her speech. )

Dan Froomkin, a columnist for the Washington Post, provides and excellent history lesson on the Founding Father's view on the subject of pardons and impeachment. He writes:



According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: "In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

"Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

Link.



An outstanding read, and well worth the time.

It may be that the President ( and all his men ) are ideologically and ethically rudderless, but it is my hope that 'We the People' are not.

Wake up America, our Nation needs us.



[edit on 5-7-2007 by loam]

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian cops mistake nationalist rally for gay pride parade
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 10 days ago with 4 member flags
Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 1 days ago with 4 member flags
The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 14 days ago with 1 member flags
Rwanda deports Canadian Double-Parking Suspect
  Posted 17 days ago with 0 member flags