Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Clinton fired...
Clinton pardoned...
Clinton gutted...
Clinton voted...
...during the Clinton years...


Why is it that the only "defense" people have, regarding Bush, is to divert attention to what Clinton did? Are you saying that what Clinton did was "right"? If you disagree with his choices, then they hardly make a decent defense for the current actions taken by Bush.

Personally, I didn't (and don't) agree with what Clinton did; so I'm certainly not going to back Bush for taking similar actions now; however, if you do support Clinton's actions; just admit it, and stop trying to change the subject to what he did.

If you're attempting to cast Clinton's actions in an unfavorable light, and then comparing Bush's actions to them, you're really just shooting yourself in the foot.


Originally posted by RRconservative
Spying on our enemies during wartime should never be restricted.


Since when are our own American citizens become "our enemies"?

FF apparently has difficulty answering a straight question (as I posed it to her in another thread without ever receiving a straight answer), but maybe you can...

Why do you continue to "tow the party line" for a group of criminals that do not represent republican values?

What ever happened to the concepts of reduction in government bureaucracy, state's rights, and that of conservative spending? These are (or were) pillar concepts to any true republican, and just a few of the many pillars that this administration continually chooses to slap across the face.

[edit on 7/6/07 by redmage]




posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Bush is an lousy president by all means but impeachment just isnt an viable option aside from the length of time Bush has left in office he hasn't committed an impeachable offence the same goes for the VP.

Selectively using Intel to make an case for war isnt an impeachable offence nor can it be proved in legal terms that an CIA agent was outed for political purposes so all Americans can do is make careful informed decisions about who they vote for in 2008.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero
Why would anyone want to impeach bush, let him finnish out his term. Do you want Chaney to be the President, i sure don't.

Well, from what I got at a different news link, it says that the American Research Group reports that even more people want Cheney impeached! So, it looks like Cheney is not likely to wind up in the Office...

But unless I'm mistaken, Congress can do nothing but Impeach (ie: Remove from Office). It would be up to the Judicial Branch to press any indictments afterwards...Hint! Hint! Time for The People to start writing letters & making phone calls to the Supreme Court!

However, if Congress actually wants to finish up & follow through with rooting corruption out of Government, a good chunk of Congress & the Judiciary would also wind up in the unemployment line too...But if The People were to write Congress & say something like: "How about repealing or annulling everything unconstitutiuonal that happened under the Bush Administration?" Anybody think that would be a good start to correct a lot of the damage Bush & Cheney did to Our Nation?


Originally posted by dgtempe
An empty White House sounds good at the moment.

Yeah, but then we still need someone to take up the "Third Pillar" of the Government to "faithfully execute the laws," instead of executing the Peoples' faith & respect in the laws. In short, we need someone who'll take their Oath to the Constitutiuon seriously...
(Warning! Political Plug in Progess! Let's get Ron Paul to the Primaries!)


Originally posted by Mekanic
I think that when the presidential approval rating drops below a certain number, the current president should get the collective US boot in the a$$.

When I was in the Navy, this was referred to as the "8-10-12 Attitude Adjuster." As in, "It'll take 8 Medics 10 hours to remove my size 12 boot from your ***."
It sounds appropriate to me, but also consider that (including the illegal aliens in the US right now) there's well over 300 million boots to kick with...


As for Bush's crime: Breech of Constitutional Oath to "faithfully execute the laws," which comprise of Bush not enforcing much of the Constitution & nearly all of the Bill of Rights...He's been consistently ignoring one of his primary duties imposed by his legally binding Oath to the Constitution. If you consider each law he refused to enforce, that's counts for quite a few seperate charges for indictment. Then you also need to read the Constitution itself to pick out another large number of specific, direct violations he's committed.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I hesitate posting a response to this thread, because I think the usual suspects really aren't interested in an honest and serious review of the reasons to impeach Bush.

First, let me be clear about something. I have been a 'conservative' the entirety of my political life.

I believe in limited government...

I believe in free commerce...

I believe in personal responsibility...

I believe in a strong national defense...

I believe in the rule of law...

I believe in the Constitution of the United States, including ALL TEN of the Bill of Rights...

And, I believe in the decency of most people.

Any real conservative would have to have that arsenal of beliefs in their bag.

I have to admit, threads like this one drive me crazy. They usually devolve into meaningless flag waving exchanges between 'teams' and never really include an honest inspection of the subject.

But, I'll give this one a try.



Originally posted by semperfortis
...You may not like his actions, but that does not make it illegal...

You may pervert the names of all of his actions to suit your own prejudice, that does not make it illegal...

You may think it is illegal, that also does not make it illegal...



Originally posted by RRconservative
I ask for reasons to Impeach, and I get the typical
Barbara Striesand responses.

...

At least there was an actual reason for Clinton's Impeachment. You may not like the reason, but it was based on legality. Clinton's perjury charge is the reason...

There are no such charges that are even close to being legitimate that would warrant impeachment for Bush. If something trivial is brought up as a reason for impeachment, then every President from now on will face this situation.



First, let's put a few things into perspective...

Impeachment is essentially the equivalent to a grand jury indictment by the House of Representatives. It merely agrees upon the charges to be later decided upon by the Senate, who then has conviction and removal power.

I fail to understand how people who call themselves conservative argue against impeachment in Bush's case. Clinton was impeached on the basis of conclusions made in the Starr Report, where Clinton lied about a sexual affair.




As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors --- The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): "The derivation of the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached," but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.

Indeed, in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: "The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests."

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."

And, in The Federalist Papers (No. 70), Hamilton further explained: "Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment."

Source.



So, let's just look at some of the explicit grounds for Impeachment in Bush's case.




Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.




And how about this?

Bush signing statements leading to failure to fully execute laws: June 18, 2007, GAO report

The actual report. (.pdf)

See also, Bush challenges hundreds of laws

And this?




ACLU v. NSA

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the NSA surveillance program, specifically involving "international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations" within the United States of America, was unconstitutional and illegal, and ordered that it be halted immediately[1]. She stayed her order pending appeal. She did not rule on the alleged NSA database of domestic call detail records, citing the States Secrets Privilege.

On July 6, 2007, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the surveillance program.



In other words, the case ended on a technicality. If the plaintiffs had been actual 'victims', they may very well have prevailed.


See also, Bush's illegal spying: The president defied a major Supreme Court ruling to authorize hundreds of wiretaps inside the U.S.

And then there are tons of examples like this one:

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

But, imo, the most recent offense meriting articles of impeachment involves the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence.

In another thread, I posted an article by Dan Froomkin, who 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.



In that same post, I also posted this audio from 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."

( Here is another audio link to her speech. )



Could it be anymore clear?

I could also come up with dozens of reasons that are less clear, but merit, nonetheless, a more detailed investigation. (But sadly it appears those will never see the light of day...)

I never believed I would witness such disregard for the principles and values that make our Nation free, just and strong.

And the problem isn't just the President, but Congress and the Judiciary, as well.

Our government is failing us....and 'We the People' are failing our nation.

:shk:



[edit on 7-7-2007 by loam]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
FF, you're busting my chops.

No sweetie .. just having a pleasant chat.



Remember?

Everything you posted was subjective. There was nothing in that list that could be proven to be an impeachable offense.


i hate arguing with ya because you're my playmate

I'm not arguing with ya'. It's too darn hot to argue with anyone.
I wish I was on Cape Cod with ya' .. in the cool ocean water.
I hate summer.


Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Does it really matter if they could name an impeachable offense? The fact half the country wants to throw him out of office,

Seriously? YES. If I understand how it all works (IF) .. then YES, you have to have an impeachable offense to be rid of a POTUS. I don't think that there is a 'no confidence' clause that can be enacted .. although i could be wrong about that.


Originally posted by semperfortis
Does anyone here know what is required for Impeachment?

It sure doesn't look like it. You and RRconservative have done a good job of trying to explain what is required. But I don't think people are listening. NOTHING that has been tossed out as 'impeachable' is ... nothing.

Hey guys .. I sympathize .. I really do. If that traitor John Kerry had been elected I'd want to see him tossed out of the oval office as well - and put in jail where he belongs for his Winter Soldier lies AND for meeting with the enemy during wartime (Vietnamese leaders in France).



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
FF apparently has difficulty answering a straight question

Personal attack ... against ATS rules. (and unwarrented ... and obnoxious .. especially since this thread was going along nicely. YOU are derailing. )


(as I posed it to her in another thread

This is also against ATS rules. You are not supposed to bring conversations from other threads into new threads. Also - I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


without ever receiving a straight answer),

I always give straight answers. You just don't like the answers I give.
Your insinuation is slander and it further derails and drags down this thread. Knock it off.


Why do you continue to "tow the party line" for a group of criminals that do not represent republican values?


1 - I don't 'tow the party line'. I believe what I believe. (example - I'm against the death penalty in most cases .. that's hardly towing the republican party line)

2 - Your statement 'group of criminals' is completely SUBJECTIVE and holds no weight.

3 - 'do not represent republican values'?? Who cares if they do or not?
Your 'question' makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
So, let's just look at some of the explicit grounds for Impeachment in Bush's case....

Now THAT is a post that is actually discussing the situation.


None of the emotional and subjective 'oh he's a criminal and you are supporting the party line crap ' blah blah blah

Lets look at loams post and discuss what he has put forward as true impeachable offenses. Objective and not subjective.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Personal attack ...


No, it isn't. It's merely a valid observation.

I didn't "insult" you, or say that you weren't intelligent enough to answer it; I merely observed that you appeared to have difficulty actually addressing it (since you skipped it entirely, and chose to go about attacking Olbermann instead).



Originally posted by FlyersFan

(as I posed it to her in another thread

This is also against ATS rules. You are not supposed to bring conversations from other threads into new threads.


Actually; my question regarding why anyone would "tow the party line", for this corrupt admin., is quite "on topic". You'll also notice that Loam brought over Ms. Jordan's speech which is very "on topic" as well.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
I always give straight answers.


Speaking in absolutes, like that, is just asking for trouble...

I asked you the exact same question and your response was, "OLBERMANN makes everything left wing/right wing. Not me."


However, feel free to prove me wrong, and show me where you addressed the question, "Why do you continue to "tow the party line" for a group of criminals that do not represent republican values?"

I have a strong feeling that you'll find you didn't even attempt to answer the question, let alone give it a "straight answer".



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Your insinuation is slander...


I disagree; however, if you can show me where you addressed that question in the other thread, then your opinion regarding "slander" may have substance; otherwise, your accusation is absolutely baseless.

That said; I do appreciate your attempt to address the question here.


I don't 'tow the party line'.


I suppose we'll have to "agree to disagree" then. I often see you recite republican/conservative talking points, while ignoring issues by diverting attention away from any possible republican/conservative "wrong doings" to things that dems, or "the liberal media", are doing instead.

Personally, I see mass corruption on both sides, but it often seems that you can "see no wrong" when it comes to republicans/conservatives, and instead of addressing any possible issue there, things get switched to trying to "demonize the left".


Your statement 'group of criminals' is completely SUBJECTIVE and holds no weight.


I would say that many people, from both sides, see the criminal corruption of our current administration. This is why I feel that you often "tow the party line". Often times you appear to be "blinded by party allegiance".



'do not represent republican values'?? Who cares if they do or not?
Your 'question' makes no sense.


Actually, it makes perfect sense. With your affinity for "demonizing the left" (while rarely addressing any possible corruption from the right) I would think you would be greatly concerned with the likes of our current administration (who seem to be misrepresenting their party, and its values).

@ Loam

I really appreciate you bringing Coulter's explanation to the thread.



As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors --- The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): "The derivation of the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached," but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.


There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the criteria for 'high crimes and misdemeanors', and it's worth setting the record straight that it isn't restricted to "crimes in English common law".

I would definitely have to agree that this administration is guilty of dishonorable conduct, breaching public trust, and also of Madison's criteria (as reiterated by Ms. Jordan).

[edit on 7/7/07 by redmage]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
how about treason??

he chose to have a war with Iraq, then proceeded to pick and chose which intelligence data he chose to use to defend such a thing to the american people. Using such a biased strategy, one could defend just about anything....when one brave soul chose to speak up about this incorrect data, he made a strike at the intelligence community by blowing the cover of one of it's operatives.....and compromised the whole network she was working with...which by the way, was working on the wmd problem.

Then, he ignores the advice of his top generals, the middle east experts, ect....and choses to send in far less troops than is needed to actually fill in the void that Saddam's departure created...not enough men, not enough equipement, our troops are left to be scavengers in the iraqi dump!!

He sends over a ton of money, and only god knows where it went to...

he takes over the country...and well, leaves saddam's stashes of weapons unguarded so those who wish to fight against us can have them to use.

fully aware by now that there are a bunch of angry people in the world desiring to strike americans on the home soil, he refuses to enforce the current immigration laws, has half our national guard defending IRaqi soil, and want to send half of our border patrol over to do the same...
his only move on the immigration just offers a carrot for those who wish to come here and actually would have decreased the laws that were passed last year..

in plain simple words...
they started a war they had no intention of ever winning...thus putting alot of our servicemen and women in danger for no reason. the actual threat...terrorism...is not really acted on....since there is still nothing preventing them entry into this country, our borders are still wide open, our ports are still unguarded, we are literally being poisoned by the crap china's sending us.....we have enemies in the world...what shall we do....
tell me what has the war in Iraq done, outside of open up a training ground for the terrorists to sharpen their skills on?? there is less to stop them from coming into the country than there was prior to 9/11. the flow across the border has increased!! and countries that have felt threatened by our action have taken upon themselves to make friends...with china....the one who's poisoning us, and even a few countries south of our border...who's citizens are pouring over our border!

his disregard for our laws isn't confined to immigration, it is found in other areas also.....

there have been secret treaties with other countries, we have heard very little about.....which if you believe what has been written about them, gives up our country's sovereignty and estabishes a new money system....TREASON!!!

but, more than likely, we can forget about an impeachment....they won't impeach a sitting president while we're at war...it would weaken us even further...





[edit on 7-7-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
... and yet he continues with his OFF TOPIC and strange ERROR FILLED personal bashing. :shk:

Here's a clue redmage ... the topic is NOT your skewed version of FLYERSFAN.

The topic is 'Poll shows US Favors Bush Impeachment' and what exactly is required for an impeachment. Try addressing the topic for a change.



[edit on 7/7/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
... and yet he continues with his OFF TOPIC and strange ERROR FILLED personal bashing. :shk:


Quite hypocritical of you considering the fact that I actually addressed my gratitude for the info regarding Coulter's explanation. Especially when taking into account that; "there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the criteria for 'high crimes and misdemeanors', and it's worth setting the record straight that it isn't restricted to "crimes in English common law"."

I also remarked upon Ms. Jordan's speech; so maybe we should change that "he/his" to a "she/her" since your entire last post was "off topic".


So "here's a clue FF"...



The topic is 'Poll shows US Favors Bush Impeachment' and what exactly is required for an impeachment. Try addressing the topic for a change.


Take your own "advice" to heart.

[edit on 7/7/07 by redmage]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
loom, good post!!

but, it kind of seems the thread is deteriorating a tad...
which is usually what happens....

I don't think that they'll be an impeachment though...all of this crap is just too "good for business" ....and will continue to the glee of both the republicans and the democrats...



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
how about treason??

Treason would be impeachable. The question is .. did he commit treason?


he chose to have a war with Iraq,

He saw a need for the war. The congress agreed. Nothing impeachable there.


then proceeded to pick and chose which intelligence data

You'd have to be able to prove that he knew that the WMD Intelligence Data was faulty. (was it? Saddam had plenty of time to move WMD to Syria) At this point, there has been no proof of that so at this point there is nothing impeachable there.


when one brave soul chose to speak up about this incorrect data, he made a strike at the intelligence community by blowing the cover of one of it's operatives.....

Joe Wilson is not 'a brave soul'. He is a partisan anti-Bu#e. His wife was't 'under cover' and her being in the CIA wasn't blown by anyone except her and her hubby ... they blew it all over DC. If you want someone to go to jail for 'outting' Plame ... then she and her hubby are the ones that need to go. Nothing impeachable there.


choses to send in far less troops than is needed to actually fill in the void that Saddam's departure created

The war was severely mismanaged. I don't know if mismanagement of a war is impeachable. If you think it is .. please post some information that shows he can be impeached for mismanagment of a war. I'm listening to you.


He sends over a ton of money, and only god knows where it went to...

'only God knows ' isn't good enough to impeach. You have to show that he did something with it that aided the enemy during a time of war. Rebuilding efforts and 'buying peace' are part of any end of war effort. That's the way it's been done.


he takes over the country...and well, leaves saddam's stashes of weapons unguarded so those who wish to fight against us can have them to use.

Yep. Mismanagement by either him, or the commanders in the field. Eitherway ... is mismanagement an impeachable offense? Someone has to post info showing that mismanagement by the Commander in Chief .. or those under him (I'm not sure if this falls into his scope or theirs) is an impeachable offense.


he refuses to enforce the current immigration laws,

Excellent point. Is he allowing an invasion of foreigners - mostly Mexicans - (and that's what it is) - for some reason that is bad for America? If so .. it's impeachable to allow or encourage an invasion. We need evidence though. I know what I see going on .. but we need evidence of intent and purpose, not just mismanagement.


we are literally being poisoned by the crap china's sending us

I don't know if that's his fault or something to do with people who take care of imports. Clinton and other presidents have allowed Americans to do business with, and import from, China. I don't know if there is anytihng impeachable here. Bad dog food and toothpaste that has virus' in it ... don't know if that's impeachable.


there have been secret treaties with other countries, gives up our country's sovereignty and estabishes a new money system....TREASON!!!

What secret treaties? What new money system?

Are secret treaties allowed? Have other presidents had secret treaties? Are you talking about the NWO folks - the REAL power that runs the world?? If so, then every president in the past century probably needed to be impeached. I sincerely don't know what you are getting at.


DAWNSTARs post brings a question - is mismanagement an impeachable offense?



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I don't think that they'll be an impeachment though...all of this crap is just too "good for business" ....and will continue to the glee of both the republicans and the democrats...


Sadly, I tend to agree. Too many get caught up in blind partisan bickering, and "defending" party lines at all costs. Personally, I don't care what side does it; when a blatant disregard for our constitutional system is perpetrated... it's wrong! End of story. It makes no sense trying to justify either side's misdeeds when neither should be taking part in any.

I agree that Clinton should have been impeached (though I feel that there were much more valid reasons than merely what he said regarding his "personal life"), and I certainly feel that the current administration has crossed the "impeachment worthy" boundary as well.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Fired attorneys - Bush fired 8, Clinton fired 96, why didn't Clinton get any slack over this?

Libby - Bush has pardoned 6 people, Clinton pardoned hundreds, 120 of them in his last week in office.

Iraq intelligence on WMD's - Alot of this intelligence came from a Clinton gutted CIA, and Clinton's CIA director George Tenet.

Iraq War - This was a UN approved and Congress appoved, heck even Mrs. Bill Clinton voted for it.

Enron - Give me a break, Enron ran wild during the Clinton years, it took the Bush administration to clean up Wall Street. Remember after 9/11 when the Dow was around 7,000? Today it is at 13,600. Tax cuts and stricter rules for Wal Street made the difference.


Clinton is not in office, Bush Is...

Why allow Bush to get away with it, just because Clinton did the same thing?

[edit on 7/7/2007 by Alien42]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reallly, we are making this much harder than it has to be...
if we want them out of office, well...
find the secretary that types up these 1000 page bills...we each pay her $5 to $10 for throwing in a few extra lines...
those lines would...
remove the president, and his staff, along with the legislators from office for failure to do their job!!

and it would set up an interim government, with appointments to these offices being made by a lottery system, through the social security system....

obviously they have failed to honor their oaths if the bill gets signed into law, since obviously, they just passed a bill they never read!!


apc

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Every time this topic comes up I get in image in my head of a bunch of rabid dogs foaming at the mouths.

I wouldn't care if they personally murdered the Pope. I'd rather have Bush and Cheney than Pelosi. The lesser of two evils...

The only thing that would be remotely reasonable to remove the two douchebags would be to remove Cheney first, let Bush replace him, and then remove Bush.

But this close to what is clearly going to be one of the most controversial and heated presidential elections ever... nothing will happen. They will finish out their term getting nipped at their ankles the whole time.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Every time this topic comes up I get in image in my head of a bunch of rabid dogs foaming at the mouths.

I wouldn't care if they personally murdered the Pope. I'd rather have Bush and Cheney than Pelosi. The lesser of two evils...


So it's politics over the rule of law?

:shk:

What a sad state of affairs we are in...



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

f you wish to say something stupid by implying all liberals are socialist, then I will make a rebutal just as ignorant and stupid and say, all conservatives marry their sisters.


And here you have it folks...

The word stupid, directed at me, is used in the same sentence as the misspelled word REBUTTAL...

Perfect example of the emotional reactions/actions that is driving this thread and the complete lack of reason...

Thank you

Semper


apc

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
So it's politics over the rule of law?


Not politics... liberty. If I were given two choices as to whom I could have as my overlord, one choice being a drunken idiot who doesn't play fair and doesn't care what I do and the other being a narcissist who doesn't know what fair is and wants to control every aspect of my life... I'll go with the drunken idiot.

Law becomes malleable when it serves the greater good... and considering the alternative, leaving Beavis and Butthead in office certainly serves the greater good.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by apc]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join