View Full Version : Impeachment goes mainstream
k4kyv
03-14-2006, 10:44 PM
The groundswell for President Bush's impeachment is growing, and last week the mainstream media finally took notice.
Article from that liberal/socialist publication called WallStreet Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114159845480489827-g93DzQ22Z0aYaykefmfaC_5SwSw_20070306.html?mod=blog s)
Washington Post: support for impeachment is now "reaching beyond the usual suspects (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701200.html)
Resolutions recently passed in Vermont, California and Michigan (http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=resolutions)
Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Mar. 14 2006,15:44)]The groundswell for President Bush's impeachment is growing, and last week the mainstream media finally took notice.
Surely impeachment had to happen...according to many, he's already impaired... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
KB9YCO
03-14-2006, 10:49 PM
Finally maybe someone will get impeached for doing something more than cheating on his wife and abusing his privileged position of authority on an intern. While Ole Billy's lie was a pretty damn stupid one the lies of Bush and his administration have had a much more deleterious effect on our country and the world at large.
Realistically though there are just too many Republican party line followers in office for this to happen, they don't want to damage the party as a whole. Plus, if he gets impeached that means President Cheney and I think that might just be replacing one neo-con extremist with another.
If you want to impeach for incompetance, count me in. I'd like to throw the bum out so that Cheney can run the country without the middle man.
KC2ESD
03-14-2006, 11:39 PM
Impeachment will not happen this year, The Rebulicans control the house and Senate. The only way Impeachment could happen is if the Democrats regain control of the House and Senate (GOD FORBID) in the mid term elections. The Impeachment issue will sure make the midterms exciting though.
Rick KC2ESD
Haw.... the Dems are STILL sitting around scratching their heads, trying to figure out how they lost to this guy -- TWICE! They still have no idea. No clue. "He MUST have stolen the election! Cheated! Wha' hoppin'??"
They are stumped. Baffled. "Well, we can't figure out how to win an election, so let's just make noise about getting him impeached. I mean, like, you know, like, what else can we DO?"
How about putting up a candidate people will vote for? Do THAT, and you won't be wetting your panties thinking of ways to impeach the dood who beat you. Put up a candidate that appeals to soccer moms, stay-at-home dads, "alternate lifestylers," college children, present and future customers of the penal system, and aging ex-hippies, and only soccer moms, stay-at-home dads, "alternate lifestylers," college children, present and future customers of the penal system, and aging ex-hippies will vote for him.
Yo, Democratic Party Leadership. See that place WAAAAAAAAAY the hell over there? That's "The Center." Y'all don't have to go ALL the way over there, because that would be quite a hike. But maybe take two or three steps in that direction, at least at first. You STILL may not win, but you've just increased your chances tenfold.
"Impeachment." From the Latin root meaning "sore losers."
Good day to YOU, sir.
I SAID "good day!"
GOOD DAY.
WA4ABM
03-15-2006, 12:38 AM
Latin root. That's a good one!
w5klb
03-15-2006, 01:13 AM
Let all get in pitch and start singing:
"Fairy tales
Can come true
They can happen to you..."
Boys and girls, lets take a look of what the Headline of the Wall Street Journal REALY said:
<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:blue'>"Impeachment Proves Risky Political Issue"</span></span>
Impeachment is "risky" because of what most "legal eagles" call "lack of evidence". Oh sure, you *COULD* win a majority in the mid terms and bring up impeachment proceedings, but that would not be very productive. And it's almost a guarantee that you will loose the next Presidential Election for sure. It's like "winning the battle but losing the war" and that's if you include another "letter writing campain" from The United Kingdom. See, any legal proceeding including "impeachment" has to include "evidence". You all haven't got any evidence. That's a major hurtle the far left won't be able to overcome.
I entirely agree with Steve, SY. Give us something to vote for besides a far left candidate, and even I will vote them. I have voted for Democrats before, and given the RIGHT Democratic Candidate, I will gladly vote for them again.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif
KB9YCO
03-15-2006, 01:21 AM
I agree as well, both parties seem to be getting more extremist in their philosophies and candidates. The thing I can't figure out is how people don't think Bush is an extremist as well, he's certainly proved it through his actions, rhetoric, lack of supposed 'compassionate conservatism', his mostly failed 'contract with America', and his constant kowtowing to the right wing fundamentalist jackasses that want to insert their narrow version of reality and morality on everyone else and his almost constant re-spewing of their tired old rheotic.
Being as I'm not a Democrat or Republican (I have also voted for candidates of both parties based on the candidate and not their outdated party) I think an impeachment, even if it was a half-baked one like the Clinton waste of time and money, would at least make a statement that taking a leak on the Bill Of Rights is not a good thing and not to be tolerated. Though I don't think it will happen and I don't relish the thought of a President Cheney I do think that sending a message to these extremist idiots would be nice. I'm reasonably sure that it's not going to happen though, but I'll be surprised if it does.
WA5KRP
03-15-2006, 01:34 AM
I'm scared. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/jo1.gif
WA5KRP
Texas
W8EFA
03-15-2006, 03:13 AM
Will he be impeached for lying to start a war?
Or will he be impeached for Illegal wiretapping?
Or possibly the Plame outing and coverup?
Maybe the Abramhoff scandal as more information comes out?
Do you have to have a seperate impeachment for each one, or can you just lump them together?
k4lem
03-15-2006, 03:18 AM
At the height of his impeachment, Clinton was twice as popular as Bush is now.
Too bad we Americans pussy-foot with presidents. The Canadians kick em in the ass with a vote to no confidence.
There is much to this countrys lament and distruction about 45 percent illiterate-Bible intoxicants. They vote for who ever the preacher says.
I'm a bit surprised with all the hatanges in the Brit Parlament, Tony Blair remains unscathed.
Bush just skates away from one train wreck after another. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
W2ILP
03-15-2006, 04:44 AM
I tried to explain to all of you guys that impeachment of GWB is very possibly going to happen and the Democrats who are resisting the call for impeachment may lose their constituent backing when it happens.
Remember I told you first.
The Jack Abramoff scandals are now getting more serious. Jack has not only been found to be taking money from the Russian government and Russian oil tycoons, but saying that he would give the money to Christian charities and not giving it to them but pocketing it for himself. He had also claimed that he gave money to Jewish charities in the U.S. but the charities (rabbis) say that they never received it. The only charities that have admitted to getting anything from Jack are Israeli charities...including an Israeli sniper school. Abramoff made a trip to Russia in 1997 along with Tom Delay
Jack Abramoff was also trying to get investors interested in drilling for oil in Israel. Armand Hammer tried that a long time ago and concluded that there was no oil in Israel...but he did find oil in Libya, where most geologists thought there would be none. It is not understood if the proposed Israeli oil venture was a scam or not or was it just a cover up to launder money.
Abramoff has been involved in many schemes with the audacity to call them non-taxable non-profit charitable ventures for both Christian and Jewish groups. There is one subject that both parties do not want to discuss and that is the motivation to attack Iraq. Did it come from lobbyists instead of from intelligence? Did it come from Abramoff or his cronies?
Lobbyists are supposed to register and disclose who they represent. I doubt if Abramoff ever did that... listing all of the nations and individuals who he represented. We shall see.
w2ilp (Impeach Lying President)...and jail those who motivated him.
Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Mar. 14 2006,18:21)]I agree as well, both parties seem to be getting more extremist in their philosophies and candidates.
Yes. Both are quite enamored with extremely big government. Each just wants their own people running the leviathan.
K8ERV
03-15-2006, 01:11 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,18:34)]I'm scared. # #
I'm Tom. Pleased to meet you (I think)----
TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
w5klb
03-15-2006, 03:23 PM
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Mar. 14 2006,21:44)]I tried to explain to all of you guys that impeachment of GWB is very possibly going to happen and the Democrats who are resisting the call for impeachment may lose their constituent backing when it happens.
W2ILP (Individual Lacking Proof),
I think these constituents are far more intellegent than you give them credit to be. I think they are they are sick and tired of the far left taking over their party and would like to see a more centrist leadership in the Democratic Party. I think these constituents won't like the idea of the far left wasting time and taxpayers dollars on a "Impeachment Proceeding" that yeilds absolutely nothing. I think that there might be a "revolt" against the far left leadership of the Democratic Party. But "a little revolution, every now and again, is good thing."
Quote[/b] ]The Jack Abramoff scandals are now getting more serious. #Jack has not only been found to be taking money from the Russian government and Russian oil tycoons, but saying that he would give the money to Christian charities and not giving it to them but pocketing it for himself. #He had also claimed that he gave money to Jewish charities in the U.S. but the charities (rabbis) say that they never received it. #The only charities that have admitted to getting anything from Jack are Israeli charities...including an Israeli sniper school. # Abramoff made a trip to Russia in 1997 along with Tom Delay
Jack Abramoff was also trying to get investors interested in drilling for oil in Israel. #Armand Hammer tried that a long time ago and concluded that there was no oil in Israel...but he did find oil in Libya, where most geologists thought there would be none. # It is not understood if the proposed Israeli oil venture was a scam or not or was it just a cover up to launder money.
Abramoff has been involved in many schemes with the audacity to call them non-taxable non-profit charitable ventures for both Christian and Jewish groups. #There is one subject that both parties do not want to discuss and that is the motivation to attack Iraq. #Did it come from lobbyists instead of from intelligence? #Did it come from Abramoff or his cronies?
Lobbyists are supposed to register and disclose who they represent. #I doubt if Abramoff ever did that... listing all of the nations and individuals who he represented. #We shall see.
Educate me: How does this prove "linkage" to for a Presidential Impeachment Proceeding? No one has ever been able to establish linkage. I keep reading and hearing where the far left says Bush has "lied" but, once again, no one has ever put forth any real creditable evidence. And the real fact of the matter is that you can't establish proof because there is no proof. There's a difference between "speculation" and "creditable evidence". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
KE5FRF
03-15-2006, 03:35 PM
Quote[/b] ]his mostly failed 'contract with America',
I just grabbed hold of this to quote to correct the error. President Bush did not have a "contract with America"...Newt Gingrich and the newly elected Republican house majority coined that term in the mid 90's congressional mid-term elections during Clinton's presidency.
I'm just nit-picking, sorry.
Quote[/b] ]I'm just nit-picking, sorry
It's not nit-picking if it's the truth.
GWB wasn't even governor of Texas when the contract was put forth. Eight or Nine of the provisions were enacted into law.
ac4ut
03-15-2006, 04:45 PM
Quote[/b] (k4lem @ Mar. 14 2006,20:18)]There is much to this countrys lament and distruction about 45 percent illiterate-Bible intoxicants. They vote for who ever the preacher says.
It's generalized statements like this that piss people off at the liberals and perpetuate a stereotyped America to others.
There are 250 millions or so individuals in this county all with a different set of values and opinions.
When you have met all of them you can then make a more reasonable statement.
Quote[/b] ]I think these constituents are far more intellegent than you give them credit to be. I think they are they are sick and tired of the far left taking over their party and would like to see a more centrist leadership in the Democratic Party. I think these constituents won't like the idea of the far left wasting time and taxpayers dollars on a "Impeachment Proceeding" that yeilds absolutely nothing. I think that there might be a "revolt" against the far left leadership of the Democratic Party. But "a little revolution, every now and again, is good thing."
Bunk.
More of your "liberal/socialist" conspiracy propaganda, Gary.
There's nothing "far left" about the Democratic party leadership. That's just a label tossed around by partisans such as yourself to try to marginalize people you don't agree with.
As much as I despise the Bush Presidency, (oh boy, here comes the "you're a hater" speech from the medium wave brainwashed masses), I'd hate to see another repeat of the silly spectacle that was orchestrated by the Republicans against President Clinton. THAT was complete Bravo Sierra and did nothing but polarize the country, for what? Short term partisan political gain. Not surprising that Republicans played the impeachment card, as the "short term" is all they ever seem to think about (see tax cuts, Iraq etc etc etc.).
Even though there is FAR more reason to impeach President Bush than there was to impeach President Clinton (and evidence-despite what YOU say Gary...) #I'm not in favor of impeachment. I'm having too much fun watching the Republicans self-destruct on their own!
Extremely bad public policy is one thing. Criminal malfeasance is another thing.
Impeachment (and recalls-another topic) should be reserved for worst case catastrophic scenarios.
Bad public policy decisions SHOULD be cured by removing the idiots who make those bad decisions, through the ballot box...
Dave WX7B
Tulelake, CA
Quote[/b] (ac4ut @ Mar. 15 2006,08:45)]Quote[/b] (k4lem @ Mar. 14 2006,20:18)]There is much to this countrys lament and distruction about 45 percent illiterate-Bible intoxicants. They vote for who ever the preacher says.
It's generalized statements like this that piss people off at the liberals and perpetuate a stereotyped America to others.
There are 250 millions or so individuals in this county all with a different set of values and opinions.
When you have met all of them you can then make a more reasonable statement.
Great.
I'd have more buy-in with your comments if you didn't toss around the "liberal" tag...
It's the same thing!
Dave WX7B
Tulelake, CA
ac4ut
03-15-2006, 05:39 PM
Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Mar. 15 2006,10:01)]Quote[/b] (ac4ut @ Mar. 15 2006,08:45)]Quote[/b] (k4lem @ Mar. 14 2006,20:18)]There is much to this countrys lament and distruction about 45 percent illiterate-Bible intoxicants. They vote for who ever the preacher says.
It's generalized statements like this that piss people off at the liberals and perpetuate a stereotyped America to others.
There are 250 millions or so individuals in this county all with a different set of values and opinions.
When you have met all of them you can then make a more reasonable statement.
Great.
I'd have more buy-in with your comments if you didn't toss around the "liberal" tag...
It's the same thing!
Dave WX7B
Tulelake, CA
I didn't say something like "dumb Liberals" or "left wingers". That would be a tag.
It is a fact there are Liberal and Conservatives. I don't believe these are bad term used on their own.
It is the descriptive adjectives that do the harm and the more use of these descripions that more retaliatory and guarded people become.
The fact that a person own a bible does not make them either ignorant or easily led.
The fact that someone believes in social equaility does not make them stupid.
k6bbc
03-15-2006, 06:17 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 14 2006,15:54)]If you want to impeach for incompetance, count me in. #I'd like to throw the bum out so that Cheney can run the country without the middle man.
Incompetence is not an impeachable offence I believe. But why all the fuss now, most of you dorks voted him into office. Don’t get me started.
bbc
k4kyv
03-15-2006, 07:24 PM
http://img.slate.com/media/140/content.todayscartoons.uclick.gif
http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=0&topicid=51 (http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=0&topicid=51)
Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Mar. 15 2006,11:17)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 14 2006,15:54)]If you want to impeach for incompetance, count me in. I'd like to throw the bum out so that Cheney can run the country without the middle man.
Incompetence is not an impeachable offence I believe. But why all the fuss now, most of you dorks voted him into office. Don’t get me started.
bbc
Stop denigrating yourself in the third person OM. You are not a "dork", per se, unless you keep up the self-referencing, third-person dialog.
KA8DKT
03-15-2006, 09:33 PM
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Mar. 15 2006,08:23)]I keep reading and hearing where the far left says Bush has "lied" but, once again, no one has ever put forth any real creditable evidence. And the real fact of the matter is that you can't establish proof because there is no proof. There's a difference between "speculation" and "creditable evidence". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Gary-
Well, lets see. #President bush went on TV and said that no one ever anticipated the levees in New Orleans failing. #Then we get video tape of several days of discussion prior to the levees failing where a number of people told bush that the chances of the levees failing was very high and discussed the reasons for saying that.
Sounds like a lie to me.
We invaded a country on the basis of what bush told the country was credible intelligence: 1) that Iraq had WMDs, and 2) that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had supported the 9-11 terrorists.
There were no WMDs, and there was more than enough evidence to demonstrate that long before the invasion. And, the Downing Street memos clearly show where bush was trying to adjust the "intelligence" to fit his agenda. #Moreover, witnesses in the White House have already testified to the fact that bush was literally going around asking everyone for ways to blame 9-11 on Iraq. #The fact is, Iraq was probably the ONLY Arabic country to NOT support terrorism on other countries. #Saudi Arabia (the country of bush's pals) was the source of all but two of the 9-11 terrorists, but we didn't invade them.
Sounds like lies to me!
-gary
(not far left at all, but, in fact, a conservative independent)
k6bbc
03-15-2006, 10:02 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 15 2006,13:18)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Mar. 15 2006,11:17)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 14 2006,15:54)]If you want to impeach for incompetance, count me in. #I'd like to throw the bum out so that Cheney can run the country without the middle man.
Incompetence is not an impeachable offence I believe. #But why all the fuss now, most of you dorks voted him into office. #Don’t get me started.
bbc
Stop denigrating yourself in the third person OM. #You are not a "dork", per se, unless you keep up the self-referencing, third-person dialog.
My rotten kids think I am a first class dork.
Fortunately I did not vote for Bush – SO DON’T BLAME ME. I did vote for Pat Buchanan but I guess that was a bit wasted. I can tell you this for sure – Pat would have never gotten us into this stupid mess.
The rest of you only have you dorkish selves to blame.
bbc
KB9YCO
03-15-2006, 11:54 PM
Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 15 2006,10:35)]Quote[/b] ]his mostly failed 'contract with America',
I just grabbed hold of this to quote to correct the error. President Bush did not have a "contract with America"...Newt Gingrich and the newly elected Republican house majority coined that term in the mid 90's congressional mid-term elections during Clinton's presidency.
I'm just nit-picking, sorry.
True, but it was part of the Bush campaign speeches, I heard it more than once that they wanted to fufill their 'contract with America' and so on, it's been a complete failure from the party in general.
Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Mar. 15 2006,15:02)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 15 2006,13:18)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Mar. 15 2006,11:17)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 14 2006,15:54)]If you want to impeach for incompetance, count me in. I'd like to throw the bum out so that Cheney can run the country without the middle man.
Incompetence is not an impeachable offence I believe. But why all the fuss now, most of you dorks voted him into office. Don’t get me started.
bbc
Stop denigrating yourself in the third person OM. You are not a "dork", per se, unless you keep up the self-referencing, third-person dialog.
My rotten kids think I am a first class dork.
Fortunately I did not vote for Bush – SO DON’T BLAME ME. I did vote for Pat Buchanan but I guess that was a bit wasted. I can tell you this for sure – Pat would have never gotten us into this stupid mess.
The rest of you only have you dorkish selves to blame.
bbc
OK, let me find a mirror and I'll give myself a blistering "dressing down" that will make my ears turn red. BTW, I finally found a new, legal copy of Ticks at exhorbitant cost, so I've packaged it with HR2 and the box will be on its way tomorrow so that you can sign them for me. My standard comment under this circumstance is that I need the signature "for my daughter".
Somewhere around here I have mislaid your bonus gift, so if there is a t-shirt in the box, I found it before one of the kids stole it.
k6bbc
03-16-2006, 01:39 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 15 2006,18:30)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Mar. 15 2006,15:02)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 15 2006,13:18)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Mar. 15 2006,11:17)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 14 2006,15:54)]If you want to impeach for incompetance, count me in. #I'd like to throw the bum out so that Cheney can run the country without the middle man.
Incompetence is not an impeachable offence I believe. #But why all the fuss now, most of you dorks voted him into office. #Don’t get me started.
bbc
Stop denigrating yourself in the third person OM. #You are not a "dork", per se, unless you keep up the self-referencing, third-person dialog.
My rotten kids think I am a first class dork.
Fortunately I did not vote for Bush – SO DON’T BLAME ME. #I did vote for Pat Buchanan but I guess that was a bit wasted. #I can tell you this for sure – Pat would have never gotten us into this stupid mess.
The rest of you only have you dorkish selves to blame.
bbc
OK, let me find a mirror and I'll give myself a blistering "dressing down" that will make my ears turn red. #BTW, I finally found a new, legal copy of Ticks at exhorbitant cost, so I've packaged it with HR2 and the box will be on its way tomorrow so that you can sign them for me. #My standard comment under this circumstance is that I need the signature "for my daughter". #
Somewhere around here I have mislaid your bonus gift, so if there is a t-shirt in the box, I found it before one of the kids stole it.
Well, when the package arrives we will have a “family meeting” where I will gather my kids around and sign the boxes. Then they will know that at least other people like me – even if you guys don’t.
bbc
ae6yd
03-16-2006, 06:58 PM
This should say something. Most of the people here that are arguing against impeachment are doing so simply on the grounds that either a) Bush sucks, but you can't prove it or b) it would be a waste of time and money and he'll self-destruct on his own.
I don't think I saw a single post that said that GW was a competent, honest individual who deserved to remain in office.
Makes ya think.
K0RGR
03-16-2006, 09:55 PM
No, I don't support impeachment, though I think Mr. Bush deserves it more than Mr. Clinton or the first President Johnson did. You'd need a small book to list the "high crimes and misdemeanors" inflicted on the world by his administration. We won't know until a Democrat has been in office for a couple terms just how much damage this administration has done - there will never be a straight accounting of it, because they have cooked the books, and hidden everything under the cover of secrecy.
At this point, the Dummycrats need to focus on rendering him irrelevant, not on censuring him or impeaching him. I am not a fan of Russ Feingold.
k4kyv
03-16-2006, 10:17 PM
If the US operated under a parliamentary form of government as in Canada and UK, Bush would now be facing a vote of "no confidence" with a call for an election, if that hadn't already happened months ago.
n4ems
03-17-2006, 07:32 AM
Wether ousted from office or not, I think it is fair to say that King George has done more to harm the Republican party than the Democrats could have ever thought of. I am not an expert in this area by any stretch but I would be willing to wager that come January of 2009 when the next President is sworn into office that person will be a member of the Democratic Party and not a republican. (That is of course assuming the Dem's don't pull some bone-headed move like nominating Hillary Ramrod-Clinton. That would be bad.)
KA8NCR
03-17-2006, 12:45 PM
Quote[/b] (w3sy @ Mar. 14 2006,17:22)]Haw.... the Dems are STILL sitting around scratching their heads, trying to figure out how they lost to this guy -- TWICE! They still have no idea. No clue. "He MUST have stolen the election! Cheated! Wha' hoppin'??"
They are stumped. Baffled. "Well, we can't figure out how to win an election, so let's just make noise about getting him impeached. I mean, like, you know, like, what else can we DO?"
How about putting up a candidate people will vote for? Do THAT, and you won't be wetting your panties thinking of ways to impeach the dood who beat you. Put up a candidate that appeals to soccer moms, stay-at-home dads, "alternate lifestylers," college children, present and future customers of the penal system, and aging ex-hippies, and only soccer moms, stay-at-home dads, "alternate lifestylers," college children, present and future customers of the penal system, and aging ex-hippies will vote for him.
Yo, Democratic Party Leadership. See that place WAAAAAAAAAY the hell over there? That's "The Center." Y'all don't have to go ALL the way over there, because that would be quite a hike. But maybe take two or three steps in that direction, at least at first. You STILL may not win, but you've just increased your chances tenfold.
"Impeachment." From the Latin root meaning "sore losers."
Good day to YOU, sir.
I SAID "good day!"
GOOD DAY.
Let me see if I understand your position...
You agree that Bush is a loser, but you're laughing because the other losers can't unseat the presidential loser when the real losers are the people of this country who lose because the presidential loser is too busy helping his loser friends and not the real losers?
Got it.
n0jaa
03-18-2006, 01:28 AM
Impeachment is a moot point now. By the time an impeachment trial is organized by the Senate, Bush's term will almost be up, so the effect will be minimal at best.
W2ILP
03-18-2006, 01:59 AM
k5klb
There is proof to all I said (earlier in this thread) about the adventurers of Jack Abramoff. There is proof to his ties, not just to Delay, but to George W. Bush. Bush claimed that he didn't know Abramoff and that pictures showing them together meant nothing because Bush took pictures and shook hands with hundreds of people....BUT this is a proved lie...Not only did Bush know Abramoff but he knew Abramoff's wife and children well enough to joke with them. If Bush felt comfortable about his meetings with Abramoff, why did he lie about their nature? It is a fact that Jack Abramoff feels insulted now that Bush claims to not have known him, as he has mail from Bush inviting him to the president's Texas ranch. Bush certainly did not invite all of the people he shook hands with to visit his private home in Texas. In any case Bush lied to get us into war with Iraq. Maybe he didn't get instigated and promoted to do so by the likes of Jack Abramoff...but if not he was pretty stupid to do it on his own or just by listening to Chaney.
n0jaa
The effect of impeaching Bush will be even more of a threat to his party than the Impeachment trial of Bill Clinton was to the Democrats. This is because other Republicans are also involved in the scandals of the GWB administration. Bill's sexual affair with Lewinsky was not a Democratic gang bang...or a political orgy.
Impeachment is a way to disgrace a president who has not lived up to what should be expected of a 21st century civilized leader. Impeachment is a way to show the rest of the world that the U.S. is ethical and humane...because if we do not do so we are seen as being not much better than the terrorists who have attacked us.
w2ilp (Impeach Lying President)
wa6ccw
03-18-2006, 08:12 PM
The title of this thread says:
Quote[/b] ]Impeachment goes mainstream
But the headline from the provided WSJ article says:
Quote[/b] ]Some Democratic Activists Push Removing Bush From Office, But Mainstream Steers Clear
#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KG6JTB
03-19-2006, 06:13 AM
I think the entire government should be impeached for growing the national debt to $8 trillion dollars.
"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Sound familiar?
Dave
KG6JTB
KA8NCR done did said:
Quote[/b] ]Let me see if I understand your position...
You agree that Bush is a loser, but you're laughing because the other losers can't unseat the presidential loser when the real losers are the people of this country who lose because the presidential loser is too busy helping his loser friends and not the real losers?
Got it.
Help yourself to a STICKER, Skippy.
Never thought Bush was all that bright. But he's a helluva LOT smarter than the Dummycrap leadership. The 2004 election was theirs for the taking, and they trotted out John Kerry.
'Nuff said.
Out.
w5klb
03-19-2006, 07:33 PM
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Mar. 17 2006,18:59)]k5klb
There is proof to all I said (earlier in this thread) about the adventurers of Jack Abramoff.There is proof to his ties, not just to Delay, but to George W. Bush. #Bush claimed that he didn't know Abramoff and that pictures showing them together meant nothing because Bush took pictures and shook hands with hundreds of people....BUT this is a proved lie...Not only did Bush know Abramoff but he knew Abramoff's wife and children well enough to joke with them. #If Bush felt comfortable about his meetings with Abramoff, why did he lie about their nature? #It is a fact that Jack Abramoff feels insulted now that Bush claims to not have known him, as he has mail from Bush inviting him to the president's Texas ranch. #Bush certainly did not invite all of the people he shook hands with to visit his private home in Texas. # In any case Bush lied to get us into war with Iraq. #Maybe he didn't get instigated and promoted to do so by the likes of Jack Abramoff...but if not he was pretty stupid to do it on his own or just by listening to Chaney.
Ah, the "plot" thickens. Now, it's not just Bush "lying" about about the war in Iraq which you cannot prove, you trying to establish linkage between Bush, Delay, and Abramoff. Throw in Cheney, just for good measure, and now you have your own little "conspiracy theory". Afterall, they are all "liars", right? Just because you and your far left "Central Committee" say it's going on, doesn't necessarily make it so. Once again, you lack any creditable evidence to support your claims as far as Bush or Cheney is concerned.
Maybe you are thinking that if you repeat this falsehood enough times, you might get others to believe it too. Well, here's a "News Flash": It's not working. It doesn't take much of a rocket scientist to figure out the ploy you and far left are presenting here. Have you all ever figured out that this may be the reason why you all lost the last two Presidential Elections and why that you are a minority within you own party? If something needs to be "investigated" than perhaps you should start with your own "urban legend" pertaining to The President and Vice President of The United States.
One other thing...
The callsign is Whiskey Five Kilo Lima Bravo. If you forget, just look above the "Indian" sending up smoke signals. Okie-dokey?
kb2vxa
03-19-2006, 08:07 PM
Sounds like this imPEACHment thing started in Georgia and will get NIXoned in Washington.
I know, that was worse than the porpoise joke but bandying this word "impeachment" about without understanding what it entails is a joke in itself.
W2ILP
03-21-2006, 11:13 PM
w5klb
There is more real proof to my allegations than there is to your statement that I am part of any left wing "Central Committee".
You can check up on Abramoff and his ties to DeLay, George W. Bush and Cheney by doing a Google search. Check up on me while you are at it. None of those guys know me. I didn't influence them.
w2ilp (I'd Like Proof)
w5klb
03-21-2006, 11:58 PM
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Mar. 21 2006,16:13)]w5klb
There is more real proof to my allegations than there is to your statement that I am part of any left wing "Central Committee".
You can check up on Abramoff and his ties to DeLay, George W. Bush and Cheney by doing a Google search. #Check up on me while you are at it. #None of those guys know me. #I didn't influence them.
w2ilp (I'd Like Proof)
Nope, I am not the one that made this claim. You did.
Take note that I am not disagreeing with you about Abramoff. The case against Delay is yet to be proven in a court of law. Bush and Cheney is where I disagree and where you and far left have yet to prove any Impeachable offenses were committed. Now, if I am wrong, as you state, why do YOU provide me with some real proof. I not talking about specutation or conjecture, I am taking about legal proof. Handshakes and meetings don't cut it. The President has meetings, shakes hands with people and heads of state on regular basis. If we were to go by your assesment of "guilt by association" we have to conclude that Bush is a communist because he has had meetings with the leaders of the People's Republic of China. We both know that The President isn't a communist by any streach of the imagination. On the same thinking, just because Bush or Cheney has a meeting with Abramoff, doesn't necessarily mean that they were involved with anything Abramoff has done. Does it look bad? Perhaps, but you need proof that a crime was committed. That's the way our legal system works.
Provide a link, let me read it and judge for myself or can you? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
W8EFA
03-22-2006, 12:48 AM
Quote[/b] ]Never thought Bush was all that bright. But he's a helluva LOT smarter than the Dummycrap leadership. The 2004 election was theirs for the taking, and they trotted out John Kerry.
'Nuff said.
Out.
YEs and Kerry got 49 out of every 100 Americans vote while Bush got 51. Split up 100 people into a group of 49 and 51 and you couldn't tell the difference without counting. We 49% tried to tell the 51% that you were voting for an incompetent but you blindly followed your Republican faith mixed in with some Rove manipulation of Religion and Gays and you fell for it.
Now the American people have finally come to their senses. Bush has failed miserably in WMD's, the occupation of Iraq, Shiavo, Torture, Wiretapping, Harriet Meyers, Katrina, Dubai Ports, Social Security, Libby- Abramhoff - Delay Scandals, etc.
Everything he has touched has turned to Crap.
The Democrats will be taking over the Congress and the Presidency thanks to the Bush Administration meltdown. You can deride Kerry all you want but my guess is he would have been at least Average, probably very good - after all he was unlike Bush at least qualified!
KB9YCO
03-22-2006, 01:17 AM
At this point it's pretty much too late to care whether or not the administration lied about Iraq and WMD's. I mean I still care but since we're already in the mess that we (that is this administration that represents our country) made we need to at least bring it to some sort of resolution. I don't know that we can realisitically solve some of the problems that stem from truly ancient prejudices and battles, but we went in and made it worse we have at least some responsibility to do something.
What this president should be impeached for, or at the very least censured as the wise Senator Feingold from Wisconsin has suggested, is the NSA spying program that he openly admitted to using without following even the guidelines of The (un)Patriot(ic) Act or FISA and completely ignoring the checks and balances of the American system of government.
He can try to spin it all into anyone that disagrees with his illegal acts being weak on terrorism, he can try to paint the rest of us that see his illegal activities as somehow un-American while he meanwhile ignores basic American principles, but the fact that no one can deny is that he has openly admitted to these activities without any regard to the judicial oversight and in complete opposition of both the (un)Patriot(ic) Act or FISA, not to mention the 4th amendment which he basically wanted to erase in his remarks today.
Spin it all you want, play partisanship games, the fact is he admitted to indulging in blatantly illegal activities when he could have still pursued the same spying through legal means, some of which his own administration wrote into law in the first place.
kc7jty
03-22-2006, 02:21 AM
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Mar. 20 2006,18:48)]#You can deride Kerry all you want but my guess is he would have been at least Average, probably very good - after all he was unlike Bush at least qualified!
As much as I HATE Goofball W, Kerry would not have been any better. He is as pro Iraq war/Israel as the present leader.
Its a government/insider thing, the man at the top doesn't much matter.
kf6rdn
03-22-2006, 07:32 AM
Jello Biafra For prez!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Pat Paulsen for President
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d148/ku4my/grinning2.jpg
w5klb
03-22-2006, 02:50 PM
Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Mar. 21 2006,18:17)]What this president should be impeached for, or at the very least censured as the wise Senator Feingold from Wisconsin has suggested, is the NSA spying program that he openly admitted to using without following even the guidelines of The (un)Patriot(ic) Act or FISA and completely ignoring the checks and balances of the American system of government.
You forgot to add that Senator Fienstein (D) of California along with other Democratic and Republican Senators were fully briefed on the NSA "spying" program and they admit that the NSA has taken great care NOT to spy on innocent Americans. I guess this was a mere "oversight" on your part, right?
I also take note of the fact that Klinton had a simular program during his administration. The only difference was the fact that his admistration was spying on EVERYONE. No one from the far left has mentioned this because Klinton is a Democratic "hero". This demonstrates the partisan politics exhibited by Democrats and it's more liberal double standards.
You guys are "grasping at straws". All this clammering about impeaching Bush is nonsense. So far, you all have yet to come up with any evidence whatsoever that Impeachment Proceedings needs to go forth against Bush.
Between you guys and the liberal media, you all want to undermind this Adminstrations efforts on the "War on Terror" in an obvious "pay back" for an impeachment of a #fomer President. You can rant and rave all you want about this admistrations "lies" and "spying", but the truth of the matter is that is that you all don't have a shread of evidence.
You can almost rest assured that if Feingold of Wisconsin, gets his "censure", or an impeachment proceeding against Bush, you all might as figure on loosing more seats in the House and Senate. You all can just forget about making any gains in the House or Senate this mid-term election and it may doom any Democratic chances to win the next Presidential Election. The American people won't tolerate their tax payer's dollars wasted on a proceeding based on partisan politics that produces nothing.
Hint: When you get some hard evidence that The President has done something illegal, let us know. Until then, Feingold needs to quit playing partisan politics and dooming his party chances for re-election during the mid-term elections.
Caution: Spining at these speeds can make you dizzy.
W8EFA
03-22-2006, 04:23 PM
Quote[/b] ]Caution: Spining at these speeds can make you dizzy.
You must be pretty darn dizzy then KLB. #Only you can pretend that facts are not facts.
The fact is that the Bush illegal wiretapping program is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – which makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. #What don't you understand about that?
When it was revealed in December that, despite previous denials by the president and his aides, Bush had repeatedly authorized a secret program by the National Security Agency to listen in on Americans' phone calls that is called breaking the law! #The Republicans are trying to re-write the laws but the fact remains that Bush broke the law he was supposed to uphold. #Not only that but as usual he lied about it. #Sorry KLB but your claim that there are no facts is ludicrous. (As Usual)
W8EFA
03-22-2006, 05:01 PM
Bush Speech April 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York
Quote #Quote[/b] ]
So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Whitehouse.Gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)
Then in December 2005
Quote[/b] ]From his radio address Dec 17 2005:
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends, and allies. Yesterday, the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. …I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks
You can twist and turn legalities and political angles all you want. #To me it is clear that he is guilty of lying, #and that is all I need to know. #How you can support someone that you know is lying to you is beyond me.