Should Bush be impeached

[dotcoma]

Next? Try posting a source (no Vin Deisal).

[alex]

Originally posted by roxdog, Next? Try posting a source (no Vin Deisal).

Sure, I'll indulge you. Just this once, schmookums.

* http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/...h-m/dd731-k.htm
* http://members.tripod.com/~USS_Helena_CA75/maddox.html
* http://users.1st.net/themaddoxs/mfussmad.htm
* http://www.dd-692.com/keeping_up_with_the_fleet.htm

Shall I go on?

Alex

[dotcoma]

Interesting. My bet is those same "sources" say the sinking USS Liberty was an "accident". Next....

[alex]

Originally posted by roxdog, Interesting. My bet is those same "sources" say the sinking USS Liberty was an "accident". Next....

So first you ask me to provide sources. When I do so, you don't even address the sources themselves, nor dispute their veracity. Instead, you make a flippant comment about an entirely different subject.

Please, read the etiquette again. I'll point out this url, which is linked off that page.

You're unable to defend the subject which you brought up so rather than try to do so, you change the subject. That's skillful.

Alex

[dotcoma]

Do you know what supposedly "triggered" Tonkin? No one is saying the war didn't happen. You're "sources" don't address those specifics of which the details would take thousands of pages of info to address. But thanks for the equivalent of reader's digest articles. My 8 year old nephew loves history and will really enjoy them.

Originally posted by roxdog, Tell that to Berg and Johnson. DUH.....

I was talking about threats to our nation. Of course there's still threats to individual people...

...WHO ENTER A FUCKING WAR ZONE.

[dotcoma]

OHHH, I see. And who created the war zone? Al Qaeda, right? That's what we're to believe?

I didn't say that. You're not trying to put words in my mouth...

...are you?

[m3talsmith]

The hearings are starting soon. The media just doesn't report on it. 450 Professors, some law, are meeting with congress soon. Oh yeah, and here's what started it way back pre Iraq, http://www.votetoimpeach.org/ , and has carried on even now. It's only a matter of time before real impeachment hearings start; if they become necessary after this election.

And yes, Bush should be impeached.

--edit--
Clarified the first paragraph.

[Osborn F Enready]

Alex, I will address these one issue at a time, as I ASKED you to confront me with one aspect of proof at a time. Since you don't want to work that way, I will have to go off of your previous post.

Before we go any further, let's clear something up immediately. These are in fact allegations, and not proof of anything. There is a distinct difference between "proof" and "allegation". I would have expected you to understand that.


QUOTE from my original post.

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;
carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting
in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

You said:
Vladimir Putin recently reported to the press that the Russians gave the Bush administration credible evidence that Iraq was funding terrorist attacks against the United States. Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Germany before the attack on the US.

I say: Gosh, where is all that evidence, and how can it just NOW become available when that was one of the reasons we launched the war in Iraq in the first place? If you remember back when Bush launched this war, he had MANY speeches covering his reasons, and from the WAY HE TALKED, AND WHAT HE PRESENTED, he made it sound like a SLAM DUNK, no question of their guilt and complicity. Keep in mind, most of that is on material that all of the intelligence communities warned him about using, as it was MOSTLY UNVERIFIED.
This war was launched on one set of reasons, and now all those reasons are being sidestepped, answered vaguely, or just blatantly refusing that they were said at all. WTF? It doesn't take a genius to see this war was built on a myth, that Bush helped to make popular, and he also happened to be in the most powerful seat of the world, since the passing of the War and Emergency Powers Act, in 1933. A democrat speaks out against it, pro Bush folks say their evil liberals. A republican speaks out about it, they say they are liberals in disguise. Several Ex-Intelligence, and military speak out against Bush's war, they attempt to ignore, supress and deiscredit them. Yea, he sounds totally right, what could I have been thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What would you say if Bush had admitted he thought Iraq was a problem and was committed to attacking them even before September 11th?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/commen...1036687,00.html


QUOTE from my original post:

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

Alex said:
Allegation. I'm sure of course that you're referring to the testimony regarding Iraq. First and foremost, he believed it was true. The fact that it hasn't been proved true (or false) does not make his testimony a lie.

I say: Well, yes, allegations that LAUNCHED A WAR ON IRAQ. IT is a blatant lie that he believed it was true, and if he did STILL believe it was true AFTER being told by the sources that gave him the information, it only proves his idiocy, or agenda at all costs attitude. The commission said they could come up with NO PROOF of links, and well, they already held the hearing. Shouldn't proof have been available BEFORE WE LAUCHED A WAR, let alone THE HEARING TO SEE IF IT WAS JUST? COME ON, wake up man.


QUOTE from my original post:

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

Alex said:
Allegation. This is actually two statements. "direct attacks on civilians" followed by "collateral damage." The former is reprehensible and untrue; the latter is part of war. Deal.

Well Alex, did you happen to see any of the results from our "high tech" super guided munitions? Obviously not. The point is, we built this war on faulty intel, we used faulty intel to select highly questionable, often civillian populated targets, BEFORE verifying ANY of the information. It caused us to look like fools in the worlds eye, that we can create some of the most high tech weapons, and still have people in charge who can't understand when a target is "viable" and when it is not. All of our hight tech bombs, missiles, rockets, hit their targets, and worked great. Too bad the idiots giving the order to the poor soldiers DOING THEIR JOB, didn't know how to do theirs. Who is responsible ultimately if the intel was bad, the civillian casualties dead, the soldiers WE lost all dead, were all committed in error? BUSH. He is the president of our nation, and is supposed to act in OUR NAME, AND WILL. His decision, his responsibility, his watch, his fault.


QUOTE from my original post:

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

Alex said:
Iraq is now goverened by Iraqi's. If you can believe that. Saddam took over Iraq througha military coup. He was trained by Egypt and the United States as an insurgent force. He was never a legitimate ruler of Iraq.

You are exactly correct. We helped put him in power, helped train him because AT THE TIME, THEY TOLD US IT WOULD BENEFIT THE U.S. We respected him as a ruler when he aided us, called him a madman, dictator tyrant when it didn't. Iraq will only be a soverign nation again when it says who can come in and out, on its own, which won't ever happen again as far as those new U.S. bases are concerned. Can you say Guantanimo Bay? If we are such benevolent LIBERATORS, why do we have troops in over 135 different countries, though we no longer are at war there? Did we become a global police force? Where is that in the Constitution, or the laws for that matter?


QUOTE from my original post:

4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Alex said:
Whoooooa there. That's a mouthful. More allegations. Where's the proof?

Where is the proof? Independent journalists, foreign news services, spilling out all over the network news, Abu Grahib, the Red Cross, CATO, ACLU, and about a million other places if you looked for truth, and not just those that back up the popular lies. I am not going to cite every shred of proof you are too lazy to look up for yourself, unless you want to pay me, as it is a job to do others work for them, and demands compensation, or at least respect. I don't think you are willing or capable of either.


QUOTE from my original post:

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain
weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

Alex said:
Propaganda is not illegal. Radio Free America has been in operation for many decades now, and is nothing more than propaganda. Nobody is calling that illegal. "Manipulating the media" is downright comical. Exactly how does anyone manipulate the media?

I say: Wrong propaganda is illegal when it coerces the public to give authority to enact war based on lies and false or manufactured evidence. The airwaves were a "gift" to the public from Congress if you remember, therefore the people can listen to, and are supposed to be able to participate in broadcasting, media, news, and have the rights to DEMAND it be given BACK to the people. If you don't remember the issues that Bush helped pass concerning the FCC and the Omnibus Act, then this is a waste of my breath. As far as manipulating the media, ask Pat Henry about Operation Mockingbird, I believe it is.


QUOTE from my original post:

6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an
attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United
Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.


Alex said:
What crimes against humanity? Bribery? Since when is that a crime against national law? Since when is the United Nations sovereign over anything? To what treaties was compliance frustrated which resulted in the destruction of international law enforcement? Did you even read this?

And since when is Iraq the "international community"? What on earth are you smoking?

I say: The original statment in the petition, clearly addresses the way "We the people" have been taken out of the decision making process by those who claim to be our representatives, our elected officials, and our DEFENDERS of our rights, and ideals. Have you ever read the oath of office for any elected official, ESPECIALLY the President? You clearly have no concept of how illegal the current system is according to the Constitution, which is by the way, where the current system CLAIMS it derives its powers from. DOH!


QUOTE from my original post:

7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."


Alex said:
You have congress to blame for this. Dubya can't write laws nor pass them. You voted for your politicians, now you get to deal with the policies in office.

Additionally, the people at Guantanamo are NOT US citizens. Had you been following the Supreme Court case of Jose Padilla, you would understand that.

You are right, congress is to blame for not stopping it, Bush is to blame for starting it in this administration, and many that were involved in the New Deal, all of its appendages, and all of the people who helped to enact the War and Emergency Powers Act are the most to blame. This corruption goes back a long way, it is WE THE PEOPLES fault for not taking action YET.

QUOTE from my original post:

8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

Alex said:
That is in fact not illegal. Well, the Supreme Court will probably rule on it sooner or later, but until then, it isn't illegal, and certainly isn't grounds for impeachment or removal from office.

Who makes the law Alex? Who enforces it? Most importantly, what do all of the above look to for guidance, and understanding of governments authority? The Constitution, as it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Why then has it been rendered not-in-effect since 1933?

QUOTE from my original post:

9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

Alex said:
What? "INS jurisdiction"? Since when does the INS take precedence over the Commander-in-Chief? Do you realize that is his job? I mean, that's why he is in office. That's what he does.

Who created the INS Alex?


QUOTE from my original post:

10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

Alex said:
Military Tribunals are always kept away from the public. The military is a very private organization. Court martials have no reporters nor civilians. I still don't see how this is illegal.

I was part of the military, and I do understand. Maybe you should investigate on your own if you actually expect to learn, and not just "parrot other peoples views as an opinion of your own."


QUOTE from my original post:

11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

Alex said:
How is this illegal?

I say: Do I really need to explain this, I thought you claimed to be a libertarian!?!? If they don't disclose who it is, and where they are, how can WE THE PEOPLE verify the government is acting in our name, and within THEIR JURISDICTION, and how do we know if any are civillians or citizens of our NATION. DUH!


QUOTE from my original post:

12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.


And, what? Arresting people is illegal? Doing so secretly is illegal? Because they were in the US? What?? Not all trials are public. There still isn't a shred of evidence here, this is an allegation.

I say: I didn't cite this as proof, I cited as proof that MANY people, about 400,000 or so, HAVE SEEN THE PROOF ENOUGH TO SIGN THE PETITION, so I was hinting maybe you should INVESTIGATE A BIT ON YOUR OWN, instead of broadcasting major media lies like a mouthpiece. Anyone declared to be, aid or abet a terrorist, is not entitled to their rights, according to the patriot act, and that is unconstitutional if that person is a citizen. DUH! Did you read your reply, or just type in anger?

QUOTE from my original post:

13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

Alex said:
What?!!!

Oh nothing, just more people sticking up for Constitutional rights, while you lay there and let them be stripped because of your "busy" daily life. It is called RIGHTS, for a reason, they cannot be removed, and are inalienable. Are you sure you read and understand the Constitution?


QUOTE from my original post:

14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

Alex said:
Oh, what, like Mike Hawash? Surely they're all innocent. Maybe you should take a look at DEA forfeiture laws. That's been legal for decades.

I say: NO, it has been CLAIMED to be legal for decades, much like the IRS, and income tax. There are over 53 agencies in this country that have the power to seek government forefeitsure of private property, and they are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

QUOTE from my original post:

15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and
political activity.

Alex said:
Laughable. Racial profiling has been in use, again, for decades. Spend some time in LA sometime.

I say: NO SHIT! The reason it is still allowed is because nobody is speaking out for their RIGHTS, including you obviously! Your rights are only yours to lose if you know them, invoke them, and stick to them. You sure you are a libertarian?


QUOTE from my original post:

16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

Alex said:
I don't even see a sentence here. There's a predicate, but no subject. Moving right along...

I say: Well, it seems you just stated why you didn't understand the Constitution, plain english eludes you with a couple misplaced punctuation symbols. Sorry you cant see the meaning behind the semantics.

QUOTE from my original post:
17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without
consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

Alex said:
Like the Kobe accord? Ruling against eco-wackos is a treaty protective of peace and human rights? Do you even know what "abrogation" means??

I say: Yes, actually I do. Do you know what responsiblity means? How about rules? How about the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?

QUOTE from my original post:

I hope this sums up your questions, but if not please ask specificly and I will try to provide info for proof of any article above.

Alex said:
All you've done is copied and pasted without any understanding of the content. You've provided allegations and no proof. You've misconstrued and taken out of context all facts in the light of the allegations to make a point. It's despicable and misleading.

You've shown that you're very good at repeating what you're told. You'll make a very good democrat. Until then, please try to provide well formed, concise, and fact-based allegations.

Now, before you sling another piece of mud, realize that the burden of proof is not on me. You need a lot more than "he called me a stinker" to impeach a president. You had better come up with something better than namecalling and hollow accusations. You're waaaaaaay out of your league here.

I say: You sir, are a tool of disprespect posing as intelligence. So it was despicable and misleading for me to do it, but not Bush??? LOL Ok.

You know nothing about me, yet you found it easy enough to blatantly insult me, and attempt to discredit me? I seriously doubt you read or understood most of what I typed, or you would have seen at the bottom where I said PICK ON TOPIC, AND I WILL PROVIDE THE PROOF, which tells me you just want to spout your opinion and feel important to yourself. Come back when you want to talk FACTS, and PROOF, and I will be more than happy to oblige. Comprende?

P.S.
Insults don't get anyone anything but pissed off. Debate is not a good place to practice insults, and you have unfortunately coerced me into making a couple of my own. Come back ready to debate, and we can leave the cheap shots at the door.

[alex]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready, Alex, I will address these one issue at a time, as I ASKED you to confront me with one aspect of proof at a time. Since you don't want to work that way, I will have to go off of your previous post.

The reason I addressed more than one point at a time is you felt
free to bring them up more than one point at a time. I'll
continue to do so.

You said: Vladimir Putin recently reported to the press that the Russians gave the Bush administration credible evidence that Iraq was funding terrorist attacks against the United States. Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Germany before the attack on the US. I say: Gosh, where is all that evidence, and how can it just NOW become available when that was one of the reasons we launched the war in Iraq in the first place?

I can't speculate as to why it took this long for
intelligence to be revealed. Frequently, it takes a long
time for intelligence to come out because it is possible to
reveal its sources in so doing.

like a SLAM DUNK, no question of their guilt and complicity. Keep in mind, most of that is on material that all of the intelligence communities warned him about using, as it was MOSTLY UNVERIFIED.

I haven't read this. Can you cite something that confirms
it?

What would you say if Bush had admitted he thought Iraq was a problem and was committed to attacking them even before September 11th? http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/commen...1036687,00.html

I'd say he was right.

I say: Well, yes, allegations that LAUNCHED A WAR ON IRAQ. IT is

No, what I was saying was that your claim is an allegation,
not a statement of fact, and isn't particularly admissable
in the impeachment of a president.

a blatant lie that he believed it was true, and if he did STILL believe it was true AFTER being told by the sources that gave him the information, it only proves his idiocy, or agenda at all costs attitude.

Being an idiot is not grounds for impeachment. We elected
him. Furthermore, neither of us can conclusively prove
whether he believed what he was saying or not. I'm inclined
to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Shouldn't proof have been available BEFORE WE LAUCHED A WAR, let alone THE HEARING TO SEE IF IT WAS JUST? COME ON, wake up man.

I can concede this point. However, it's entirely moot now.

Well Alex, did you happen to see any of the results from our "high tech" super guided munitions?

I have planned their use in theatres of war. I think that's
enough qualification right there.

The point is, we built this war on faulty intel, we used faulty intel to select highly questionable, often civillian populated targets, BEFORE verifying ANY of the information.

When you live in a war zone, you run the risk of being
bombed. We gave the entire country adequate warning, and
adequate time to dismantle their military, armaments, and
government. This was not a surprise attack aimed at
civilians.

It caused us to look like fools in the worlds eye, that we can

Antiamerican sentiment was strong before Bush took office.
Remember Mogadishu? How about Nicaragua? Lebanon? Iran?
There are plenty of reasons to hate America already. Bush
has not done any more damage than any other president has.

soldiers DOING THEIR JOB, didn't know how to do theirs. Who is responsible ultimately if the intel was bad, the civillian casualties dead, the soldiers WE lost all dead, were all committed in error? BUSH. He is the president of our nation, and is supposed to act in OUR NAME, AND WILL. His decision, his responsibility, his watch, his fault.

You speak as though there is a legal mandate that somebody
take responsibility for civilian death in war. Where is this
law? I'd like to see it.

You are exactly correct. We helped put him in power, helped train him because AT THE TIME, THEY TOLD US IT WOULD BENEFIT THE U.S. We respected him as a ruler when he aided us, called him a madman, dictator tyrant when it didn't.

None of the above actually has anything to do with either
Bush.

Iraq will only be a soverign nation again when it says who can come in and out, on its own, which won't ever happen again as far as those new U.S. bases are concerned.

It has that power now. They asked the US Military to stay.

* washington post
* seattle times

etc...

no longer are at war there? Did we become a global police force? Where is that in the Constitution, or the laws for that matter?

I think strict constitutionalist politics is naive, myself.

Where is the proof? Independent journalists, foreign news services, spilling out all over the network news, Abu Grahib, the Red Cross, CATO, ACLU, and about a million other places if you looked for truth, and not just those that back up the popular lies. I am not

Specifically, I'd like you to cite credible sources alleging
assassinations and kidnappings.

going to cite every shred of proof you are too lazy to look up for yourself, unless you want to pay me, as it is a job to do others

Listen, I don't make the rules here. The guidelines
specifically state that you should be prepared to cite
sources. You've done very little of that.

I say: Wrong propaganda is illegal when it coerces the public to give authority to enact war based on lies and false or manufactured evidence.

You're confused. An illegal war is illegal. Propaganda is
not. If I shoot people while driving in my car, it doesn't
make driving illegal. Shooting people, however, is.

to be able to participate in broadcasting, media, news, and have the rights to DEMAND it be given BACK to the people. If you don't

You're barking up the wrong tree. I think you should be
talking to Clear Channel if you'd like "our" airwaves back.

officials, and our DEFENDERS of our rights, and ideals. Have you ever read the oath of office for any elected official, ESPECIALLY the President?

Sure, I've read it. Was required reading in school.

You clearly have no concept of how illegal the current system is according to the Constitution, which is by the way, where the current system CLAIMS it derives its powers from.

I've maintained here and elsewhere that the constitution is
an excellent frameworok upon which to build a legal system
from. It is not the sole form of law in the country. It says
nowhere in the constitution that I cannot travel faster than
the speed limit. Nor that I cannot use drugs. Nor that I
cannot print my own money. And so on. It is a framework. You
cannot take it so literally. Think of it almost like the
Bible (and no, I am not Christian). Most people would agree
anymore that the Bible's sole relevance is as a framework
upon which to build a belief system.

You are right, congress is to blame for not stopping it, Bush is to blame for starting it in this administration,

No. He cannot "start" anything. He is the executive branch.
His job is to ratify things. Not propose law.

most to blame. This corruption goes back a long way, it is WE THE PEOPLES fault for not taking action YET.

So find your 400,000 friends who are so up in arms about
this, and impeach them, ffs.

Who makes the law Alex? Who enforces it? Most importantly, what do all of the above look to for guidance, and understanding of governments authority? The Constitution, as it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Why then has it been rendered not-in-effect since 1933?

I think you misunderstand this, again. But since you're not
really interested in discussing the possible adaptation of
the constitution, it's kind of pointless to discuss it. Law
is much more complex than you make it out to be.

Who created the INS Alex?

The Supreme Court decided in 1875 that it was the job of the
federal government to regulate immigration. What's your
point?

Alex said: Military Tribunals are always kept away from the public. The military is a very private organization. Court martials have no reporters nor civilians. I still don't see how this is illegal.[/i] I was part of the military, and I do understand. Maybe you should investigate on your own if you actually expect to learn, and not just "parrot other peoples views as an opinion of your own."

So you're not disputing my answer to your point? You are
conceding that you are incorrect here?

I say: Do I really need to explain this, I thought you claimed to be a libertarian!?!?

Yes, you do. You cannot say you wish to impeach the
president without explaining yourself.

If they don't disclose who it is, and where they are, how can WE THE PEOPLE verify the government is acting in our name, and within THEIR JURISDICTION, and how do we know if any are civillians or citizens of our NATION. DUH!

The government only in rare circumstances has to explicitly
tell us what it is doing. We do have FOIA. If you'd like to
know, find out. Write a letter. But we're not going to get
forms signed in triplicate every time a white house aid
replaces the toilet paper in W's bathroom.

I say: I didn't cite this as proof, I cited as proof that MANY people, about 400,000 or so, HAVE SEEN THE PROOF ENOUGH TO SIGN THE PETITION, so I was hinting maybe you should INVESTIGATE A BIT ON YOUR OWN, instead of broadcasting major media lies like a mouthpiece.

Because 400,000 people believe it does not make it true.
Neither does 400,000 signatures on anything mean that an
equal number of people believe it. In Washington DC,
recently, Mayor Anthony Williams was found guilty of voter
registration fraud. Such things happen when change hinges on
a number of signatures.

Anyone declared to be, aid or abet a terrorist, is not entitled to their rights, according to the patriot act, and that is unconstitutional if that person is a citizen.

Regardless of whether it is constitutional or not, the
patriot act is now law. If the law needs to be struck down,
that is the job of the supreme court. Presently, it is law,
and no complaining will change that.

DUH! Did you read your reply, or just type in anger?

Out of 211 lines of reply, there were 1083 capital letters.
Assuming word length of 5 chars (an accepted value), that's
one word in ALL CAPS per line for the entire reply. Some of
which text was mine. I'm not the one who is angry, you are.

I say: NO, it has been CLAIMED to be legal for decades, much like the IRS, and income tax. There are over 53 agencies in this country that have the power to seek government forefeitsure of private property, and they are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

And because of this, you want to impeach the president. Ok.

I say: NO SHIT! The reason it is still allowed is because nobody is speaking out for their RIGHTS, including you obviously!

Racial profiling works. Plain and simple. Police don't adopt
tactics that don't work.

Your rights are only yours to lose if you know them, invoke them, and stick to them. You sure you are a libertarian?

Sure, I'm a libertarian. I just pick my battles a lot more
carefully than you do. Don't get between me and my guns, and
keep the law out of my bloodstream.

Other than that, I'm a pretty reasonable guy. I just want to
be left alone in my house in the woods. That's a pretty
typical libertarian viewpoint.

I say: You sir, are a tool of disprespect posing as intelligence.

"A tool of disrespect?" What on earth does that mean?

So it was despicable and misleading for me to do it, but not Bush???

I never claimed to be any big fan of Bush's.

You know nothing about me, yet you found it easy enough to blatantly insult me, and attempt to discredit me?

What did you find insulting? And, consider yourself
discredited. You've proved nothing other than an inability
to back up your opinions and rhetoric with fact.

I seriously doubt you read or understood most of what I typed, or you would have seen at the bottom where I said PICK ON TOPIC, AND I WILL PROVIDE THE PROOF,

Give me 14 points of opinion, and I'll give you 14 ways
you're wrong. If you continue to provide an Opus Manifesto,
I'll respond in kind, because I think you are incorrect. I
will not be throttled to save you the trouble of replying
with a lengthy justification.

to yourself. Come back when you want to talk FACTS, and PROOF, and

You, as the person wanting to impeach the president, have
the burden of proof. Not me. I'm simply stating why and how
you are incorrect.

P.S. Insults don't get anyone anything but pissed off. Debate is not a good place to practice insults, and you have unfortunately coerced me into making a couple of my own. Come back ready to debate, and we can leave the cheap shots at the door.

Tell that to my pal roxdog.

Alex

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, you want to argue, I want to talk facts. You have obviously not read much in this forum, or you would know I post a ton of links, and have covered 90% of what you just attempted to discuss. I am not going to bore the people of this forum by REPOSTING everything for your pleasure. You said you can read, read.

I am done arguing about semantics and your opinion.

And, last but not least. What about SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND do you not understand. It is not a framework, it is a foundation, with load restrictions. If you knew anything about it, you would know the Federal Government is not supposed to handle issues like speed limits and petty issues that are STATE LEVEL, as stated in the Constitution.
I can not attempt to educate you on how the Constitution was AGREED to limit GOVERNMENT, however, I suggest reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and the framers writings, and you will understand just how you are completely wrong.

Also, your signature is quite fitting. I should have never lowered my standards of communication to insults and argument over an uniformed opinion. My apology.

[alex]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready, Well, you want to argue,

Volconvo is heated debate.

I want to talk facts.

No, you want a soapbox in front of ignorant people like roxdog who haven't got the mental faculty to disagree with you.

You have obviously not read much in this forum, or you would know I post a ton of links, and have covered 90% of what you just attempted to discuss.

You're wrong on both counts. I've been here quite a while, reading, and waiting for the opportunity to make my point. Additionally, I don't see you covering any of your points with any kind of citation. Unlike many of the present people here, I don't open my mouth unless I have something substantial to say. I don't speak to hear myself speak.

I am not going to bore the people of this forum by REPOSTING everything for your pleasure. You said you can read, read.

Nor will you prove your argument correct.

I am done arguing about semantics and your opinion.

Bye. I'm glad you conceded.

And, last but not least. What about SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND do you not understand. It is not a

The supreme law of our land is the executive branch of the government. Pure and simple.

Also, your signature is quite fitting.

Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

I should have never lowered my standards of communication to insults and argument over an uniformed opinion.

Nor should you have walked into an argument unprepared to provide substantial citations for your incorrect assertions.

It's okay to lose every once in a while. I'm wrong at least once a year. See you then.

Alex

[dotcoma]

ignorant people like roxdog

That's funny. 95% of the people here are evolving ideas. You just state your opinion. Period. That's pretty much all you've done with a few exceptions.

Originally posted by roxdog, That's funny. 95% of the people here are evolving ideas. You just state your opinion. Period. That's pretty much all you've done with a few exceptions.

That of course we be YOUR opinion, Roxdog. :rolleyes:

[dotcoma]

Not completely. And most of my posts ARE NOT my opinion.

Bull, a quick scan through your posts tells a whole different story, Rox.

[dotcoma]

And that story would be?

[Sonart]

Alex -- I'd say he (Bus) was right.

How so? We now know Saddam had no WMD, a barely functioning military, a barely functioning national infrastructure and no SERIOUS connection to al-Qaeda. If you think Bush was right to select Hussein as the weakest 'Bad Boy' to kick the snot out of as an example, well yeah, great choice. But was he right to select Iraq as a place to invade, occupy and pin the heart of our military down in. No, that was a very, very, very BAD choice.

No, what I was saying was that your claim is an allegation, and isn't particularly admissable in the impeachment of a president.

As the loyal opposition made clear in 1999, Alex, Impeachment is entirely a political process and not a legal one.