• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

It's time to IMPEACH Bush!

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
kal-el said:
From 911Blogger.com



There Were No WMD In Iraq, No Ties To Al-Qaeda, And No Ties Between Iraq And 9/11

For those of us eternally arguing with those who insist the war in Iraq is a war against terrorism, consider sharing this list with them. Then ask them where their Bush's war on terrorism really is.

No WMD In Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/wmd_10-7.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

No Ties To Al-Qaeda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122821,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1006792,00.html

Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...till_no_mass_weapons_no_ties_to_911_no_truth/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm


Source:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/10/there-were-no-wmd-in-iraq-no-ties-to.html

NICE... and there are still some crackpots who think you're untruthful.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ban.the.electoral.college said:
NICE... and there are still some crackpots who think you're untruthful.

Yes, here's a question for Skilly,who's really the mental cases, Huh?:lol:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ban.the.electoral.college said:
You shouldn't tempt fate.

And it's obvious why it's taken so long to impeach the illegitimate G.W. Bitch. So, don't count your chickens before they hatch. There is still plenty of time to give him the boot.
What you've said is irrelevant...

You need to read the title of the thread again...

It's time to IMPEACH Bush!

That does not signify tomorrow...that does not signify next week, next month, or next year....Because, according to the title...It's time to IMPEACH Bush!

That's like writing "No one has ever made an airplane" in the year 1800, and then having someone yell, "See!?...Whoever wrote that is a liar!" in 1904...:roll:
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,381
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
ban.the.electoral.college said:
You shouldn't tempt fate.

And it's obvious why it's taken so long to impeach the illegitimate G.W. Bitch. So, don't count your chickens before they hatch. There is still plenty of time to give him the boot.

soreloserman psychobabble. still mad about the fact that Al Gore couldn't steal florida despite the best efforts of 7 third rate lawyers masquerading as the SCOFLAW (supreme court of florida)

this country would be better off if all the loons who sign those moronic impeachment petitions were committed to the psychiatric facilities who would be best off to handle their obvious problems
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
TurtleDude said:
soreloserman psychobabble. still mad about the fact that Al Gore couldn't steal florida despite the best efforts of 7 third rate lawyers masquerading as the SCOFLAW (supreme court of florida)

this country would be better off if all the loons who sign those moronic impeachment petitions were committed to the psychiatric facilities who would be best off to handle their obvious problems


Its called BDS
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,381
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
akyron said:
Its called BDS

explain-haven't seen that term before to the best of my recollection
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Compare this paragraph in the above article...

That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living, and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian.

With this...

ban.the.electoral.college said:
I don't know how they could be called attack dogs, espescially by FOX, the largest group of attack dogs ever. I still don't know why anyone would buy into that crass Bill O'Reilly - he's obviously an asshole. That goes for most of thier staff. And the so called liberals they have on the show are not good representatives. No wonder there's such a schizm today! Actually, I totally understand why FOX cries out the way they do. Conservatives eat these angry, fearful pundits up as if they were going out of style.

You knw the Center For Public Integritys' founder, Charles Lewis says (in Orwell Rolls In His Grave) they launched the Lincoln Bedroom Scandal. So, if conservatives are calling the Center for Public Integrity a liberal attack dog, well it seems they will resort to the "liberal attack dog" cry, just as quick as they will pull the "liberal media bias" card, or the "liberal" card anytime someone does not agree with them. FOX is really doing our nation a dis-service. I think Rupert Murdoch needs to be exiled. I really do. I mean, here we let the Aussie stroll in, dominate our media with garbage like FOX, thereby driving a wedge straight down the middle of our nation. Not to mention practically brainwashing the entire conservative portion of the U.S. - I am honestly worried about my nation. Never before have we been so fervently divided... perhaps since the civil war.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=70280&postcount=360
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,381
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:
Senator Jay Rockefeller admits he was wrong for voting for this bloodshed:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/6/113438/846

what about the other Democrats?
If I were a Democrat, I'd probably say that too or else lose my constituency...When the Liberal Base starts whipping up a frenzy, it's best to tell them what they want to hear....

I bet he doesn't want a Michael Moore documentary about him...:2wave:
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
If I were a Democrat, I'd probably say that too or else lose my constituency...When the Liberal Base starts whipping up a frenzy, it's best to tell them what they want to hear....

I bet he doesn't want a Michael Moore documentary about him...:2wave:

Why the hell won't Hillary admit this war was wrong? If she's as liberal as she was in the past, she has to believe it was false, but why the hell is she fooling herself?
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
156
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hillary has less than 3 years to prove to moderates and independents alike that she is not a far left liberal

Making a statement like that would be political suicide.
 

Repubteen

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How can u impeach Bush when he hasn't done anything "constitutionally" wrong? Sure you might not agree with what he is doing but he hasn't done anything wrong.I do admit though that Bush needs to get his act together.
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
156
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He needs to do a lot more than just get his act together.

But I agree, there's no evidence that proves Bush had done anything that would constitute an impeachment.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:
Why the hell won't Hillary admit this war was wrong? If she's as liberal as she was in the past, she has to believe it was false, but why the hell is she fooling herself?
She's trying to gain the respect of the Moderates...

She believes she already has the Liberal base, so she needs to reach those who are "undecided"...

If she were elected, you can bet the house everything she is saying now will be discarded...
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
kal-el said:

And that's why liberal propoganda isn't recognized for what it is; Clinton was impeached for being the most corrupt president in U.S. history, the only reason why he wasn't taken down as the scum bag that he is, was to preserve the union. Don't make me start talking about Rose law firm and the money and favors he was payed for his pardons, cuz I will.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:

First, all of your sources are sites that suck on the tailpipe of the Liberal Base...All except Boston.com, which JUSTSOHAPPENED to have an OP-ED piece written by Ralph Nader...Any objective forum member needs to go no further...:roll:

But for some frustrated reason, I will...

Second, Clinton ADMITTED to the lie WHEN there was factual evidence...That, whether you want to accept it or not, is a plea of "Guilty".

The only question was, "Is it worth it to remove him from office because of his ADMITTED LIE?....and the answer was "No"...

May I also remind you that the Democratic Senators ALL voted for a "No", so I expect that you would feel the Republicans were EQUALLY partisan?...Not so...

The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Notice how the accusation is NOT "lying about head"?...That is a fallacy which is continually brought up to make light of the actual issues, which are ""...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury", "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence", and "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"

Unlike Monica, all your doing is blowing smoke...

Now that the truth has shown its ugly light on you, let's get back to GWB...

In order for GWB to be impeached, you would have to have to show that there was a lie that was not derived from opinion, which is not the case...You WANT to believe it..."Wishing so" doesn't make it reality...

Also, You would have to prove that NOT ONLY did the President receive info that was not shown to the full Senate, or at least the Senate Intelligence Committee, but that the info "hidden" was CONTRADICTORY to what was shown...

In order for that to happen, the Senators objecting NOW would have to explain why they DID NOT go directly to the CIA and ask if all information was given...and accurately...The only way for these accusations to be true would be for the Senators to say, "GWB showed us stuff and we were SO STUPID not to question it at the time or "get to the bottom of it" that we, as elected leaders, blindly went with our hearts and not with our heads...For 2 years, we've questioned EVERYTHING he's done as President...education bills, tax cuts, response to 911...But when the MOST IMPORTANT VOTE of our time as Senators came up, we officially acted like sheep."...

What a defense, huh?...:roll:

One would also have to prove that he knew of concrete evidence that he knew things otherwise, which could never be proven because,
A) As a CIA Intelligence officer once said, "Intelligence is not a science...It's an art form"....which means it's open to interpretation...
B) We elected a certain person to finally decide upon these "interpretations"...Believing the UNELECTED CIA - an organization with NO AUTHORITY in making these decisions - over the President, who, through the Constitution, DOES have the authority to make these decisions(with the consent of Congress), is utterly laughable...

The CIA could show intel to the President and say "We believe there is only a 10% chance that this intelligence is correct."...If the President believes that "10%" is still too much of a chance to take, that's HIS decision..."Because the CIA says otherwise" is not an answer to the accusation of a lie...They only provide the intel...not what to do about it...They probably can make recommendations, but what they say can ONLY be taken into account...not form actual policy...

So you see, your "wish" will not be granted...:2wave:
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
First, all of your sources are sites that suck on the tailpipe of the Liberal Base...All except Boston.com, which JUSTSOHAPPENED to have an OP-ED piece written by Ralph Nader...Any objective forum member needs to go no further...:roll:

But for some frustrated reason, I will...

Second, Clinton ADMITTED to the lie WHEN there was factual evidence...That, whether you want to accept it or not, is a plea of "Guilty".

The only question was, "Is it worth it to remove him from office because of his ADMITTED LIE?....and the answer was "No"...

May I also remind you that the Democratic Senators ALL voted for a "No", so I expect that you would feel the Republicans were EQUALLY partisan?...Not so...

The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Notice how the accusation is NOT "lying about head"?...That is a fallacy which is continually brought up to make light of the actual issues, which are ""...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury", "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence", and "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"

Unlike Monica, all your doing is blowing smoke...

Now that the truth has shown its ugly light on you, let's get back to GWB...

In order for GWB to be impeached, you would have to have to show that there was a lie that was not derived from opinion, which is not the case...You WANT to believe it..."Wishing so" doesn't make it reality...

Also, You would have to prove that NOT ONLY did the President receive info that was not shown to the full Senate, or at least the Senate Intelligence Committee, but that the info "hidden" was CONTRADICTORY to what was shown...

In order for that to happen, the Senators objecting NOW would have to explain why they DID NOT go directly to the CIA and ask if all information was given...and accurately...The only way for these accusations to be true would be for the Senators to say, "GWB showed us stuff and we were SO STUPID not to question it at the time or "get to the bottom of it" that we, as elected leaders, blindly went with our hearts and not with our heads...For 2 years, we've questioned EVERYTHING he's done as President...education bills, tax cuts, response to 911...But when the MOST IMPORTANT VOTE of our time as Senators came up, we officially acted like sheep."...

What a defense, huh?...:roll:

One would also have to prove that he knew of concrete evidence that he knew things otherwise, which could never be proven because,
A) As a CIA Intelligence officer once said, "Intelligence is not a science...It's an art form"....which means it's open to interpretation...
B) We elected a certain person to finally decide upon these "interpretations"...Believing the UNELECTED CIA - an organization with NO AUTHORITY in making these decisions - over the President, who, through the Constitution, DOES have the authority to make these decisions(with the consent of Congress), is utterly laughable...

The CIA could show intel to the President and say "We believe there is only a 10% chance that this intelligence is correct."...If the President believes that "10%" is still too much of a chance to take, that's HIS decision..."Because the CIA says otherwise" is not an answer to the accusation of a lie...They only provide the intel...not what to do about it...They probably can make recommendations, but what they say can ONLY be taken into account...not form actual policy...

So you see, your "wish" will not be granted...:2wave:

Golly cnredd, you're the hallmark of the Republican mantra.:2razz:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:
Golly cnredd, you're the hallmark of the Republican mantra.:2razz:
Actually, "No"...

There are many things that I DON'T agree with, but just because, on some points, I am in agreement with them, doesn't mean I blindly follow....

Making an agreeable statement doesn't mean I got it from them...It means I've evaluated the points and came to the same conclusion...:shrug:
 

Strange1

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I won't say it's time to impeach Bush. I believe he is dummer than a handful of rusty nails, but to impeach......I say no. However, I have noticed a decided quieting of the radical right puppets. That should serve to indicate that all is not right in puppetdom. Now they seem to dwell on what is wrong with the oppositon rather wthan what is right with the current admin. BTW, there are radical puppets on the liberal side of the fince too, IMO.

Jack
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Strange1 said:
I won't say it's time to impeach Bush. I believe he is dummer than a handful of rusty nails, but to impeach......I say no. However, I have noticed a decided quieting of the radical right puppets. That should serve to indicate that all is not right in puppetdom. Now they seem to dwell on what is wrong with the oppositon rather wthan what is right with the current admin. BTW, there are radical puppets on the liberal side of the fince too, IMO.

Jack

Bush even though a lousy prez, has not done anything to warrent impeachment.
 

Strange1

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
alphieb said:
Bush even though a lousy prez, has not done anything to warrent impeachment.

I take it we are kinda agreeing on this.:lol:

Jack
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
156
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He's about as lousy as Clinton was.

Intrepet that however you may.
 
Top Bottom