- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
But this is their favorite thread topic. There have been many Impeach Bush threads and there will be many more. It's the DNC platform.VoiceOfReason said:There is a ZERO percent chance Bush will be impeached. Not .01 %. ZERO.
KCConservative said:But this is their favorite thread topic. There have been many Impeach Bush threads and there will be many more. It's the DNC platform.
danarhea said:So its all the DNC's fault, this talk about impeachment? You should have read the link, then you would have known better. The source????? Drum roll please............
The source is Insight Magazine, the sister publication of the Washington Times. LOL. The article was very good, and was from a Conservative point of view.
Consider yourself biatch-slapped..........again.
Just like old times back at the other board, before you got yourself permanently banned there. :2razz:
scottyz said:Even if they were show irrefutable proof he broke the law I highly doubt the Republicans would impeach him or hold him accountable in any way. I would think the biggest concern is that Democrats might regain control of the house in '06 and make impeachment an issue.
It wasnt me. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to go over there and look at the membership. My account is still active. Why? Because I didnt act like you. But you have to admit, I did take your scalp on quite a few occasions over there, just like I took it again in this thread. And all you had to do to prevent it was to read the link and realize that it was a hard right publication that was talking about the possibilities of impeachment, and how the White House was now worried. You didnt have to lose your scalp again. All you had to do was overcome your laziness just enough to make one single, solitary click with your mouse. LOL.KCConservative said:Just like Mr KidRocks yesterday when I mentioned Michael Moore's website, referencing the DNC in this case is counter-rhetorical. I'll try to speak in absolutes from now on, dana, so the sarcasm and irony don't go over your head.
And tell us, who else was banned permanently from that other board? Hmmm? :2razz:
Is he impeached yet? :rofl
Stinger said:Unlike the Democrats who have been shown proof that the courts have already ruled he has the authority to do this, yet they still want to get revenge.
Can you imagine the Democrats running on the promise that they will not tap the phones of terroist calling into the United States.
danarhea said:I am not going to let you get away with that, Stinger. You are going to have to show the proof you are talking about. Where is the court decision that allows Bush to wiretap without warrants?
However, I will grant you this. You are arguing without attacking the messenger, and that is appreciated. Other than the lapse you just made about the courts, your arguments are pretty intelligent, even if I disagree with them.
Stinger said:I have cited it many times here, Gonzales and the administration have cited it over and over, former AG Jamie Gorelick cited it in her statesments which I have also cited here. Why do I need to cite it again? Every president has wiretapped FOREIGN SIGNALS for intelligence purposes and that is allowed if they are coming into the United States from foreign sources.
Hey but let the Dems do it and be successful and then run on the premise that they will not do the same. I want to see them run on the premise that if they are tapping into a line from OBL to one of his associates and that associate lands in the US that they will cut the line and since there is no probable cause end it there. If that's the way you want our spying on our enemies to happen then support the Dems on this one.
danarhea said:We are not talking about foreign signals here, but about domestic surveilance activities, which has already been was already conducted on peace groups here in the US by the NSA and the Pentagon too, not to mention the FBI. That is much different than what you are talking about
danarhea said:Because I didnt act like you.
danarhea said:But you have to admit, I did take your scalp on quite a few occasions over there, just like I took it again in this thread.
danarhea said:And all you had to do to prevent it was to read the link and realize that it was a hard right publication that was talking about the possibilities of impeachment, and how the White House was now worried. You didnt have to lose your scalp again.
danarhea said:All you had to do was overcome your laziness just enough to make one single, solitary click with your mouse.
danarhea said:In regard to Michael Moore, I sincerely doubt that the sister publication of the Washington Times, which is my link, would have anything to do with him. Try again - You seem to speaking so counter-rhetorically that the whole concept seems to have gone over your head.
oldreliable67 said:The administration is basing part of its legal authority on the proposition that the AUMF conferred on the administration the right to use all powers 'incidental' to those activities granted in the AUMF. These 'incidental' activities certainly include the collection of signals intelligence. The admin cites the Hamdi SC decision as a precedent.
It is an interesting point of law, that will, I hope, find its way to the courts for review. Given the advances in technology, and the ability to do things never envisioned by FISA (even as amended), we really need to clarify the legality of these points.
For more posts on this topic, see the thread "52% want impeachment".
danarhea said:We are not talking about foreign signals here, but about domestic surveilance activities,
which has already been was already conducted on peace groups here in the US by the NSA and the Pentagon too, not to mention the FBI. That is much different than what you are talking about.
In short, I agree with what you said, as long as it remains in the proper domain, but you have just mixed apples and oranges here.
oldreliable67 said:Oops, sorry, thought you were talking about the foreign intelligence surveillance.
The Real McCoy said:Do the impeachment activists really want Dick Cheney as president or does their hatred of Bush blind them from reality?
Stinger said:We were...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?