Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Platforms
PCXboxPlayStationNintendo
Games
ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games

Game Forum / Role Playing Games / Final Fantasy / December 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Bush Should Be Impeached

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Freedom Fries - 23 Dec 2005 17:52 GMT
The case against George W. Bush
Are we so comfortable that we can't be bothered by losing our civil
liberties?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy.
- James Madison

Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith voted "guilty" on one count of the articles of
impeachment against President Bill Clinton. When The New York Times reported
that President Bush had signed a secret executive order years ago to spy on
the civilian population without judicial review, Sen. Smith said nothing.

Neither did Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden.

Their predecessor, Sen. Wayne Morse, would have had a lot to say about this
transgression on Americans' right to privacy.

Here is what Sen. Wyden suspects Morse would have said: "I think he would
have said, 'This is beyond belief.'"

Would Morse have also said that the president's action was an impeachable
offense?

Speaking for himself, Wyden added: "As a member of the intelligence
committee, I hadn't been briefed on the program, and it seems to me that if
the president felt this was necessary to protect this country, it's not a
close call. He comes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and
says, 'Look, this is what I need to do.' There is even an emergency
provision under this statute that allows the president to gather information
now and apply to the court subsequently."

Sen. Wyden's comments are one more indication that the president's secret
executive order was a poorly conceived theft of our constitutional rights.

This is a radical presidency that has no respect for precedent and little
respect for the Constitution. Witness the disregard for the Geneva
Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Witness the secret
executive order.

The administration also has a penchant for lying. Thus we were urged to
launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq for grounds that proved to be false.
Thus we are told by the president and his secretary of state that the U.S.
does not torture prisoners when that fact has been documented several times
over.

It is time that senators and members of Congress raised a little hell about
President Bush's nullification of our civil rights.

And what about the rest of us? Are we so comfortable that we can't be
bothered by a president who hijacks our civil liberties?

http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=2
9998&TM=9346.764

Wonko the Sane - 23 Dec 2005 18:07 GMT
Do you have to work at being an idiotic tool or does it just come
naturally?

Doug
Dewey - 23 Dec 2005 18:29 GMT
> Do you have to work at being an idiotic tool or does it just come
> naturally?
>
> Doug

I am truly impressed at how thoroughly and concisely you refuted all his
accusations.
trijcomm - 24 Dec 2005 08:51 GMT
>I am truly impressed at how thoroughly and concisely you refuted all his
>accusations.

I think he did just fine. After all, one word says it all: "Kook."
SNORKY - 23 Dec 2005 18:41 GMT
>The administration also has a penchant for lying. Thus we were urged to
>launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq for grounds that proved to be false.

This is completely wrong.  There has never been proof that there never
were any WMDs in Iraq.

>Thus we are told by the president and his secretary of state that the U.S.
>does not torture prisoners when that fact has been documented several times
>over.

As a policy.  Certainly, they never spoke for every single Lyndies
actions.
steve - 23 Dec 2005 19:18 GMT
> >The administration also has a penchant for lying. Thus we were urged to
> >launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq for grounds that proved to be false.
>
> This is completely wrong.  There has never been proof that there never
> were any WMDs in Iraq.

Yeah, maybe all those nuclear weapons were flown out of the country on
all those unmanned aerial vehicles.

> >Thus we are told by the president and his secretary of state that the U.S.
> >does not torture prisoners when that fact has been documented several times
> >over.
>
> As a policy.  Certainly, they never spoke for every single Lyndies
> actions.

Or Gonzaleses or any of the other bad apples.
SNORKY - 23 Dec 2005 20:26 GMT
>> >The administration also has a penchant for lying. Thus we were urged to
>> >launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq for grounds that proved to be false.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Yeah, maybe all those nuclear weapons were flown out of the country on
>all those unmanned aerial vehicles.

Now *there's* a thought.  I'm promoting you to "Usenet Field
Marshall."  Keep up the good work!
boobah - 23 Dec 2005 22:50 GMT
"This is completely wrong.  There has never been proof that there never

were any WMDs in Iraq. "
OMG, that is so CLASSIC. "There has NEVER been proof that there NEVER
were any WMDs"

In other words, we should provide proof of something that doesn't
exist.

You must have studied at the M. Python School of Extensionalism.

Dave

"2005 will be remembered as the year Republicans woke up after 5 long
years and said -- why didn't someone TELL us this guy was such an
idiot???"
Rockett Crawford - 23 Dec 2005 20:41 GMT
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
Michael - 23 Dec 2005 20:45 GMT
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

Wow.
Lord Gow, Happy Go Fun Battling Warrior of Lesnarism! - 24 Dec 2005 02:50 GMT
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

You, umm, forgot to mention this:

From: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/

"In contrast, MSNBC's online surveys (Live Votes) may reflect the views of
far more individuals, but they are not necessarily representative of the
general population.
To begin with, the people who respond choose to do so — they are not
randomly selected and asked to participate, but instead make the choice to
read a story about a certain topic and then vote on a related question.
There is thus no guarantee that the votes would reflect anything close to a
statistical sample, even of MSNBC.com users:"

So libs know how to stack a vote. No surprise there.

LG
Signature

Happy Holidays!
Unless you're a humorless, politically correct liberal, in which case:
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Bob - 24 Dec 2005 08:29 GMT
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

Got any more unscientific polls you want to post, moron?
Rockett Crawford - 24 Dec 2005 12:59 GMT
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
>
> Got any more unscientific polls you want to post, moron?

Happy Holidays to you.

Maybe we'll see more scientific polls on this next month when the Senate
hearings start?

take care,
Rockett Crawford
Terraholm - 25 Dec 2005 00:10 GMT
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
>
> Got any more unscientific polls you want to post, moron?

Nah just intellegent designed ones...
Blazer Fan Dan - 25 Dec 2005 04:26 GMT
> The case against George W. Bush
> Are we so comfortable that we can't be bothered by losing our civil
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Their predecessor, Sen. Wayne Morse, would have had a lot to say about this
> transgression on Americans' right to privacy.

Hm..I'm fairly certain that Wyden and Smith's predeccesors were
Packwood and Hatfield..
KRJ - 26 Dec 2005 19:46 GMT
yawn...like a fish going upstream to spawn...you keep swimming and
swimming...and then you die...please let it be soon

> The case against George W. Bush
> Are we so comfortable that we can't be bothered by losing our civil
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=2
9998&TM=9346.764
 
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.