Note: Should George Bush be impeached?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

01-18-2006, 09:44 AM
returning_resident

[quote=butterbean][quote=returning_resident]

Quote:

Originally Posted by butterbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":2tyqvs6y

Quote:

Originally Posted by butterbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":2tyqvs6y

although I'm not happy with Bush as our president, I don't see the need to impeach him. On what grounds ? And do we have anyone to replace him then ?
I mean, it will be under his presidency that a part of a fence is going to be built - no previous administration did that.

8O You ARE kidding, right?! Deceiving congress into a war that had no justification is impeachable. And overstepping legal methods to spy is also an impeachable offense. Turning his head the other way while our country is being invaded is impeachable. These are just a few.

Have I ever been kidding or not telling what I honestly think on this forum ? Let's be honest. Most of us Americans also suspected Sadam to have biological and chemical weapons and he's used them before. He deceived the UN many times over and over again, so it's not that strange that Bush and our intelligence agencies thought he'd still be in possession of such weapons. I was and I'm still against the war in Iraq, but I don't have the feeling that Bush lied to Congress deliberately as most of us thought the same aobut Sadam. Spying is only happening on a small scale to protect America, do you really think he cares of what my mom and I talk about on the phone ? We invaded Iraq, but we're not invaded by illegal aliens as the definition of an invasion is that one country attacks another country with an armed army. I don't see Mexican tanks and soldiers entering the US. Yes, maybe on a small scale accidently. what rest is my question- who should replace Bush ?

:( Who should replace Bush? God only knows. I have lost trust in most of our representatives. Anyone in the Bush administration sucks. Who would you want to have in his place, not including Hillary or Kerry?

If I can't include Hillary or Kerry, then I'd go for Tancredo ( he seems to be an honest man ) , McCain ( he served this country in vietnam, although that war was wrong ) or Nader ( he's against the death penalty and he'll be good for the environment. The last one is my favorite.[/quote:2tyqvs6y]

:) TANCREDO IS AN EXCELLENT CHOICE![/quote:2tyqvs6y]

Well it's not a choice, I meant that I would nominate Tancredo as a person I might vote for. I want a president who's honest to the American people and I think that Tancredo is an honest man. But I would only vote for him if Kerry or Hillary wouldn't take part in the next election, but Hillary will.
01-18-2006, 09:46 AM
Bootsie

Hillary will be right in there spying too! Like I said--they ALL GOT THEIR INTELLIGENCE from the SAME SOURCES. Germany even SAID that some of the intelligence they got was QUESTIONABLE. I think he cherry picked intelligence and what the presented at the UN was SO FLIMSY that anybody who BELIEVED it just WANTED to believe it.
01-18-2006, 09:51 AM
returning_resident

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootsie

Hillary will be right in there spying too! Like I said--they ALL GOT THEIR INTELLIGENCE from the SAME SOURCES. Germany even SAID that some of the intelligence they got was QUESTIONABLE. I think he cherry picked intelligence and what the presented at the UN was SO FLIMSY that anybody who BELIEVED it just WANTED to believe it.

I don't think hillary will spy.
Germany and France had their own agenda, germany was afraid that we would find out that they supplied Sadam for most of the raw material to make chamical weapons in the past. And the french had the benefit from the embargo and didn't care that many children died because of that embargo. I look at the overall picture and that's that more people in Iraq voted than in our last presidential election. And if you would ask people in the streets of US and EU you'd find out that most people also thought that Sadam was lying again. I'm and was against the war, but the Iraqi's are happy that Sadam is gone, 70% voted in their elections so why do you want to impeach Bush then ?
01-18-2006, 11:01 AM
Bootsie

Just because I SAID SO.
01-18-2006, 07:58 PM
had_enuf

Current Results for Boot Bush

Should Bush be impeached?

Answer Graph % Votes
Yes 70.01% 523
No 29.99% 224

Total 100% 747
01-19-2006, 03:54 AM
Bootsie

That is still such a LOW number of participants. This must not be a well-known site, huh???
01-19-2006, 05:06 AM
had_enuf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootsie

That is still such a LOW number of participants. This must not be a well-known site, huh???

That's what I thought. I liked the MSNBC poll better where 86% of 210,000 voted to impeach. :D
01-19-2006, 05:10 AM
Bootsie

OH DEFINITELY, had_enuf!! Now, THAT is MY KIND OF POLL!!!
01-19-2006, 06:11 AM
returning_resident

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootsie

Just because I SAID SO.

and I say we shouldn't impeach Bush, although I don't like him, he was still elected by us and defeated Kerry by 3 million + votes.
01-20-2006, 11:52 AM
dman1200

[quote=returning_resident][quote=butterbean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":3t5yhlyg

Quote:

Originally Posted by butterbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":3t5yhlyg

although I'm not happy with Bush as our president, I don't see the need to impeach him. On what grounds ? And do we have anyone to replace him then ?
I mean, it will be under his presidency that a part of a fence is going to be built - no previous administration did that.

8O You ARE kidding, right?! Deceiving congress into a war that had no justification is impeachable. And overstepping legal methods to spy is also an impeachable offense. Turning his head the other way while our country is being invaded is impeachable. These are just a few.

Have I ever been kidding or not telling what I honestly think on this forum ? Let's be honest. Most of us Americans also suspected Sadam to have biological and chemical weapons and he's used them before. He deceived the UN many times over and over again, so it's not that strange that Bush and our intelligence agencies thought he'd still be in possession of such weapons. I was and I'm still against the war in Iraq, but I don't have the feeling that Bush lied to Congress deliberately as most of us thought the same aobut Sadam. Spying is only happening on a small scale to protect America, do you really think he cares of what my mom and I talk about on the phone ? We invaded Iraq, but we're not invaded by illegal aliens as the definition of an invasion is that one country attacks another country with an armed army. I don't see Mexican tanks and soldiers entering the US. Yes, maybe on a small scale accidently. what rest is my question- who should replace Bush ?

:( Who should replace Bush? God only knows. I have lost trust in most of our representatives. Anyone in the Bush administration sucks. Who would you want to have in his place, not including Hillary or Kerry?[/quote:3t5yhlyg]

If I can't include Hillary or Kerry, then I'd go for Tancredo ( he seems to be an honest man ) , McCain ( he served this country in vietnam, although that war was wrong ) or Nader ( he's against the death penalty and he'll be good for the environment. The last one is my favorite.[/quote:3t5yhlyg]

Other than Tancredo, your other choices are the worst ever. I honestly think you put far too much trust in the ruling elite. If you don't think Bush should be impeached and you actually put trust in him then I think you are just an extremely naive person who needs a serious wake up call.

About the Mexican invasion. You claim that Mexican incursions are only happening accidently? Are you kidding me? 216 incursion since 1998 is an accident? I don't think so. It's been well documented that the Mexican military has been instrumental in assisting drug/human smugglers, illegals and gangsters into the country and have taken shots at our border patrol. It's no accident what they are doing. 3 million illegal aliens per year flooding across our borders to bring about their poverty, crime and diseases to our country. If that isn't an invasion then you tell me what is? Just because they all aren't wearing military garb and coming through with all sorts of weaponry doesn't mean it's not an invasion. There's two types of invasion. Military and migatory. Over 85 percent of our illegal immigration problem is coming from one country. Mexico. They are trying to take back the southwest by flooding the terroritory with their citizens. They are trying to flood the area with their people so they can create a majority so they can start influencing the outcome of the elections and put their own people in place so that their own people in power who will only support things that will only benefit their own people. It's already happened in California and it's starting to happen in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico. It's only a matter of time before it starts happening nationwide. Bush has sworn an oath to protect this country from an invasion (whatever kind of invasion that is) and he's failed to do so. He shirks his constitutional duties each and every day. That alone should be grounds for impeachment. If you don't believe me about the invasion, go research Conquest of Aztlan.

As far as Iraq goes. Where are the WMD's that Bush claimed he had? Nowhere that's where. Each and every day this guy lies and finds new reasons for justifying this war. First it was WMD's. When that was debunked, it was to get rid of Saddam. After that was accomplished, it was because Iraq was connected with 9-11. When that was debunked it was to win the war on terror. After that it was for freedom and democracy. Which one is it? If Iraq was such a threat then why doesn't he go after Iran or N Korea. Why? I think the reason why Bush was so interested in Iraq was to control the oil and to avenge Saddam for going after his father. That's why I think Bush was so trigger happy to invade Iraq. Bush Sr didn't even want to do this. It was Bush W listening to his neocon buddies on Wall St instead of listening to the American people. Iraq was not a threat to us. Maybe to Israel, but not to us. It's clear to me that Bush lied and hyped up intelligence to lead us into a war that's unneccessary. Now thousands of lives have been sacrificied for this abomination. Not only that, but thousands more lives have been ruined due to deabilitating injuries that they will never be able to fully recover from. Not to mention billions of dollars have been wasted that would have gone along way to securing our nations borders.

This spying thing Bush is doing is wrong. If you don't have a search warrant, it's illegal and unconstitutional. No warrant, no search. You say you don't care if Bush spies on you because you have nothing to hide. You better care. What if they didn't like you and perceived you as a threat for whatever reason, hacked your computer and started surfing some nasty sites so they can pin some BS on you? That's not too far fetched. Plus they can always label you an enemy combatant and hold you at some undisclosed location indefinitely without probable cause. If I were you I would care.

Add onto the list of impeachable offenses what Bush has done to our deficit and our economy. Bush also refuses to address the growing threat that is China.

No don't give me this we don't have probable cause to impeach Bush. Bush's list of impeachable offenses is a country mile long and congress could do it tomorrow if they had the guts.

If I were you I'd do some research into the politicos you claim to support. If Bush doesn't end our sovereignty, Hillary, McCain or Nader most certainly will. If you think they are to be trusted, please get your head examined.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page