Thread: Website Set up for IMPEACHMENT VOTES

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

You're right Dman that we can sit here and blame everyone, but ultimately he is the president and he is responsible for his agenda for us and he has the most power, really. We should blame him, especially and definitely for the immigration disaster.

But here's the fact of the matter. It would take a long time to impeach him. In the meantime we are going to get amnesty unless we realize that we have to deal with him and we must be persistant in attempting to work with him.

At this particular moment in time, there is nothing that we can do but to continue our attempts and efforts to work with him, no matter how angry we are.

Dman, send him an email and tell him how angry and fed up you are!!
We must do that. He will not read this and find out. Try to control yourself though when you write it.

You're a good writer. We need for you to communicate what you think about all of this with him. I know it's hard, but we must.

president@whitehouse.gov

There is one President, but there are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives who must pass any given piece of legislation, so placing sole blame on the President is ludicrous. If you have a legitimate complaint about the President, and of course you do, then you have the SAME complaint about the Congress that either enables the policies in question by passing the bills in the first place or that fails to perform its oversight duties or to use its control of the purse strings to reign in a renegade Executive.

My point is that pretending that this nation's problems are the result of the actions of a single man is absurd, and that such a pretense blinds individuals to the much larger task at hand of reigning in a runaway government. In other words, getting rid of one element of bad government won't fix the larger problem of a government that not only no longer serves the People, but that more often than not acts specifically against the People.

Quote by dman1200:

Lets just sit here with our heads in the sand and say hail Ceasar to Bush because he's has an R in front of his name and give every excuse under the sun for his failures as a president.

I am not a Republican, so I could care less. I just think that we should give credit where credit is due and when something goes wrong, don't leave one man holding the bag, as most of the US has done.

Lets just sit here and blame Clinton even though that was six years ago, lets blame Bush cabinet members, lets blame Santa Claus too. It's everyone elses fault, but Bush.

The point that I am trying to make is to worry less about pointing the finger and focus more on getting things done. I am not blaming Clinton and I am not blaming Bush. I am saying that some of these leaders have been troublesome for years, and need to be dealt with accordingly. Many Americans pay no attention to politics until something big happens. Suddenly, they are the expert. They do not take any past problems into consideration, and instead of siding with the home team, they are off and running about how someone could have done it better.

If your not here to fight illegal immigration and you just want to be an apologist for Bush then what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be on Free Republic where you can join up with a bunch of neocon fanatics that kiss his ass all day long and think he's the greatest ever?

Last time I checked, ALIPAC did not have a sheeple clause. Perhaps you have not seen any of my other posts regarding illegal immigration(?) Not only am I opposed to illegal immigration but I have been working for the cause for several years now. In addition, I help with the campaigns here on ALIPAC, donated money here, and to other organizations that are fighting illegal immigration, have made suggestions for the online fundraiser, and make additional calls and write letters on my own, and with other organizations. I am NOT pro-Bush, or pro-Republican, I agree that he has made mistakes and I wish things have turned out differently. As far as your list goes, I feel that the last four items are debatable. There is good and bad in everyone, and President Bush is no exception.

Iraq has been a disaster

It is difficult to change a culture. These people need to step up and help themselves. Because they are not, it puts more pressure on us. In theory, there is little difference between the war in Iraq and the war against illegal immigration. We are also fighting a losing battle here because we cannot gain the support that we need. Should I bail out on that too?

Katrina has been a disaster

Katrina is a disaster on many levels. First of all, you should not build a city below sea level. Secondly, New Orleans is a corrupt city. They get their fair share of money but it is not spent properly. They have not used the money they were given after Katrina, and they still have money coming. Ray Nagin is a useless leader, he needs to go. There was a warning issued for people to leave, many refused, not because they couldn't, but because they chose not to. As a result, the people who really could not leave suffered the consequences. The US only has so much time, money and resources, I think people forget that. People act as if there is only one thing going on, when in fact, we have had all kinds of natural disasters, wars etc....for the true victims of Hurricane Katrina in all of the states, my heart goes out to them and we need to learn from this disaster and be better prepared for the future.

his immigration and economic policies are a disaster

Something we can agree on.

We don't need to unite behind this guy and his failed policies, we need to hold him accountable. I know in the US that is a novice concept for most of us.

I am not uniting behind the "guy", I am uniting behind my country. He needs to be held accountable, and we need to stick together, in a positive way.

We need to remove those in power who aren't serving our best interest and put in charge those that will or we can continue to bury our heads in the sand, justify with every lame excuse in the book why we should retain these crooks in suits and cry later when our country goes into the toilet

.
Please explain to me, in detail, how long this process will take, how much it will cost, how it will affect our country in an adverse way, and why you think that Dick Cheney will do the job better.

You can be a sarcastic ass all you want about crying to me or whoever, but you will because people like you are all the same.

I enjoy being a sarcastic ass, and feel like I am pretty good at it. Apparently you are as well, so we must understand each other.

You will continue to elect the same scum to office

I intend on voting for Hunter or Tancredo...they aren't scum. Who are you voting for?

give every lame excuse to keep these guys in power and once things get obviously too out of control to handle or if one of their policies effects you and your family your going to start crying wondering what just happened (like you don't know) and then start crying about how we should have done something to stop it earlier. I'm saying don't come on these boards or to me personally when that day comes because people like you get what they deserve.

I give no excuses. I give credit where credit is due and criticize when it applies. I don't have a lynch mob mentality, so if you expect me to be like you, it just won't happen. I can separate one issue from another.

If an illegal alien kills one of your own, don't say a word to me because I won't be listening because I don't care. You support Bush's policies? Knock yourself out, but be prepared to reap what you sow.

Don't confuse one issue with another. I am not in favor of illegal immigration...far from it. I had a realtive die at the hand of a terrorist, so I see what you are saying. Perhaps you haven't, so it does not affect you the same way.

I hope you volunteer yourself for the next war President Bush pushes (more likely Iran) so he can try to make up for the fact that he wasn't a big war hero like his dad was. Bush administration = a bunch of business frat boys who think they can prosecute a war. They still refuse to listen to the real experts about Iraq who have told them time and time again what they should do and shouldn't do. Now he wants to escalate this thing by bringing in more troops to fight for some bogus cause. Now more troops will die in vain for the cause of globalism, god help us. Fight illegal wars thousands of miles away, send our troops to their deaths so millions of illegals can flood into our open borders and take over from within. Is that something you think is worthy of uniting behind? If you were running a business would you employ this guy to run it?

No one wants a war. NO ONE! You need to start paying closer attention to what is going on in the world and how it affects things in the future. Our military is 100% voluntary, they are trained for their job and know good and well what it entails. Stop acting like people are being drug to the middle east against their will. No one has ever been able to pick and choose their missions. There is always the possibility that you may not agree. If you can't handle the consequences, don't enlist.

BTW nice state of the union Bush where all you most did was focus on Iraq and neglected to mention Katrina. I guess now Iraq is the 51st state of the union or is it the 53rd behind Canada and Mexico? I guess the Katrina victims don't count since they weren't apart of Bush's war machine.

It would not matter if the man was standing at the podium on one foot, juggling chainsaws and flaming torches. No matter what he says or does, it will be criticized. I think that says something about our society.

848777 :
the number of people
who have already voted
in the referendum
to Impeach Bush!
(figure updated daily)

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket: I don't think that you are lumping me in with the impeachment crowd, but just to be safe. I am not in favor of impeaching the President.

When we lose our nation and you come crying to me about how we should have acted, I'll say don't come crying to me because I told you so.

What??? I can't come crying to you? Why? Why? For the love of God, why!!!! Okay, you have changed my mind. I am totally on your side now that you put it that way....I would hate to lose the opportunity to come crying to you, and since everybody else is on the impeachment bandwagon, I'd hate to have my own opinion.

So, dman...what is your story? I am trying to figure out if you are a hard core Democrat or if you are another sad victim of the propaganda machine. For a man without credibility, it is surprising that President Bush has been voted in twice. So what you are saying is that our country truly does not have any credibility(?) Saddam has been a problem for a long time, not only for us recently, but in the Gulf war too. He did not think twice about murdering his own people, or letting them suffer through UN sanctions. The man continually snubbed his nose at the Security Council and ignored inspections. He had so much warning about WMD inspections that who is to say if he had them or not. He certainly played the game like he did. If he was bluffing, it was a foolish choice based on the final outcome. I am so glad that you brought up oil. Do you use oil? I do, so if it is all about the oil, then I don't care. I suppose you are also whining about drilling here in the US, too? Lead by example, my friend, and stop using any oil product. Let us know how it goes.

No, Neese, I did not confuse you with the impeachment crowd. Sorry if anything I said was so misconstrued.

BTW - Is the above quote from dman?

The only reason Bush won't be impeached is because we won't impeach a war-time president.

Which is the only reason Bush is practically insisting on war with IraN.

Folks, neither Iran nor Iraq is anything like what we faced under the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, all of which became ours, without a single drop of blood. We used our wits and our ingenuity and our diplomacy and our smarts and our nerves.

Bush has none of that. Not even nerves. He's so trip-hammer on his impulse control that it might be DSM-V material.

And he's especially no good at diplomacy, which embodies them all, not so much because he's a "warrior" (we all know that ain't true), but because the guy can't talk.

And more importantly he can't listen (which is why he's called stubborn, mistaken in some quarters for "steadfastness" -- so was that dude in Swingblade.)

And that's because he cannot grasp or comprehend things and shades of things, and the things that those things cast.

Or, in his words, he don't do nuance.

True.

Because he can't.

That's his problem. But he's made a "problem" for all of us. Shame on him.

If I read this correctly, you seem to be under the impression that communism fell and is dead and buried?

I beg to differ, if that's what you're suggesting.

We never fired a shot? That's fictional rhetoric. It became ours? Look again.

.

I thought this historical perspective was interesting to add.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

For you Bush backers out there, please read what Pat Buchanan says here. I think he does a great job of exposing Bush's sheer stupidity on Iraq and the Middle East in general:

The Ideologue
by Patrick J. Buchanan - January 25, 2006


Churchillian it was not. Yet the State of the Union seemed a success if Bush's purpose was to buy time from Congress to wait and see if his surge of U.S. forces into Iraq might yet succeed.


But when Bush started to describe the ideological war we are in, one began to understand why we are in the mess we are in.


"This war," said Bush, "is an ideological struggle. ... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us."


But the "conditions" that drove those 19 men "to come to kill us" is our dominance of their world, our authoritarian allies and Israel.


They were over here because we are over there.


If Bush is going to remove those "conditions," he is going to have to get us out of the Middle East. Is he prepared to do that? Of course not. Because Bush, believing the problem is not our pervasive presence but the lack of freedom in the Middle East, is waging his own ideological war to bring freedom in by force of arms, if necessary.


"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices."


Very American. But the truth is terrorists do not fear free societies, they flourish in them. The suicide bombers of 9-11, Madrid and London all plotted their atrocities in free societies. From the Red Brigades, who murdered Italy's Aldo Mori, to the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, who tried to kill Al Haig, to the Basque ETA, the IRA and the Puerto Rican terrorists who tried to assassinate Harry Truman, free societies are where they do their most effective work.


Stalin's Russia and Nazi Germany had no trouble with terrorists.


"Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies," declared Bush. Oh? Explain, then, why 70 million Germans, under the most democratic government in their history, gave more than half their votes to Nazis and Communists in 1933? In every plebiscite he held, Hitler won a landslide. In the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938, Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and far more popular than FDR, who lost 71 seats in the House.


During 2006, free Latin peoples brought to power anti-American Leftists Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and came close to electing their comrades Ollanta Humala in Peru and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico.


In the free elections Bush demanded in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, the winners were the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas and Shia militants with ties to Iran.


If a referendum were held in the Middle East on the proposition of the U.S. military out and Israel gone, how does Bush think it would come out?


"So we advance our security interests by helping moderates, reformers and brave voices for democracy," said Bush. But how many of those "moderates" -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, the Gulf States -- are ruled "by brave voices for democracy"?


Our Islamist enemies would likely endorse unanimously a Bush call for free elections in all those countries, as elections could not but help advance to greater power, at the expense of our friends, those same Islamist enemies.


What is Bush doing? The America that won the Cold War said ideology be damned, we stand by our friends.


"The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies," said Bush.


But if we bleed our country to give the men and women of the Middle East the freedom to choose the society they wish to live in, are we sure they will not choose a society where Sharia is law? In liberated Afghanistan, popular sentiment was behind beheading that Muslim who converted to Christianity.


What leads Bush to believe everyone wants to be like us? Is it not ideology?


To characterize "the totalitarian ideology" we confront, Bush quoted Osama bin Laden: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."


This is the true mark of the true believer. But did not the Spain of Isabella want the "unbelievers" removed from "among us"? Did not Elizabeth I feel the same about Catholics?


"Give me liberty or give me death!" said Patrick Henry of the Brits remaining in this country that Brits had founded. "Live free or die!" is the motto of the great state of New Hampshire.


This is the heart of the war we are in. Americans believe in freedom first. Millions of Muslims believe in Islam first -- submission to Allah. We decide for us. Do we also decide for them?


Perhaps the best advice we can give our Muslim friends in the Middle East is the hard advice Lord Byron gave the Greeks under the Islamic rule of Ottoman Turks:


Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not,


Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?


---- end ----

Just because I don't support impeachment, doesn't mean I am a "Bush-backer". Can't speak for anyone else you may be lumping into that category.

I don't think that there is a single Bush backer on this website, but I have to tell you that I find Mr Buchanan equally as repulsive. I purchased his book and had to stop once I got to the chapter about white women ruining the US because we use birth control and aren't reproducing enough. I don't feel that we need to be baby machines to make make Mr Buchanan happy and to keep up with Mexico. Personal responsibility is a good thing, at least we aren't sucking money out of welfare.

I also am no "Bush-backer," and I resent the implication that anyone with the sense to understand that cries for impeachment range from delusion to partisan posturing is precluded from disagreeing with the administration.

I still have not heard Dman explain who he would want to see replace Bush in the event of impeachment, and I find that glaring omission to be telling.

848981 :
the number of people
who have already voted
in the referendum
to Impeach Bush!
(figure updated daily)