Quoting:
I aint convinced...everything there would be thrown out in a court...
End Quote

It is not a court where an impeachment occurs, it would be in the Senate where the vote to remove a president occurs. It would require the House to write the charges. Since both are republican, it will likely not happen. Not like Clinton, where it was all partisan politics (or jelousy) about a blowjo...

Quoting:


It is not a court where an impeachment occurs, it would be in the Senate where the vote to remove a president occurs. It would require the House to write the charges. Since both are republican, it will likely not happen. Not like Clinton, where it was all partisan politics (or jelousy) about a blowjo...
End Quote

sure John, it was jelousy...

Quoting:
Wanna impeach Bush?  Write to your congressman or senator.  Nobody has the power to impeach but Congress.  There's no provision in the Constitution for the people to "recall" the President.

I guess the votetoimpeach.org people forgot about that.  
End Quote

lol!  I especially love the people who want to impeach him simply because hes republican...imagine if the system worked taht way! lol!

Quoting:
I saw Clinton's time described as 'Sex between the Bushes' heheheh.  ;D
End Quote

LOL!! What an image that conjurs. ;D

Quoting:


sure John, it was jelousy...
End Quote

Have you seen some of the wives republicans have? Ugh  :-X

Quoting:


Have you seen some of the wives republicans have? Ugh  :-X
End Quote

Maria Schriver?  

(Why does that not look spelt right?)

Quoting:


Have you seen some of the wives republicans have? Ugh  :-X
End Quote

One word will settle this:  HILLARY

Just imagine waking up to that every morning. (vomiting uncontrollably imagining waking up and seeing her lying next to me) :P  Blleecckk... :-X

I beleive thats the true definition of "Capital Punishement". ;D

Quoting:
There's no provision in the Constitution for the people to "recall" the President. 
End Quote

Hmm, no one hates democracy more than the leaders.
I don't believe the UK 'constitution' allows for the people to remove a prime minister, although theoretically we could petition the monarch who I believe can do so (probably failing and removing the monarchy in the process)

Anyway, some of the charges put forward in the link given don't require impeachment, they allege war crimes which should be tried in the ICC (International Criminal Court)

Quoting:
Hmm, no one hates democracy more than the leaders.
End Quote

There is much wisdom in what you say, young Taoist...

Quoting:
I don't believe the UK 'constitution' allows for the people to remove a prime minister, although theoretically we could petition the monarch who I believe can do so (probably failing and removing the monarchy in the process)
End Quote

I'm not sure the monarch has that power any more: it's up to parliament to oust a government (using a vote of no confidence), though a party can oust its own leader (obviously, as that's what happened to Maggie).

Quoting:
Anyway, some of the charges put forward in the link given don't require impeachment, they allege war crimes which should be tried in the ICC (International Criminal Court)
End Quote

Which one or two countries have omitted to sign up for... funny, that ;-)

Phil

Quoting:
I can't help but think that this little "Impeach Bush" campaign is nothing more than a retaliation tactic for what happened to Slick Willy.




End Quote

Actually, if David Brock is telling the truth, what happened to "slick Willy" was just what Hillary describes, a vast right wing conspiracy, financed by some of the most fascist pigs in the country, peope who supported both Hitler and Mousillini - great supporters of the "American way".

Lets face it, your little man has more skelitons in his closet than one can shake a stick at, from cocaine to insider trading to, influence peddling.  The little man is should be subected to the same scrutiny that Clinton was subjected to.  So where is the special prosecuter?

Quoting:


Actually, if David Brock is telling the truth, what happened to "slick Willy" was just what Hillary describes, a vast right wing conspiracy, financed by some of the most fascist pigs in the country, peope who supported both Hitler and Mousillini - great supporters of the "American way".

Lets face it, your little man has more skelitons in his closet than one can shake a stick at, from cocaine to insider trading to, influence peddling.  The little man is should be subected to the same scrutiny that Clinton was subjected to.  So where is the special prosecuter?
End Quote

So what, Clinton had a lot more hidden things you dont know, you gotta view these thigns from both sides!  And let me get right what youre saying, if Bush does infact have something he is hiding from us, are we gonna persecute him, and not anyone else, simply because hes a republican, and no one else of this nature is?  Seriously, thats your reasoning!

Quoting:


So what, Clinton had a lot more hidden things you dont know, you gotta view these thigns from both sides!  And let me get right what youre saying, if Bush does infact have something he is hiding from us, are we gonna persecute him, and not anyone else, simply because hes a republican, and no one else of this nature is?  Seriously, thats your reasoning!
End Quote

Its simple Mike.  

Bush is a Republican, everything that Don (and Hillary) hates.

Bush is being accused by some of lying, whereas Clinton did lie, straightfaced to the world under oath(perjury).  To those that are determined that Republicans are wrong, no matter what they do, simply being accused is all the proof they need.

Quoting:


Its simple Mike.  

Bush is a Republican, everything that Don (and Hillary) hates.

Bush is being accused by some of lying, whereas Clinton did lie, straightfaced to the world under oath(perjury).  To those that are determined that Republicans are wrong, no matter what they do, simply being accused is all the proof they need.



End Quote

Exactly!  And if Bush wasn't a republican, and did the same exact things hes done so far, there wouldn't be any story about lying!  And an impeachment would be completely out of the question!

Quoting:


Exactly!  And if Bush wasn't a republican, and did the same exact things hes done so far, there wouldn't be any story about lying!  And an impeachment would be completely out of the question!
End Quote

The Lefties are always claiming the Clinton Impeachement was purely political, well the same can be said about the recent call for a Bush Impeachment, which is purely on the basis of retaliation.  



Bottom Line:  Clinton LIED UNDER OATH.
                  Bush was accused of lying.

Quoting:


So what, Clinton had a lot more hidden things you dont know, you gotta view these thigns from both sides!  And let me get right what youre saying, if Bush does infact have something he is hiding from us, are we gonna persecute him, and not anyone else, simply because hes a republican, and no one else of this nature is?  Seriously, thats your reasoning!
End Quote

This, and the following few posts, are just...No, I'll hold my tongue.  The Clinton impeachment was retailiation for the Nixon resignation.  Rebublicans have been looking to do that for years.

I want Bush impeached not because he is a Republican but because he is a lier, a crook, a dopie, and an international criminal.  Had he acted the "compassionate conservative" (an oxymoron) that he claimed to be, come clean on his dope use, his insider trading and other sordid business deals, his avoidance of the draft etc, and abided by international law and honored the U.N charter, I would have held my tongue.  I would have argued against his disasterous economic, environmental, and social policies (like cutting Vetran's bennies).  But such was not the case.  He deserves to be impeached.  He has committed more "high crimes and mistomeners" than Bill Clinto could ever imagin.

Quoting:


Bush is being accused by some of lying, whereas Clinton did lie, straightfaced to the world under oath(perjury).  To those that are determined that Republicans are wrong, no matter what they do, simply being accused is all the proof they need.



End Quote

Actually, he - more or less - admitted to lying, and FINALLY took responsibility.  But oh well, it was just a white lie (that got us into a war) unlike Clinton's BIG LIE that got us - what, horny?  Get REAL.

Quoting:


Actually, he - more or less - admitted to lying, and FINALLY took responsibility.  But oh well, it was just a white lie (that got us into a war) unlike Clinton's BIG LIE that got us - what, horny?  Get REAL.
End Quote

Fact still remains:  Clinton lied under oath (perjury)           whereas Bush is only accused of lying.  I don't care that Clinton was horny or what he did about it, thats not the issue, fact is, he committed perjury.  Bush has only been accused. ;)

Quoting:
So at the end of the day, it's the word of law that counts rather than people's lives?
End Quote

No, however as said, Bush isn't guilty of lying about anything.  Theres only some who say he lied, and others who say he didn't.  


I'm not here to debate the rights and wrongs of the war.  Its been argued to death.

Quoting:


No, however as said, Bush isn't guilty of lying about anything.  Theres only some who say he lied, and others who say he didn't.  


End Quote

You miss the point.  He did lie to the Congress of the United States at a Constitutionally mandated presentation.  He admitted that he "mislead" them, ie, lied.  So where is the special prosecutor?  Where is the investigation?  Where are all your outraged Rebuplicans in Congress?  You Neofasc's are such a bunch of f...ing hypocrits.  You make me sick.  I'm going to barf now.  Excuse me.

Ahh, that's better.  If you guys would take off your blinders, and apply the same standards to Bush you applied to Clinton...

But then, Clinton was a Democrat, so...

Quoting:You Neofasc's are such a bunch of f...ing hypocrits.  You make me sick.End Quote

its nice to see you decided to be adult about this. ::)

so much for not doing personal insults huh?

Quoting:But then, Clinton was a Democrat, so...End Quote

and Bush is a Republican, hence your determination to impeach him.  See?  It just goes round and round and round...

Quoting:
So, uh, if Clinton would lie about adultery, what else do you think he might have lied about?
End Quote

That's a good point, but it was a lose-lose situation.  If he lied and got found out - he'd get into trouble; if he admitted it - he'd get into trouble.  I imagine he thought he'd take the option where he had a chance of saving himself.

Quoting:
#1--- wmd`s or not, Saddam had to go  
End Quote

I agree. But lots of other people "have to go" as well. Why just single him out?

Quoting:
#2--- that dude from North Korea (whats his name---Wang Dum Ill --- or something like that) is afraid of Bush.
End Quote

Not quite as afraid as he is of China...

Quoting:
Clinton was a weak president. Bush is a cycopath & right now i think we should be glad Bush is in there  #1--- wmd`s or not, Saddam had to go  #2--- that dude from North Korea (whats his name---Wang Dum Ill --- or something like that) is afraid of Bush.
End Quote

Yep, correct!  And imagine Gore durring 9/11...wow, where would we be...Id say my brother's parody, "Life during Gore time" sums it all up...

Quoting:


Yep, correct!  And imagine Gore durring 9/11...wow, where would we be...Id say my brother's parody, "Life during Gore time" sums it all up...
End Quote

If you are asking who has more courage, I would remind you that one went to Vietnam when they could have used their fathers influance to stay here, and the other hid behind his daddy. Who would you rather have in control?

Quoting:
If you are asking who has more courage, I would remind you that one went to Vietnam when they could have used their fathers influance to stay here, and the other hid behind his daddy. Who would you rather have in control?
End Quote

True Gore went to Vietnam, and for that I thank him for his service.  As I do all veterans.

However, I think what Mike was referring to was how Gore and Clinton, during the 8 years in office, were confronted with several counts of terrorism, but chose not to act on them.  Among them being the 1st World Trade Center Bombing, the USS Cole attack, the US Embassy Bombing, etc etc.  I truly think the terrorsists saw the Clinton/Gore admin. as a lightweight administration.  

I will forever be convinced that 9/11 happened solely because Al Queida assumed that the Bush Administration would just "let it slide", like the previous admin. did for 8 years.  But, they were wrong.

The Clinton/Gore admin. doesn't have much of a record on combating terrorism.  Whereas Bush, even if you disagree on how it is being done, is at least trying to combat terrorism.

Quoting:


True Gore went to Vietnam, and for that I thank him for his service.  As I do all veterans.

However, I think what Mike was referring to was how Gore and Clinton, during the 8 years in office, were confronted with several counts of terrorism, but chose not to act on them.  Among them being the 1st World Trade Center Bombing, the USS Cole attack, the US Embassy Bombing, etc etc.  I truly think the terrorsists saw the Clinton/Gore admin. as a lightweight administration.  

I will forever be convinced that 9/11 happened solely because Al Queida assumed that the Bush Administration would just "let it slide", like the previous admin. did for 8 years.  But, they were wrong.

The Clinton/Gore admin. doesn't have much of a record on combating terrorism.  Whereas Bush, even if you disagree on how it is being done, is at least trying to combat terrorism.





End Quote

Thanks 80s, beat me to it...

Quoting:
Whereas Bush, even if you disagree on how it is being done, is at least trying to combat terrorism.
End Quote

Speaking as neither a Republican nor a democrat...

This quote could be applied to Al Qaeda.  The reason I don't support them is exactly because I don't agree with "how it is being done".
Same for Saddam, he was "combat terrorism" but he did it by committing war crimes.
Why is Bush different?  There at least seems to be a case to be answered!

Quoting:

Speaking as neither a Republican nor a democrat...

This quote could be applied to Al Qaeda.  The reason I don't support them is exactly because I don't agree with "how it is being done".
Same for Saddam, he was "combat terrorism" but he did it by committing war crimes.
Why is Bush different?  There at least seems to be a case to be answered!
End Quote

when I referred to "combatting terrorism" I meant terrorism in general.

We had 2 choices:  After 9/11, we could either had responded, or ignored it.

If we ignored it:  who knows where we would be right now.  Bin Laden has made it clear he wants to destroy all of us "infidels" both foriegn and domestic.  And that doesn't just apply to Americans.  Why were we attacked numerous times during the previous administration?  Because the terrorists knew they could with no recourse.

If we responded(which we did):  we let the terrorists know we aren't just going to sit back and "take it".  I agree, things could have been done differently, but we are trying to do something about terrorism.  Nobody has all the answers on how to end it, but at least we are finally doing something about it, whether we all agree or disagree on all the policies.

Quoting:Again, I have no proof...
End Quote

Quoting:
So, uh, if Clinton would lie about adultery, what else do you think he might have lied about?
End Quote

Well, your neofasc friends investigated the guy six way from Sunday and found what?  That he lied about sex.  Coitus is sexual intercourse, but is fellatio?  I think so, but one could argue if on wanted to parce.  Bill Clinton was the most investigated president in history, and was investigated by die-hard republicans, supported by lots of behind the scense $$$, and all they found was that he got some head.  And that constituted a threat to democracy?

Junior, on the other hand...

Quoting:


Well, your neofasc friends investigated the guy six way from Sunday and found what?  That he lied about sex.  Coitus is sexual intercourse, but is fellatio?  I think so, but one could argue if on wanted to parce.  Bill Clinton was the most investigated president in history, and was investigated by die-hard republicans, supported by lots of behind the scense $$$, and all they found was that he got some head.  And that constituted a threat to democracy?

Junior, on the other hand...
End Quote

wasn't under oath

Quoting:


(1) its nice to see you decided to be adult about this. ::)

so much for not doing personal insults huh?





(2)and Bush is a Republican, hence your determination to impeach him.  See?  It just goes round and round and round...
End Quote

(1)you don't like the term "neofasc"?  I was upbraided for using neocon, so looked for another  discriptive which, by the way, I think is really more accurate for the Chaney, Rummy, Ashcrofy, Condi, Pearle crown surrounding junior.  If you choose to identify with them, than you are going to be painted with the same brush, but that is your decision.  Maybe if you took your blinders off, gave up your hero worship, and recognized that these people have, at the very least, not been totally forthright and honest, that is advance at least some mild critizism of them, you could exempt yourself from that brush.  But you support them without question right down the line.  The Fuer..I mean President, right or wrong... I, on the other hand have, and will continue to criticize Democrats when I disagree with them.  I've done it with Bill Clinton, I've done it to Howard Dean (while he was governor, and as a candidate), and I will continue to critisize any and all office holders with whom I disagree.  I'm an equal opportunit critic.

(2)And again, I don't want to impeach him because he is a Republican but because he is a crook, a fraud, a lier, and an international criminal.  I absolutely hatred your idol, Pres Jelly Bean (who I think was incapacitated even while he was in office - note Nancy's astrologer).  But until the Iran-Contra scandle I never called for his impeachment, nor did I ever call for GHWBush to be impeached, not because I liked him, but because there was no evidence that he deserved to be impeached.  You are blinded by your unquestioning, blind partisan loyalty.  Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Quoting:
(1)Clinton was a weak president.
(2) Bush is a cycopath & right now i think we should be glad Bush is in there  
(3)#1--- wmd`s or not, Saddam had to go
(4) #2--- that dude from North Korea (whats his name---Wang Dum Ill --- or something like that) is afraid of Bush.
End Quote

(1)Yes, a very week Presiden, who not only ballance the budget, revived the economy, kept us out of war, etc, and got a little head in the oval office.  Weak?  Sounds productive (and a bit macho) no me.

(2)  Bush is a (psycopath?) or (sycophant?) - your meaning is not clear from your spelling (NOT a slam, I usually ignore mistypes ans misspelling if I get the meaning.  Here, I'm sorry, I'm just not sure).  In any case, both are probably true.  I think he suffers from both megolomania and paroniod schitzophrenia, and I think he is the biggest a$$ kisser (of his and his father's rich friends) ever to occupy the white house.

(3) And where is it written, in any body of international law, that the U.S. has the right to make this determination?  I didn't, don't like Saddam any better than anyone else, but there are ways to do these things that conform to international law, and ways that don't.  Alas, Mr Bush choose the ways that don't, and we now are (only beginning) to pay the price.

(4) That dude from North Korea (who's name also escapes me) fears Junior so much that he is still developing both his nukes and his missils.  I guess we could say that he is shaking in his SUDs, or are they ICBMs?  Hope my dad and sister move back to Puerto Rico before he gets them operational - or maybe it will be On the Beach world wide :'(

Quoting:
(1)Yes, a very week Presiden, who not only ballance the budget, revived the economy, kept us out of war, etc, and got a little head in the oval office.  Weak?  Sounds productive (and a bit macho) no me.End Quote

When it came to national security and terrorism, yes, Clinton was very weak.  They knew they could mess with us and Clinton would do nothing.  As demonstrated numerous times.

Quoting:


True Gore went to Vietnam, and for that I thank him for his service.  As I do all veterans.

Gore and Clinton, during the 8 years in office, were confronted with several counts of terrorism, but chose not to act on them.  Among them being the 1st World Trade Center Bombing, the USS Cole attack, the US Embassy Bombing, etc etc.  I truly think the terrorsists saw the Clinton/Gore admin. as a lightweight administration.  

I will forever be convinced that 9/11 happened solely because Al Queida assumed that the Bush Administration would just "let it slide", like the previous admin. did for 8 years.  But, they were wrong.

The Clinton/Gore admin. doesn't have much of a record on combating terrorism.  Whereas Bush, even if you disagree on how it is being done, is at least trying to combat terrorism.
End Quote

Its big of you to recognize that Gore did his duty, but you don't admit the junior hid behind then comgressman daddy and got special treatment - like jumping to the front of the long waiting list for the Texas Air National Guard, and then promoted, without training, to 2 lutenant (sp) in what? four weeks, with no training?  Meanwhile, how many GI's were buying the farm every day?  Not only is he a fraud, a lier, an inside trader, and an international criminal (unindited), he's also a sniviling coward.  But I know, 80's, he's your president.

I beg to differ.  If not mistaken, the perpetrators of the first WTC assault have been convicted and are incarcerated, and the Cole attackers are either on the lam or also in jail.  There was a response to the embassy attacks, and their was (is?) an effort to locate those responsible.  Maybe you are confusing retribution - the striking out against those we think might be guilty - with justice - the identification, prosecution, and punishment of those who can be proven to be guilty.  Or do those more or less universal standards of juris prudence apply only here?

As  to Bush's record on "fighting terrorism", I think it is abismal.  Both Afganistan and Iraq are in turmiol, no Bin Laden, no Saddam, no security in either country.  No greater security in our country, and we have squandered all the international support we had after 9-11.  Instead of being the victim of an outrageous attack, we are the perpetrators of one, and in violation of international law.  Great record.  Great opportunity lost because of Bush's Neofasc advisors.  Bad days for our country.

Quoting:


Its big of you to recognize that Gore did his duty, but you don't admit the junior hid behind then comgressman daddy and got special treatment - like jumping to the front of the long waiting list for the Texas Air National Guard, and then promoted, without training, to 2 lutenant (sp) in what? four weeks, with no training?  Meanwhile, how many GI's were buying the farm every day?  Not only is he a fraud, a lier, an inside trader, and an international criminal (unindited), he's also a sniviling coward.  But I know, 80's, he's your president.
End Quote

At least he served and didn't run off to England ::)  Check this out...

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

BTW, I'm no Bush fan, either.  I voted for Perot 8)

Quoting:



End Quote

I'm sorry 80's, maybe I'm thick, but I really don't see how any of these sites refute Cat's belief that junior was somehow deeply involved in 9-11.  And what about all those ink outs?  Who are they protecting?  

I must say that I doubt he hasd prior knowledge - had he, I think you would agree that he should be shot for treason.  But he certainly has tried to make as much political hay as possible on this national tragedy.  And shamelesly so.

Quoting:
I could be wrong, but didn't Clinton come under fire for ordering air strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan back in 98 because people thought he was just trying to deflect attention from the whole Lewinsky affair?
End Quote

I think there were some in Iraq, some in Afghanistan, and the big one was in Serbia.  Kinda ironic that it happened right as the movie "Wag the Dog" came out ;)

And really, Don Carlos, are you so petty that you would rank Dubya's service in the National Guard below other armed services?  He still served.  What's your hierarchy here?  

Not all Presidents were Marines, y'know.

Quoting:


When it came to national security and terrorism, yes, Clinton was very weak.  They knew they could mess with us and Clinton would do nothing.  As demonstrated numerous times.
End Quote

Nice, 80's, not refering to the response to this issue, but to another regarding domestic policy.  But then, I guess I can't expect much more from you or the other Clinton haters.  As I pointed out, we didn't do "nothing".  We brought the perpetrators to trilal and put them away.  We responded, acted within the precepts of law.  

You guy, onthe other hand, just struck out, and made the world less secure, inflamed both the Afagans and the Iraqis, and now faces, alone, two quagmires.  Good going dude.  And how much will all this stupidity cost in lives and fortune?

As I said in another thread, and I know you don't like it (I could care less), THE BEAT GOES ON...

Quoting:


And really, Don Carlos, are you so petty that you would rank Dubya's service in the National Guard below other armed services?  He still served.  What's your hierarchy here?  

Not all Presidents were Marines, y'know.
End Quote

The point is that it was daddy's influence that got him into the Texas Guard.  He jumped up to the top of the list because he had political influenvce.  He got special treatment, over all those poor whites and blacks who also tried to get in.  Face it, he didn't want to go to Vietnam (neither did I) and he used - or his daddy used - his influence to make that happen.  And he has the nerve to land on the Abe L. in flight uniform (while it circles off shore) in a jet, at the cost of what $80,000 for a heroic photo op?  The great war hero.  Give me a f...ing break.  The man is a fraud.  How can't you see that?

Quoting:


The point is that it was daddy's influence that got him into the Texas Guard.  He jumped up to the top of the list because he had political influenvce.  He got special treatment, over all those poor whites and blacks who also tried to get in.  Face it, he didn't want to go to Vietnam (neither did I) and he used - or his daddy used - his influence to make that happen.  End Quote

Ooookay...but he still served.  *shrug*  Are you saying rich white boys can't serve now?  Hell, I was thinking of serving in the armed forces once upon a time.  My mama wouldn't let me :P  So I became a scientist instead.  (I'm not white though ;))

Quoting:

And he has the nerve to land on the Abe L. in flight uniform (while it circles off shore) in a jet, at the cost of what $80,000 for a heroic photo op?  The great war hero.  Give me a f...ing break.  The man is a fraud.  How can't you see that?
End Quote

Why?  The fact that he had the nerve to do that helped boost troop morale.  And he never said he was a war hero.  I don't see him as a fraud at all.  I'm not insanely partisan like some people.  I took it at face value.

So you're saying that when Bill Clinton, he who fled to England during 'Nam (as posted above), donned a bomber jacket and photo-opped with the troops in Serbia, he wasn't boosting morale?  Or was he doing exactly what you're accusing Bush of?

Quoting:
Dubya may have been with the Texas Air National Guard but he wasn't there. He went AWOL for a while, not to mention that he also was suspended from flying for refusing to take a drug test.



http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html


edited to add the links to photocopies of his record.


http://www.talion.com/admin.htmlhttp://www.talion.com/suspension.html
http://www.talion.com/signature2.html


Cat
End Quote

Oh My God, excuse me while I call CNN about this late breaking news. ::)

Quoting:
Is American politics all about us against them?
End Quote

It seems that way, I'm afraid. In the last year I have heard many statements like, "Either you are for this war or you are a terrorist." or "If you are not behind the president 100%, you must not be very patriotic."

That is part of the problem with this country-and this administration is playing that up. Nobody wants to be called a terrorist or un patriotic. Unfortunately, we are having a flashback to the early part of the 20th century which a lot people do not reconigize. It seems like the McCarthy era all over again and that was very scary time. People have lost their jobs, homes, family, and sometimes their lives because of their political beliefs-and most of the time it was just being ACCUSED of certain political beliefs. I thought this country has come a long way but it seems like we are going backwards which is very scary. Very few people see it-and those are the ones who are accused of being unpatriotic and are told to move somewhere else. I am so afraid that when the majority of people see it, it will be too late.


Cat

Quoting:



Oh My God, excuse me while I call CNN about this late breaking news. ::)

End Quote

Why do you always have to be so nasty. I am stating facts-with proof to back it up. I'm sorry if you want to see it.



Cat

Quoting:
Why do you always have to be so nasty. I am stating facts-with proof to back it up. I'm sorry if you want to see it.



Cat
End Quote

Facts about Bush's lackluster career in the military?  Why is it such a huge issue?   He posed in a pilot uniform.  Oh my, what a tragedy.

If there was something new in that website you posted, I would have posted a different response.  But as you and Don have shown here, Bush's military career seems to be way up there on your "why I hate Bush" list.  Very petty, considering it has no relevence to where we are in the world.  Everything in that site is old recycled news.  News that has no relevence in where we are, and were we are going, in my opinion.


PS-- and I didn't aim to be nasty.  

Quoting:


Facts about Bush's lackluster career in the military?  Why is it such a huge issue?   He posed in a pilot uniform.  Oh my, what a tragedy.

If there was something new in that website you posted, I would have posted a different response.  But as you and Don have shown here, Bush's military career seems to be way up there on your "why I hate Bush" list.  Very petty, considering it has no relevence to where we are in the world.


End Quote

I did not mention his military career but everyone else was talking about it and I think that some people should know (if they don't already) about his record. But, you are right that it does not have relevence to where we are in the world and that is NOT the reason why I think Bush should be impeach, why I think he is flushing this country down the toilet, and why I think the guy belongs behind bars. If he was investigated, there would be a lot of skeletons coming out of his closet. But, everytime someone tries to get near to him, he cries "exectutive privilage." So the dude gets away with him crimes. YES, I do mean CRIMES. Crimes against humanity, crimes against the U.S. Constitution, and crimes against the American people. I know you choose not to see but whether you choose not to see it or not, it is there. Yes, I hate Bush. I hate the way he is running this country. I hate the fact that men, women, and children are dying everyday because of his actions. I hate the fact that many people have lost their jobs (my sister being one of them-she used to work for WorldCom who has basically been d*cked around while the CEOs get boocoo bucks). And I really hate the fact that people can't see what is happening to this country.



Cat

Quoting:


At least he served and didn't run off to England ::)  Check this out...

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

BTW, I'm no Bush fan, either.  I voted for Perot 8)
End Quote

lol, did you really vote for Perot?

Quoting:


lol, did you really vote for Perot?
End Quote

8) yep  8)

Quoting:
BTW, I'm no Bush fan, either.  I voted for Perot 8)
End Quote

That reminds me of the one Simpsons where space aliens pose as Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Homer reveals there plot before the people vote. Here it is as I remember it:

(Upon seeing Homer remove alien's masks, crowd gasps).

Kang: You still have to vote for one of us! It's a two party system!

Woman in crowd: Actually, I think I'll vote for a third party

Kodos: Go ahead! Throw your vote away! (Both laugh maniacally. Pan to Ross Perot who punches a hole through his hat and stomps on it.)

Quoting:

That reminds me of the one Simpsons where space aliens pose as Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Homer reveals there plot before the people vote. Here it is as I remember it:

(Upon seeing Homer remove alien's masks, crowd gasps).

Kang: You still have to vote for one of us! It's a two party system!

Woman in crowd: Actually, I think I'll vote for a third party

Kodos: Go ahead! Throw your vote away! (Both laugh maniacally. Pan to Ross Perot who punches a hole through his hat and stomps on it.)
End Quote

lol, I was just thinking that!  but it was a MAN in the crowd who said that...not woman... 8)

Quoting:

8) yep  8)
End Quote

well then would you have voted for Mccain?

Quoting:


well then would you have voted for Mccain?
End Quote

I think I would have.  McCain is a very upstanding politician and I think he's on the moderate side, which is about where I stand.  I was actually hoping McCain would win the primary over Bush, but Bush has done a decent job thus far.  I voted for Bush in 2000 (probably like one of the 3 people in CA who did :P).

Quoting:


I think I would have.  McCain is a very upstanding politician and I think he's on the moderate side, which is about where I stand.  I was actually hoping McCain would win the primary over Bush, but Bush has done a decent job thus far.  I voted for Bush in 2000 (probably like one of the 3 people in CA who did :P).
End Quote

I remember the school elections we held, Gore actually won, but there were also a record ammount of kids who voted for third party candinates like Harry Browne and Ralph Nader...I still dont knwo why...

Quoting:
I remember the school elections we held, Gore actually won, but there were also a record ammount of kids who voted for third party candinates like Harry Browne and Ralph Nader...I still dont knwo why...
End Quote

Steaming wildly away from the topic... ;)

In the UK the system is dominated by 2 parties.  They tend to swap every few elections.  Normally, when we get tired of the government, we simply swap to get more of the same but with a different face and tie.  I think 3rd parties might do well only if the 'opposition' party is still considered shifty when the governing party is losing it and an election looms.
This could be the case at the next UK election as Blair is losing popularity and the tories are still a bit of a mess but I still wouldn't put money on the Lib Dems.

Quoting:


well then would you have voted for Mccain?
End Quote

I don't know.  It would have depended on his campaign.  

Quoting:
This could be the case at the next UK election as Blair is losing popularity and the tories are still a bit of a mess but I still wouldn't put money on the Lib Dems.
End Quote

Ironically enough, Tory support is going up now, when IDS's only complaint about Blair's behaviour seemed to be that he wasn't supporting the Americans enough :/  Certainly, I don't see the Tories in office as behaving differently to the way the Labour party did...  But our lovely UK electorate rarely thinks before voting, so they'll probably get in anyway :-(

Phil

Quoting:


I think I would have.  McCain is a very upstanding politician and I think he's on the moderate side, which is about where I stand.  I was actually hoping McCain would win the primary over Bush, but Bush has done a decent job thus far.  I voted for Bush in 2000 (probably like one of the 3 people in CA who did :P).
End Quote

I would like to see the primary system changed. By the time the primaries came to my state, it was all over. It seems like the first 3 or 4 rounds determine who the candidate will be from each party.

Quoting:



I did not mention his military career but everyone else was talking about it and I think that some people should know (if they don't already) about his record. But, you are right that it does not have relevence to where we are in the world and that is NOT the reason why I think Bush should be impeach, why I think he is flushing this country down the toilet, and why I think the guy belongs behind bars. If he was investigated, there would be a lot of skeletons coming out of his closet. But, everytime someone tries to get near to him, he cries "exectutive privilage." So the dude gets away with him crimes. YES, I do mean CRIMES. Crimes against humanity, crimes against the U.S. Constitution, and crimes against the American people. I know you choose not to see but whether you choose not to see it or not, it is there. Yes, I hate Bush. I hate the way he is running this country. I hate the fact that men, women, and children are dying everyday because of his actions. I hate the fact that many people have lost their jobs (my sister being one of them-she used to work for WorldCom who has basically been d*cked around while the CEOs get boocoo bucks). And I really hate the fact that people can't see what is happening to this country.



Cat
End Quote

To bring this thread back on topic...

I totally agree with Cat on this.  Junior is a fraud, a criminal, a dopie, a lier, and a moron.  If he were subjectred to the same intensive investigation that Clinton was subjected to we would find that he was involved in several insider trading deals, manipulation of eminant domain laws, drug abuse, influence peddling, and maybe even manslaughter.  So where is the investigation?  Nowhere, His Republican buddies control Congress.  Free pass, junior.