Discussion:
The I Word is Back - IMPEACHMENT
(too old to reply)
torresD
2005-12-22 17:35:49 UTC
Permalink
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last


NEW YORK -

Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.

The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-

has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.

Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers

(known as "Hutch" to the president),

observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."

Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.

Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are

"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.

The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."

When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,

asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.

"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.

When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."

A third query brought the response:

"Madder still."

Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.

A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.

But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.

He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.

Still, he added,

"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."

Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,

practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.

"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,


"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."

And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,

noting that for "all his fearmongering"
he "fails to note the essential point:

the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,

because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."

But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."

The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.

And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.

On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"

assembled an array of quotes on the subject.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,

sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,

asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.

Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News:

"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."

And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,

saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."

When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,

"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.

When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."

Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the

"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."

But Froomkin commented,

"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."

The debate should only grow in 2006.

Fineman predicted a dark year ahead:

"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.

Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;

Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 17:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Yeah Impeach him again !



CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval

Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993,
both without a federal warrant.

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S.
citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department
official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find
information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use
classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to
observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

1982: COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES

By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published:
November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may
lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people
overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign
agents.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 17:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False. You sure do lie a lot. Why is that?

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Stan de SD
2005-12-22 18:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False.
True.
Post by Joseph Welch
You sure do lie a lot. Why is that?
Speaking to the mirror again?
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False.
True.
False. A lie. Complete bullshit.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
You sure do lie a lot. Why is that?
Speaking to the mirror again?
No, just the usual assortment of sociopathic, deluded, lying right-wing
scumbags.

http://www.cato.org

Big Brother At Home

President Bush recently acknowledged the existence of a secret program that
allows the NSA to eavesdrop on phone and email conversations of suspected
terror subjects without a court warrant. Both Bush and Vice President Cheney
took opportunities to stand behind the program this week, with Cheney
calling the program "absolutely consistent with the Constitution."

Cato senior fellow in Constitutional studies Robert A. Levy says, "President
Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the National
Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign
countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on
classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives
from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional
authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That
pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT
Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed,
such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers.

"Perhaps the government is justified in taking measures that in less
troubled times could be seen as infringements of individual liberties. But
if so, the Congress, not the president, is charged with establishing the
rules that apply in exigent circumstances. The executive branch cannot
unilaterally set the rules and enforce the rules, then eliminate court
review of possible civil liberties violations."

In "Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting
Terrorism," Timothy Lynch, director of Cato's Project on Criminal Justice,
writes: "Like the power to arrest and search, the primary 'check' on the
power to wiretap is the warrant application process. By requiring the police
to seek advance approval from a judicial officer, the process allows wiretap
applications to be vetted by an impartial judge. In this way, meritorious
applications can be separated from fishing expeditions. Under the
president's initiative, however, the attorney general retains exclusive
decision-making authority to conduct monitoring without being subject to
judicial approval, review, or oversight."
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 18:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False. You sure do lie a lot.
======================

You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
EAT IT BITCH !


CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994:

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp



Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in
the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you
wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S.
citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic
surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside
their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and
October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
END
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied. I've proven it - many times,
and not just on this subject.

You appear to be pathologically incapable of telling the truth, or of
accepting it when it is presented to you.

You are a sick, sick person. You need help.

Get some.

You know what's *really* pathetic though? Right-wingers using arguments
that something that they opposed during Democratic Presidencies is justified
for Bush.

Man, you people are pathetic.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 20:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================

Liar , thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 20:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Post by Joseph Welch
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================
Liar
False. How far back would you like to go? To your claim that Clinton
invaded Haiti without going through the UN perhaps you name changing
shitball?
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
I snipped it because it doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does you lying
fuck.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
George Z. Bush
2005-12-22 22:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================
Liar , thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
Hey, tell him what you REALLY think of him; if you hold back just to be nice,
it'll run your blood pressure right through the top of your head. C'mon, show
us the class act we know you really are....don't hide it from us. Tell him off!

George Z.
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-23 02:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================
Liar , thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
Hey, tell him what you REALLY think of him; if you hold back just to be nice,
it'll run your blood pressure right through the top of your head. C'mon, show
us the class act we know you really are....don't hide it from us. Tell him off!
George Z.
======================
You cant tell off someone that is mentally challenged and thinks underwear
is to be used as toilet paper.
Rev. 11D Meow!
2005-12-23 20:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You cant tell off someone that is mentally challenged and thinks underwear
is to be used as toilet paper.
I bet you write DUHbya's speeches for him.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Drudge - wrong as usual. And as usual, brain-dead mentally ill right-wing
shitbags lap it up with a spoon.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 19:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
EAT IT BITCH !
buahahahahaha. You're gonna need to take your meds, quick.
torresD
2005-12-22 17:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Post by torresD
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.
Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers
(known as "Hutch" to the president),
observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."
Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.
Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are
"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.
The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."
When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,
asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.
"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.
When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."
"Madder still."
Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.
A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.
But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.
He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.
Still, he added,
"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."
Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,
practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.
"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,
"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."
And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,
noting that for "all his fearmongering"
the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,
because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."
But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."
The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.
And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.
On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"
assembled an array of quotes on the subject.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,
sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,
asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.
"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."
And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,
saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."
When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,
"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.
When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."
Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the
"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."
But Froomkin commented,
"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."
The debate should only grow in 2006.
"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.
Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;
Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
Stan de SD
2005-12-22 18:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.

You're no conservative.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 18:23:20 UTC
Permalink
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994:

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp



Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in
the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you
wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S.
citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic
surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside
their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and
October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
END
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Number 9
2005-12-22 20:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
It's kind of funny that your nickname is making fun of someone
screaming and then you start your posts by typing in all capital
letters.

Don't you think?
Stan de SD
2005-12-22 18:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
torresD
2005-12-22 18:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
Well maybe if our government refrained from attacking, invading other
countries,
overturning the democratically elected presidents of other people's
countries,
because we don't like who they elected, perhaps if we stopped turning a
blind
eye to atrocities committed by those countries, that we fund and arm,
that float on a sea of American taxpayer's cash, while they decimate,
discriminate,
slaughter the native population of that country, we wouldn't have to worry
about
"terrorist nations" attacking us so much.
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-22 19:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
Telling four congress critters does not equate to Congressional
approval.

The Rockefeller letter (one of the four) makes that doubly clear.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Northern Storm
2005-12-22 20:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
No, I mean groups like Greenpeace and PETA who were labeled
"environmental terrorist" by the drunken bush and have been spied upon
without a warrant.
2005-12-22 19:45:09 UTC
Permalink
But are you gonna do it?
torresD
2005-12-22 19:47:02 UTC
Permalink
If I were the judge, Bush would be on Texas Death Row,
for the murder of over 2000 of our boys and girls.
HE LIED!
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm

Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last


NEW YORK -

Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.

The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-

has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.

Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers

(known as "Hutch" to the president),

observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."

Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.

Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are

"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.

The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."

When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,

asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.

"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.

When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."

A third query brought the response:

"Madder still."

Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.

A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.

But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.

He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.

Still, he added,

"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."

Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,

practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.

"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,


"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."

And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,

noting that for "all his fearmongering"
he "fails to note the essential point:

the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,

because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."

But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."

The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.

And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.

On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"

assembled an array of quotes on the subject.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,

sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,

asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.

Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News:

"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."

And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,

saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."

When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,

"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.

When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."

Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the

"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."

But Froomkin commented,

"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."

The debate should only grow in 2006.

Fineman predicted a dark year ahead:

"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.

Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;

Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
j***@yahoo.com
2005-12-22 20:01:45 UTC
Permalink
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.

------------------------------------------------
If they didn't hate America, they wouldn't be Republicans.
http:://defendUSA.blogspot.com
www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers
colonel
2005-12-22 20:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-22 20:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 20:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh??? Unamerican scum.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-22 20:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.

Go wash your hands, Creepy.
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 20:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig. there is no humor here.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Go wash your hands, Creepy.
are you 12?
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-22 21:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 21:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-22 23:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 23:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine. I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.

The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution, If you loved our
country you would be furious.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-23 01:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
You'd be surprised!
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine.
Yes you do.
Post by Tim Crowley
I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
You stand up like a doggie-man, just long enough to hump a leg.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.
Then stay and be factually thrashed like a pinata - your choice!
Post by Tim Crowley
The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution
Nope, he's done his best to see Islamofascism doesn't kill its Republic.
colonel
2005-12-23 03:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross
violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
You'd be surprised!
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine.
Yes you do.
Post by Tim Crowley
I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
You stand up like a doggie-man, just long enough to hump a leg.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.
Then stay and be factually thrashed like a pinata - your choice!
Post by Tim Crowley
The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution
Nope, he's done his best to see Islamofascism doesn't kill its Republic.
Maybe Crowley is a Muslim
Tim Crowley
2005-12-23 15:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
You'd be surprised!
Yup. Shocked even. You'd have to prove it. Regardless, I will never.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine.
Yes you do.
Actually, troll boy - I do not.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
You stand up like a doggie-man, just long enough to hump a leg.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.
Then stay and be factually thrashed like a pinata - your choice!
hahahah, facts. The fact is the your President deserves to be Impeached
for his crimes. You HATE facts, pig boy.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution
Nope, he's done his best to see Islamofascism doesn't kill its Republic.
By trashing our constitution? By going to war based on lies? Why do
you hate America? When did it start. Did the American kids beat your
ass in kindergarden? Do they still?
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 00:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
You'd be surprised!
Yup. Shocked even.
So be it.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine.
Yes you do.
Actually, troll boy - I do not.
Actually you do, leftist cunt.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
You stand up like a doggie-man, just long enough to hump a leg.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.
Then stay and be factually thrashed like a pinata - your choice!
hahahah, facts.
I know, they're not of much value to a schmuck like you.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution
Nope, he's done his best to see Islamofascism doesn't kill its Republic.
By trashing our constitution?
Is it altered?

Ruined?

Not there for us?

Lying cunt.
Tim Crowley
2005-12-24 01:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
You'd be surprised!
Yup. Shocked even.
So be it.
It isn't. Never was.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine.
Yes you do.
Actually, troll boy - I do not.
Actually you do, leftist cunt.
I am not a cunt, and I don't whine. Isn't it about time for you to
change your name again, girl?
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
You stand up like a doggie-man, just long enough to hump a leg.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.
Then stay and be factually thrashed like a pinata - your choice!
hahahah, facts.
I know, they're not of much value to a schmuck like you.
Actually, you are wrong again. I value facts, truth and justice. All
concepts that you hate.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution
Nope, he's done his best to see Islamofascism doesn't kill its Republic.
By trashing our constitution?
Is it altered?
Ruined?
Not there for us?
Lying cunt.
You don't know what a cunt is. Do you? Poor little virgin.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 05:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
You'd be surprised!
Yup. Shocked even.
So be it.
It isn't. Never was.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine.
Yes you do.
Actually, troll boy - I do not.
Actually you do, leftist cunt.
I am not a cunt, and I don't whine.
You are, and you do.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
You stand up like a doggie-man, just long enough to hump a leg.
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.
Then stay and be factually thrashed like a pinata - your choice!
hahahah, facts.
I know, they're not of much value to a schmuck like you.
Actually, you are wrong again. I value facts, truth and justice.
Hint, reading old Green Lantern comic books does not count....
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution
Nope, he's done his best to see Islamofascism doesn't kill its Republic.
By trashing our constitution?
Is it altered?
Ruined?
Not there for us?
Lying cunt.
You don't know what a cunt is.
I know what YOU are.
colonel
2005-12-23 03:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost.
Aw, come on, do it becaue I say so.
Nope. I doupt anyone does anything cause you say so.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
And yes I do, know what it means to be an American.
Sorry, your long day after days of whining here are not convincing anyone.
I don't whine. I stand up like a man and speak the truth.
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders
No for you it surely does not, now begone putrid troll.
Nope, I'm not going anywhere and all your clipping and lying and
childish games won't change it.
The FACT is our President has abused our Constitution, If you loved our
country you would be furious.
The only thing about our President that should make anyone furious is
his failure to protect our southern border.
colonel
2005-12-23 03:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a copy at
your place?
Bill Walker
2005-12-23 13:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a copy at
your place?
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it cover to
cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it gives George Bush
the authority to engage in espionage against Americans in America.. <evil
grin>

I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility with
Constitutional knowledge..

Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
grandwazoo
2005-12-23 14:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Walker
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a copy at
your place?
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it cover to
cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it gives George Bush
the authority to engage in espionage against Americans in America.. <evil
grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility with
Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Even when you print it out for them, they can't seem to find the part
about the president having the authority to spy on Americans. You can't
blame them for not being able show what is not there.

---
Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several
states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may
require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the
executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their
respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of
impeachment.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
colonel
2005-12-23 16:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Walker
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a copy at
your place?
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it cover to
cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it gives George Bush
the authority to engage in espionage against Americans in America.. <evil
grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility with
Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Edgaer Schlappear
2005-12-23 16:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it cover
to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it gives George
Bush the authority to engage in espionage against Americans in America..
<evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility with
Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of the
United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?

If not, what does that make the rest?
Jim Lovejoy
2005-12-23 19:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.

The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists they have
caught using this that they couldn't have caught while following the law?
grandwazoo
2005-12-23 23:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists they have
caught using this that they couldn't have caught while following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'. You know, like if
the DNC 2004 campaign headquarters were on the 'enemy's list', or if a
small oil exploration firm's files were needed by Cheney's secret energy
policy group, or maybe Joe Wilson's calls from Niger were intercepted,
or Special Prosecutors Gerald Fitzpatrick's offices.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 00:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists they
have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while following
the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
grandwazoo
2005-12-24 01:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists they
have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while following
the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
Sammy the Slanderer.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 05:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
Sammy the Slanderer.
Oh fuck off, racist-endorser.
grandwazoo
2005-12-24 01:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists they
have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while following
the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
"Tell it to the Marines"
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 05:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
"Tell it to the Marines"
Are they after you?
grandwazoo
2005-12-24 06:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
"Tell it to the Marines"
Are they after you?
Makes a good recruitment slogan. I doubt they want you.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 20:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
"Tell it to the Marines"
Are they after you?
Makes a good recruitment slogan.
Oh?

You man enough to try and be one?
grandwazoo
2005-12-25 01:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
"Tell it to the Marines"
Are they after you?
Makes a good recruitment slogan.
Oh?
You man enough to try and be one?
I don't think they take guys in their 50's.
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-25 01:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Oh?
You man enough to try and be one?
I don't think they take guys in their 50's.
Stay ready.
They're lowering the entrance standards all the time.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-25 02:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Oh?
You man enough to try and be one?
I don't think they take guys in their 50's.
Stay ready.
Shaddup "wetback" killer.
torresD
2005-12-25 03:28:54 UTC
Permalink
http://www.counterpunch.com/nader12242005.html
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-25 02:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
"Tell it to the Marines"
Are they after you?
Makes a good recruitment slogan.
Oh?
You man enough to try and be one?
I don't think they take guys in their 50's.
So the answer is NO...
grandwazoo
2005-12-25 04:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any
terrorists they have caught using this that they couldn't have
caught while following the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
"Tell it to the Marines"
Are they after you?
Makes a good recruitment slogan.
Oh?
You man enough to try and be one?
I don't think they take guys in their 50's.
So the answer is NO...
The answer is, they don't take guys in their 50's. Why don't you go
instead, I'm too busy with Homland Security grants.

Dave Lister
2005-12-24 02:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their
credibility
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists they
have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
Better that than an Al Qaeda wannabee like you, retard.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 05:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Walker
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read
it
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their
credibility
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen
of
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
Better that than an Al Qaeda wannabee
Oh, did oyu miss the latest obstacle course in Pakistan, traitor?
Dave Lister
2005-12-24 08:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Bill Walker
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read
it
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their
credibility
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen
of
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by colonel
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
If not, what does that make the rest?
You're being way too easy on the President.
The relevant question should be: "Do you know of any terrorists
they
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
have caught using this that they couldn't have caught while
following
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by grandwazoo
Post by Jim Lovejoy
the law?
It would depend upon the definition of 'terrorist'.
Al qaeda sympathizer - like YOU gazoo!
Better that than an Al Qaeda wannabee
Oh, did oyu miss the latest obstacle course in Pakistan, traitor?
Typical rightard bleating coming from you. which parrots your god Bush.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 20:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Dave Lister wrote:

Loading Image...
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-23 19:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of the
United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
Reverend Field Marshall George W. von Busch.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 00:17:00 UTC
Permalink
May GOD BLESS and keep the Wetback.
Now, getoff your ass and go kill a Wetback
That way we'll all enjoy a double blessing - one less illegal alien
and one thrown away piece of white trash.
Dave Lister
2005-12-24 02:25:56 UTC
Permalink
May GOD BLESS and keep the Wetback.
Now, getoff your ass and go kill a Wetback
That way we'll all enjoy a double blessing - one less illegal alien
and one thrown away piece of white trash.
Good post, retarded one. We've never seen that before.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader seeking
to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a President for the
first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of our basest and most
irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 05:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Lister
May GOD BLESS and keep the Wetback.
Now, getoff your ass and go kill a Wetback
That way we'll all enjoy a double blessing - one less illegal alien
and one thrown away piece of white trash.
Good post, retarded one. We've never seen that before.
Oh...

Learn anything from what a racist sandy is?

Hope so...
Dave Lister
2005-12-24 08:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Dave Lister
May GOD BLESS and keep the Wetback.
Now, getoff your ass and go kill a Wetback
That way we'll all enjoy a double blessing - one less illegal alien
and one thrown away piece of white trash.
Good post, retarded one. We've never seen that before.
Oh...
Learn anything from what a racist sandy is?
Hope so...
No, but everyone is learning what a moron you are.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader seeking
to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a President for the
first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of our basest and most
irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 20:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Dave Lister wrote:

Loading Image...
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 00:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edgaer Schlappear
Post by Bill Walker
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it cover
to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it gives George
Bush the authority to engage in espionage against Americans in America..
<evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility with
Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of the
United States has been spied on?
Do you know of any terrorists they have caught using this?
Do you understand that those who may have bene caught are NOT going to
be made public now???

Fucking wake up!
Tim Crowley
2005-12-23 17:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of
law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a copy at
your place?
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it cover to
cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it gives George Bush
the authority to engage in espionage against Americans in America.. <evil
grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility with
Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know how to read the paper. The president has admitted he
authorized spying on Americans. Damn, you Bush apologists are dumb.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 00:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a copy at
your place?
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it cover to
cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it gives George Bush
the authority to engage in espionage against Americans in America.. <evil
grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility with
Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know how to read the paper. The president has admitted he
authorized spying on Americans.
Do you know what calls were being made and where to?

Dumb assfuck!
Dave Lister
2005-12-24 02:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross
violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out
how many members of the Republican party that controls
Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their
president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and
you laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went
back to grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when
they lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious
consitution. I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country
and everything it stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish
insults and shove them up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a
copy at your place?
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
Do you know how to read the paper. The president has admitted he
authorized spying on Americans.
Do you know what calls were being made and where to?
Dumb assfuck!
Poor rightard, the Bush cult is falling apart.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 05:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Lister
rightard,
One note leftist.
Dave Lister
2005-12-24 08:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Dave Lister
rightard,
One note leftist.
Dittohead white trash inbred moron.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader seeking
to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a President for the
first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of our basest and most
irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 20:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Dave Lister wrote:

Loading Image...
az-willie
2005-12-23 21:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by colonel
Post by Bill Walker
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross
violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? do you have a copy
at your place?
lol.. Got a copy of the Constitution in my hand here.. I've read it
cover to cover..Why don't you just refer me to the part where it
gives George Bush the authority to engage in espionage against
Americans in America.. <evil grin>
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores try to sustain their credibility
with Constitutional knowledge..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Do you know any Americans who were spied on? What innocent citizen of
the United States has been spied on?
========
Sure, there was a college kid who put in a library request for a copy of
Mao Se Tung's Little Red Book and got a visit from the FBI.

And there was some incident, don't remember the details now, where
Wal-Mart employees turned someone in because of pictures he had
developed that were perfectly innocent.

Those aren't the only incidents either, just a couple off the top of my
head.
--
I don't hate Bush ... I hate what he DOES ... you're damned right I do.

No .. No .. I < do > hate Bush. I hate him BECAUSE of what he does.

So call me a proud Bush Hater.
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-24 02:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
========
Sure, there was a college kid who put in a library request for a copy of
Mao Se Tung's Little Red Book and got a visit from the FBI.
And there was some incident, don't remember the details now, where
Wal-Mart employees turned someone in because of pictures he had
developed that were perfectly innocent.
Those aren't the only incidents either, just a couple off the top of my
head.
I met someone who's brother works a federal job. One of his coworkers
didn't like his "vote Kerry" bumper stickers and put him on a watch
list. So now every time this guy flies he gets pulled aside. He's
been separated from his family on vacation and had to take later
flights, missed business meetings, etc.

The kicker? He's an air traffic controller. If this guy was a threat
he could bang two planes together in an instant. But some small
minded jr. fascist can get him on a list and make his life miserable.
And as usenet demonstrates there is no shortage of such small minded
jr. fascists. Shoot half of these morons would support camps and worse
for those they disagree with.

Welcome to the new world order.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 00:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Walker
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores
I love it when bedwetters think they have anything to say!
Dave Lister
2005-12-24 02:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Bill Walker
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores
I love it when bedwetters think they have anything to say!
You just love golden showers, loon.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader seeking
to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a President for the
first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of our basest and most
irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 05:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Lister
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Bill Walker
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores
I love it when bedwetters think they have anything to say!
You just love golden showers
You are a sick homo freak.
Dave Lister
2005-12-24 08:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Dave Lister
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Bill Walker
I love it when anonymous Bushwhores
I love it when bedwetters think they have anything to say!
You just love golden showers
You are a sick homo freak.
I thought you were bitching about bigotry, rightard.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader seeking
to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a President for the
first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of our basest and most
irrational fears.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-24 20:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Dave Lister wrote:
Loading Image...
Tim Crowley
2005-12-23 15:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh???
I laugh at the humor presented.
Your an anti-american pig.
You wouldn't know what it means to be an American if you went back to
grade school Creepy, git lost.
No, I won't get lost. And yes I do, know what it means to be an
American. It sure in hell does not mean defending our leaders when they
lie to take us to war, or when they ignore our precious consitution.
I'm afraid you are the one that hates this country and everything it
stands for. And BTW, you can take your childish insults and shove them
up your ass.
When was the last time you read the Constitution?
Last week,
Post by colonel
do you have a copy at
your place?
Yes.

No go play your little noname troll games.
Rev. 11D Meow!
2005-12-23 20:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.M. Flagg
I laugh at the humor presented.
Why do you HATE AMERICA so much?
colonel
2005-12-23 03:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh??? Unamerican scum.
Where were you when Kennedy did this stuff, or Johnson, or Nixon, or
Carter, or that asshole Bill Clinton?
grandwazoo
2005-12-23 06:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh??? Unamerican scum.
Where were you when Kennedy did this stuff, or Johnson, or Nixon, or
Carter, or that asshole Bill Clinton?
Bush is the only president to actually admit to an impeachable offense.
I suspect you would support him, even if he decided to suspend all
constitutional rights and make himself president for life.
Tim Crowley
2005-12-23 17:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by colonel
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by J.M. Flagg
Post by colonel
Post by j***@yahoo.com
When a president sets himself up as a dictator and claims that he is
above the law, and openly or in secret commits gross violations of law,
and promises to continue to violate the law, it is the obligation of
Congress to impeach that president. Now we will find out how many
members of the Republican party that controls Congress will stand and
defend the country, or stand with and defend their president.
Bwaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wish in one hand and shit in the
other, liberal.
Sure saves on TP...lol...
Your President dishoners our constitution and our nation, and you
laugh??? Unamerican scum.
Where were you when Kennedy did this stuff, or Johnson, or Nixon, or
Carter, or that asshole Bill Clinton?
I was right here. Why do you call our President an Asshole? DO you
really hate America that much?
2005-12-22 20:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by torresD
If I were the judge, Bush would be on Texas Death Row,
for the murder of over 2000 of our boys and girls.
HE LIED!
That would be interesting. Then we would find out how sincere all those
liberal nuts are that are supporting the murderer's on death row. I suspect
though it will be like the Clinton thing. They will make an exception to
allow the hypocrisy.

By the way, if we put all the people on death row that told the same "LIE"
there wouldn't be anyone left to administer the shot. Nice rant though.
Post by torresD
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.
Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers
(known as "Hutch" to the president),
observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."
Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.
Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are
"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.
The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."
When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,
asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.
"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.
When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."
"Madder still."
Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.
A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.
But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.
He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.
Still, he added,
"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."
Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,
practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.
"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,
"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."
And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,
noting that for "all his fearmongering"
the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,
because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."
But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."
The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.
And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.
On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"
assembled an array of quotes on the subject.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,
sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,
asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.
"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."
And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,
saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."
When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,
"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.
When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."
Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the
"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."
But Froomkin commented,
"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."
The debate should only grow in 2006.
"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.
Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;
Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-22 20:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
2005-12-22 20:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Post by r***@comcast.net
- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-22 20:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country.
Violating the COnstitution and international law, and lying us into a
war is not defending the country.
Post by
To you guys its just politics.
actually no, it's valuing the Constituion the rule of law, and civil
rights. I can understand why that's beyond you. Because for you it IS
all about THE Party.
Post by
He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Remind me about the Presidential Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001 again?

How many terrorist attacks were there in the US during Clinton's era?
How many terrorists caught and prosecuted? How many American dead?

Now answer all the same for Bush's watch.

You haven';t a clue what Clinton did in the war on terror. THE Party
prohibits you learning that.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
George Z. Bush
2005-12-22 22:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Really? Did he lose 2,112 American lives and still counting, not to mention
more than 10,000 Americans now wandering about missing arms, legs and/or eyes?
I must have missed it on the evening news or maybe it just wasn't important
enough for Republicans to mention while they were busy getting the details of
the blowjob.

George Z.
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 22:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Really? Did he lose 2,112 American lives and still counting, not to mention
more than 10,000 Americans now wandering about missing arms, legs and/or eyes?
I must have missed it on the evening news or maybe it just wasn't important
enough for Republicans to mention while they were busy getting the details of
the blowjob.
These pigs could care less about our soldier, they don't care how many
lives are lost, they don't care how many of our brave defendes are
crippled, they don't care that the President lied to the world; harming
the repuation of our nation for a generation. They put Party before
country. They disgust me to the core. If they had any real American
blood, they would be outraged.
Post by George Z. Bush
George Z.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-22 23:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
These pigs could care less about our soldier,
Which "soldier" is that Creepy?
colonel
2005-12-23 03:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Really? Did he lose 2,112 American lives and still counting, not to mention
more than 10,000 Americans now wandering about missing arms, legs and/or eyes?
I must have missed it on the evening news or maybe it just wasn't important
enough for Republicans to mention while they were busy getting the details of
the blowjob.
These pigs could care less about our soldier, they don't care how many
lives are lost, they don't care how many of our brave defendes are
crippled, they don't care that the President lied to the world; harming
the repuation of our nation for a generation. They put Party before
country. They disgust me to the core. If they had any real American
blood, they would be outraged.
Post by George Z. Bush
George Z.
Actually I put our country in front of your eyes, arms and legs. It's a
moot point because you are obviously ignorant of military service,
devotion to duty and volunteering.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...