Movement to Impeach President Bush .....

Search
I'm happy about your little laughing espisode, but let's get back to the questions.

Spincter,
Does a 70% "approval" rating determine that a President has not acted unconstitutionally?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
6,932
Tokens
Good Luck with your movement, You will need it. The allegations against Bush are ludicrous.

1. "Ordering and directing "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan". Did 9/11 really happen or was it a zionist conspiracy?

2. Removing the government of Afghanistan by force. Removing Terrorists? Or are they Freedom Fightors?

Don't you people have jobs? Lives?
 
a couple guys on a gambling site arguing what`s constitutional?.......again i`m laughing.....federal courts and legal scholars can`t agree on what`s constitutional.......god has been declared unconstitutional....the constittution has been declared unconstitutional
icon_biggrin.gif
icon_biggrin.gif
......i didn`t think you were serious and when i saw ramsey clark`s name i was sure it was a joke....here`s a website indicating some of the unconstitutional laws we have on the books.....www.krusch.com/real/unconstitutional.html

have a ball....
icon_wink.gif
 
Spinter,
It's a relatively simple yes/no question. As much as I enjoy hearing your theories on whether God is constitutional, I'd appreciate you answering answering the question as I try to answer each one directed towards me.
Thanks.

Spincter,
Does a 70% "approval" rating determine that a President has not acted unconstitutionally?


"Good Luck with your movement, You will need it."

Kenny,
You appear to be a bit confused. Let me clarify - since the impeachment movement is being organized by www.votetoimpeach.org THEN clearly it's their movement, not ours. If you're interested in joining their movement I suggest you direct any inquiries/comments to www.votetoimpeach.com .
Good luck to you.
 
it`s a moot point....whether i think the popularity of a president determines whether the president has acted unconstitutionally,is a diversion from the issue........i am not a legal scholar,neither are you,and neither is mr ramsey(lol),by a long shot....the whole question of impeachment is such a non-issue that it`s preposterous....and mr ramsey`s rampant anti-americanism is well documented....he`s famous for it....he has been in the camp of practically every american foe over the last 30 years....which leads me to wonder whether you were entirely truthful when you indicated that your anti-war stance had nothing to do with anti-american sentiment....
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
6,932
Tokens
sphincter, don't sell this board short.

I am an attorney and am qualified to argue constitutionality and many others here, both for and against the war, make cogent points.

This board is a microcosm of sentiment.
 
kenny....when legal scholars can`t agree on constitutionality,i have serious doubts about whether the guys on this board will settle the issue.....and the constitutionality issue was just a diversion from the high laugh quotient garnered when when trying to validate anything that originated from ramsey clark.....
 
Avoiding the questions, hmmm ... as your side puts it - how very liberal of you sphincter.
icon_wink.gif


I'm not asking to define "what is constitutional?" .
I CLEARLY asked if a 70% support rate had anything do with with a President acting constitutional. Is their a correlation between the two? YES or NO?

Does it? or does it not?
 
Ramsey Clark, the war criminal's best friend


The former U.S. attorney general has become the tool of left-wing cultists who defend Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Rwandan torturers as anti-imperialist heroes.



In the most morbidly literal way, NATO forces are "sniffing out" more mass graves than alliance spokesman Jamie Shea ever suspected. Dog-eaten sticks of bone poke from putrescent pits on television screens. So it is not surprising that on July 31 New York will see the opening of a commission of inquiry for an international war crimes tribunal. What may surprise some is that its target is NATO's war crimes.

Those who know him will be less surprised that the inspiration for this circus is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, whom one long-standing colleague described as "a good man gone ga-ga -- at least 25 years ago." Many liberals and leftists cut Clark a considerable degree of slack. For a start he is almost the only person the American left has had in high public office since World War II, even if it was a retrospective success, since his long march leftward only began afterward. His views as the former attorney general are listened to with a respect that would be accorded to few others with such eccentric opinions. As a revered spokesman of the left, he is a perfect symbol for its near-impotence in American politics today.

Everyone who has dealings with Clark uses the word "nice" to describe him. But he often sides with people whom no one with a full deck would call nice. (Clark did not respond to a Salon News interview request.) Many former friends, more in sorrow than in anger, trace his present positions to the company he keeps: the International Action Center, which proclaims him its founder but seems entirely in the thrall of an obscure Trotskyist sect, the Workers World Party. Whoever writes his scripts, there is little doubt what Ramsey Clark is against now -- any manifestation of the power of the state he once served at the height of the Vietnam War.

At the end of 1998 Clark attended a human rights conference in Baghdad, Iraq, where in his keynote speech he pointed out how "the governments of the rich nations, primarily the United States, England and France," dominated the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which showed "little concern for economic, social and cultural rights." The social and cultural rights claimed by his Iraqi hosts include the right to hang opponents in public at the airport, or poison thousands of Kurds and torture and execute any opponent of the regime. And on the legality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the silence is deafening.

When he flew to Belgrade to support Slobodan Milosevic during NATO's campaign, there was no word about the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Srebrenica or the million homeless refugees from Kosovo -- and even less of those olfactorily eloquent mass graves that NATO is now uncovering. But then, urging Belgrade to resist NATO, while he was there picking up an honorary degree, he told his hosts, "It will be a great struggle, but a glorious victory. You can be victorious."

In Grenada he went to advise Bernard Coard, the murderer of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Other clients include Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Bosnian Serbian war criminal whom he defended in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims, and the Rwandan pastor who is accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them, and then leading killing squads.

His willingness to accept dubious clients is defended by some attorneys. After all, everyone needs a defense. Others say he has crossed a moral line by defending Karadzic and overlooking events in Kosovo. But looking at his legal arguments, one must question the wisdom of his legal counsel, not just his morals. A prominent international lawyer explains, "He's not really very well up on international law -- I remember he was asking for help in some of his early cases."

otherwise....he`s an all around o.k. guy....we`ll let ramsey decide what`s constitutional.....and we`ll let hannibal lecter decide what`s for dinner
icon_biggrin.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
217
Tokens
i would have to say the answer here is no it does not matter look at what that nitwit clinton's aproval rate was and they went for it with him.

BB

If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.
--Jules winnfield
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
32
Tokens
OK Lander. Do you think you may be getting carried away with the anti-Bush thing?
Stop genocide? Not worth a response.
Economy? I guess you firmly believe that any upswing in the economy in recent years was due to Clinton's economic brilliance?
Civil rights? I don't really see your point there. But why is it that everyone is so obsessed with their RIGHTS? The right to protest, the right to gay marriage, the right to go to school without being exposed to The Ten Commandments, the right to say the Pledge without "under God", the right to be supported by the government if you don't want to work.
There is a price to be paid for our rights, but most of us choose to ignore that price because we are accustomed to having everything handed to us (isn't that our right?) Collectively, we don't know diddly pooh (Jim Mora) about the sacrifices that previous generations have made so that we can live our lives the way we do. Sit down and chat with a WWII Vet and spin your theories about presidential impeachments, US war crimes, unjust wars, and your precious rights. You may not change your tune, but you will hear a voice that's louder than any in this forum. You might even develop an appreciation for our military and a president who has the balls to take the path that he, and many others wiser than you, knows to be the right one.
BOTTOM LINE-- When this war is over, the world will be a better and safer place, both in U.S. and in Iraq, for those who suppport the war and for those who oppose it. And maybe someday, but I doubt it, some of you guys might actually say, "It's a good thing that we invaded Iraq when we did."
 
Tubby,
As you should have clearly seen this movement is that of www.votetoimpeach.org , not of www.landersaysvotetoimpeach.org .
I hope that clears it up for you.

If you have a serious problem with their movement I suggest you either take it up with them or form a counter movement of your own. Perhaps ww.votenottoimpeach.org is available?

Good luck with your counter movement.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
32
Tokens
No, I just assumed that you thought it was cool, since you drug it in here. Much like many of you must think it's cool every time the U.S. troops miss a target, kill a civilian, or seem to blunder in any way. And much like you seem so eager to buy into Irag's propaganda campaign. Certain posters can't wait to get it out to the masses. Maybe not you personally, but the combined effect is an appearance that you guys are more satisfied with U.S. military (and thus GWB and US govt) failures than actual peace and sparing of life.
 
Tubby,
I've noticed a tendancy for you to over-generalize. Remember, we have borderline terrorist & you have borderline neo-nazis - neither truly represent their side.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
10
Tokens
Ramsey Clark doesn't scare me. He mostly appeals to far left wackos.

Everyone else just thinks he is a loser.

Wishing you all the best,
GWB
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
How come all you libarace's are all for polls when their for your side,but totally disregard it when the opinion is opposite of yours?
Bush has a 70% approval rating, what are you going to impeach for?Looking out for american interest and security, and not paying attention to what Camaroon thinks?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,164
Messages
13,564,781
Members
100,753
Latest member
aw8vietnam
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com