Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > DON’T IMPEACH INDICT.


Posted by: John Clements 15-Nov-2006, 06:23 PM
I heard he’s out of the country, I hope he doesn’t come back.

Posted by: maisky 16-Nov-2006, 12:56 PM
I would NEVER anything bad happen to any member of our beloved government! unsure.gif (*looking fearfully around*).

I INSIST that the lynching occur AFTER the trial!

Posted by: stoirmeil 18-Nov-2006, 04:48 PM
Take away all his toys and make him swab up his mess for the next two years, to leave a cleaner playing field for what's coming in 2008.

I really mean that. Not one more act that's not either repair or further damage control -- and I don't mean for his party, I mean for his victims.

Posted by: John Clements 20-Nov-2006, 10:33 AM
Why do I think the shrub went to Southeast Asia, just to see the world on our dime, and to avoid questions back here at home? Maybe it’s because I think he’s a balled faced liar.

Posted by: coastman 20-Nov-2006, 01:34 PM
Have y'all decided upon the definiton of the word "is"? tongue.gif

Posted by: John Clements 20-Nov-2006, 04:09 PM
Is you is, or is aint? Is that all you've got to say?

Posted by: coastman 20-Nov-2006, 04:38 PM
Why do y'all hate President Bush so much. I voted for President Clinton the first time and discovered after being elected President Clinton did not have any moral values, no character, or integerity. President Clinton did not understand the verb "is" and still doesn't. I voted against him in the 2nd election. Still I do not hate former President Clinton as you seem to hate President Bush. All Presidents have their faults but President Bush did not try to turn the oval office into a brothel.

Posted by: John Clements 20-Nov-2006, 06:15 PM
Hi coastman,

Don’t ask me why I hate Bush. Ask the mother, or the farther, of a son or daughter, who lost their lives, or their limbs, in a war they were lied into.

As for Clinton, sure, his lie about sex pissed me off, but not nearly as much as the North American, and the World Trade agreements, he enacted, both, reasons why I voted for Ralph Nader.

Just my opinion.
JC

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Nov-2006, 07:26 PM
QUOTE (coastman @ 20-Nov-2006, 05:38 PM)
Still I do not hate former President Clinton as you seem to hate President Bush. All Presidents have their faults but President Bush did not try to turn the oval office into a brothel.

You who say "Why do you hate [fill in the blank]? I don't hate [fill in the blank]!" seem to have a narrow vision of what "hate" means -- if you assume, for example, that extreme disapproval of a leader and his policy decisions equals hatred of the person -- and also a sanctimonious, self-congratulatory attitude about claiming that you yourself don't do anything so unsavoury as "hate." But tell me why it is not hateful on your part to make snide references to Clinton's very stupid amorous behavior, which references have no relevance at all other than to irritate your favorite buckshot target -- liberals, meaning anyone who fails to support Bush's policies -- in a thread discussing whether Bush should be impeached for his destructive negligence and false handling of the people's trust?

Oh yes -- if you want to throw the word "brothel" around inaccurately, reflect for a moment on whether the stupid girl (it was a very stupid business all around, wasn't it?) got paid at the time, or asked to be paid. Enough with the pseudosacred symbols. The Oval Office is just a workplace, the president is just a man with a huge job to do and an infinite amount of accountability he dare not ignore, and illicit sex on the job doesn't turn the office into a whorehouse, or else all of corporate America needs to be raided by the vice squad. I'd be more accurate at this point referring to Baghdad as an American operated, very badly run slaughterhouse. But what would be the point?

Posted by: Dogshirt 20-Nov-2006, 08:13 PM
QUOTE
You who say "Why do you hate [fill in the blank]? I don't hate [fill in the blank]!" seem to have a narrow vision of what "hate" means -- if you assume, for example, that extreme disapproval of a leader and his policy decisions equals hatred of the person -- and also a sanctimonious, self-congratulatory attitude about claiming that you yourself don't do anything so unsavoury as "hate." But tell me why it is not hateful on your part to make snide references to Clinton's very stupid amorous behavior, which references have no relevance at all other than to irritate your favorite buckshot target -- liberals, meaning anyone who fails to support Bush's policies -- in a thread discussing whether Bush should be impeached for his destructive negligence and false handling of the people's trust?

Oh yes -- if you want to throw the word "brothel" around inaccurately, reflect for a moment on whether the stupid girl (it was a very stupid business all around, wasn't it?) got paid at the time, or asked to be paid. Enough with the pseudosacred symbols. The Oval Office is just a workplace, the president is just a man with a huge job to do and an infinite amount of accountability he dare not ignore, and illicit sex on the job doesn't turn the office into a whorehouse, or else all of corporate America needs to be raided by the vice squad. I'd be more accurate at this point referring to Baghdad as an American operated, very badly run slaughterhouse. But what would be the point?


Darlin', you and I should run for office!! Most of theses people only see black and white and cannot see the various shades of gray that exist outside of their narrow fields of vision! Life IS NOT all black and white! And those we elect cannot be held to our standards, they are NOT us! As soon as EVERYONE accepts that we are ALL individuals, THEN we can ALL get along! Until then we will be divided!



Posted by: Dogshirt 20-Nov-2006, 08:16 PM
beer_mug.gif
QUOTE
You who say "Why do you hate [fill in the blank]? I don't hate [fill in the blank]!" seem to have a narrow vision of what "hate" means -- if you assume, for example, that extreme disapproval of a leader and his policy decisions equals hatred of the person -- and also a sanctimonious, self-congratulatory attitude about claiming that you yourself don't do anything so unsavoury as "hate." But tell me why it is not hateful on your part to make snide references to Clinton's very stupid amorous behavior, which references have no relevance at all other than to irritate your favorite buckshot target -- liberals, meaning anyone who fails to support Bush's policies -- in a thread discussing whether Bush should be impeached for his destructive negligence and false handling of the people's trust?

Oh yes -- if you want to throw the word "brothel" around inaccurately, reflect for a moment on whether the stupid girl (it was a very stupid business all around, wasn't it?) got paid at the time, or asked to be paid. Enough with the pseudosacred symbols. The Oval Office is just a workplace, the president is just a man with a huge job to do and an infinite amount of accountability he dare not ignore, and illicit sex on the job doesn't turn the office into a whorehouse, or else all of corporate America needs to be raided by the vice squad. I'd be more accurate at this point referring to Baghdad as an American operated, very badly run slaughterhouse. But what would be the point?


Darlin', you and I should run for office!! Most of theses people only see black and white and cannot see the various shades of gray that exist outside of their narrow fields of vision! Life IS NOT all black and white! And those we elect cannot be held to our standards, they are NOT us! As soon as EVERYONE accepts that we are ALL individuals, THEN we can ALL get along! Until then we will be divided!


beer_mug.gif



Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Nov-2006, 05:26 AM
Not ALL who disapprove of Bush is a liberial.

Posted by: Celtic cat 21-Nov-2006, 08:37 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 21-Nov-2006, 06:26 AM)
Not ALL who disapprove of Bush is a liberial.

Good point, I'll back you up on that one.

Posted by: John Clements 21-Nov-2006, 09:28 AM
When did it become bad, for lack of a better word, to be LIBERAL?
Frankly, I believe that Jesus was, an intellectual, liberal minded man, who was killed by the establishment, because his thinking would cost them money.
So I think, that anyone right of center, who disapproves of Bust, has taken a step in the, lets say, correct direction.
Hope you all have it the way you like it, this thanks giving.
JC

Posted by: stoirmeil 21-Nov-2006, 09:48 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 21-Nov-2006, 10:28 AM)
When did it become bad, for lack of a better word, to be LIBERAL?


. . . Hope you all have it the way you like it, this thanks giving.
JC

smile.gif It never became bad to BE a liberal. It merely became doctrinaire, in certain quarters, to throw the word at other people with all the reflection of monkeys flinging doodoo.


Re Thanksgiving, and all need being fulfilled -- same to you, JC, same to you. May your giblets never grow cold, nor your cranberries lose their tartness.

Posted by: John Clements 21-Nov-2006, 10:32 AM
Hey stoirmeil,
you’re making me blush man… Don’t do that…

Later, JC

Posted by: coastman 21-Nov-2006, 03:20 PM
Yes, John Clements, I have asked someone that has lost someone in this war. My nephew was killed in an air crash and it has been devastating to our family. However our family has fought with this country with George Washington in the French and Indian Wars, The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The War Between the States, The Spanish American War, WWWI, WWWII, The Korean War, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom. Since the death of my nephew it will be my grandson's time to represent our family if America needs him. The protection of America's people is paramount over an individual's freedom.

Posted by: John Clements 21-Nov-2006, 08:57 PM
Hi coastman, what can I say except thanks for the service your family has given to this country. It might not still be here, but for their sacrifice. Please let me get back to you later. JC

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 22-Nov-2006, 07:56 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 21-Nov-2006, 06:26 AM)
Not ALL who disapprove of Bush is a liberial.

Agreed--the first campaign I worked in was for Barry Goldwater, AKA "Mr. Conservative." IMHO, President Bush has turned his back on the conservative principles established by Senator Goldwater and President Reagan. He is spending money without any thought for sound fiscal policy. Everything he does seems to be intended more for the benefit of his corporate sponsors than for the benefit of U.S. citizens. His "my way or the highway" approach to matters of state has divided us from many of our allies, and more importantly has caused deep internal divisions that threaten us with governmental paralysis.

Posted by: maisky 22-Nov-2006, 08:33 AM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 22-Nov-2006, 07:56 AM)
has caused deep internal divisions that threaten us with governmental paralysis.

"governmental paralysis"? Isn't that an oxymoron? biggrin.gif

Posted by: John Clements 22-Nov-2006, 10:20 AM
One can’t help but think of the word oxymoron, when discussing the shrub. In fact, I’m more inclined to drop the oxy, and just call him a moron, but unfortunately for us. He seems to be smart enough, to have rip us all off. As most of you know by now, I’m not a praying man, but if I were. I would pray to see him pay dearly for his crimes, and I’m not talking about just doing time playing golf, in some federal prison.

Posted by: maisky 22-Nov-2006, 12:04 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 22-Nov-2006, 10:20 AM)
One can’t help but think of the word oxymoron, when discussing the shrub. In fact, I’m more inclined to drop the oxy, and just call him a moron, but unfortunately for us. He’s seems to be smart enough, to have rip us all off. As most of you know by now, I’m not a praying man, but if I were. I would pray to see him pay dearly for his crimes, and I’m not talking about just doing time playing golf, in some federal prison.

"huevos on toast" on the menu?

Posted by: maisky 25-Nov-2006, 06:01 AM
Instead of justice, what we will see is "shrub" retiring with more pension than ill see as salary, with all kinds of percs. At least he wont get rich on the lecture circuit.....that requires being able to talk. biggrin.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 27-Nov-2006, 09:52 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 25-Nov-2006, 07:01 AM)
Instead of justice, what we will see is "shrub" retiring with more pension than ill see as salary, with all kinds of percs.  At least he wont get rich on the lecture circuit.....that requires being able to talk.  biggrin.gif

smile.gif

Yeah, there's a light at the end of THAT tunnel, anyway. But with a good ghost writer there may be a book. You can always get a spell check program to override the check on "nookyuler."

Posted by: Antwn 29-Nov-2006, 09:28 AM
Well he may know how to spell it just not pronounce it, similar to those who pronounce the word specific like the name of an ocean. No elocution class at Yale I suppose. Besides, his pronunciation is not nearly as bad as nonsense like "I know how to put food on my family".

Posted by: John Clements 26-Jan-2007, 01:24 PM
Hey, anyone out there going the march in DC tomorrow? If so I’ll be the long hair caring a sign that says…

[edited by moderator]


(Of course I fashioned the word now, from a rusted metal clothes hanger, for the sake of a women’s right to choose,) My plan is to push the point just shy of being arrested.

Hang in all,

JC

Posted by: John Clements 28-Jan-2007, 08:31 AM
Dear moderator, I would like an explanation for editing my post of 26 January-07, posted at-2:24 PM.
As far as I’m concerned the only foul four letter word used in the post, was the name BUSH.
It’s just that kind of editing that undermine the word freedom!
JC

Posted by: Macfive 28-Jan-2007, 02:34 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 28-Jan-2007, 09:31 AM)
Dear moderator, I would like an explanation for editing my post of 26 January-07, posted at-2:24 PM.
As far as I’m concerned the only foul four letter word used in the post, was the name BUSH.
It’s just that kind of editing that undermine the word freedom!
JC

John,

In your defense I have deleted the post (not sure if you saw it) which lobbed another personal insults at you. This was posted by a new member and was his first post - so I am not sure what is up with that.

In reviewing your post I think what was offensive was the graphic violence that you tied to the abortion pregancy. Had you merely indicated in your post ABORT BUSH, we might have thought you meant "Abort" to mean terminating his mission, ending his presidency in a democratic way. That is fine.

However, we will not allow graphic violence to be tied to political statements. The two issues are completely seperate.

For example, should we shape the words "TERMINATE BUSH" in a manner that resembles an electric chair?

I hope you can understand our stand on this matter. If we allow your statement, then other statements of violence will follow.

The full range of the political spectrum can be discussed here, but lets refrain from personal attacks against other members and also tieing violence to political statements.

I know this is a passionate topic and it is my personal intent to make sure that people can express themselves freely, openingly without personal attacks.

Thanks for your help on this!

Posted by: John Clements 29-Jan-2007, 10:49 AM
Hi Macfive,

The opening of you explanation for having edited my post of January 26, 2007, makes me wonder… Just how many insults directed at me have been deleted?

Of course to continue this discussion is meaningless, since the description of what I said on my demonstration poster, has been deleted. Words which I believe are well within the right of freedom of speech, even if some people find them to be offensive.

But, out of respect for you, and the close of your response, I’ll let this matter slide.

Best regards,

JC

Posted by: maisky 01-Feb-2007, 06:42 AM
John, what were you thinking? It is MY job to offend people here! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: John Clements 01-Feb-2007, 11:55 AM
Yes I know that, and you’re doing a beautiful job of it.

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Feb-2007, 11:57 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 01-Feb-2007, 12:55 PM)
Yes I know that, and you’re doing a beautiful job of it.

You're lucky, JC. Maisky has never once busted my chops. Sometimes I think he doesn't like me. sad.gif

Posted by: maisky 01-Feb-2007, 12:07 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 01-Feb-2007, 11:57 AM)
You're lucky, JC. Maisky has never once busted my chops. Sometimes I think he doesn't like me. sad.gif

awwww....geeee.....dont feel bad, little girl. Ill give you your fair share of abuse, too! bangin.gif bash.gif dribble.gif giljotiini.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Feb-2007, 12:10 PM
OooooHH!! The fish, I love to get hit with the fish. Hit me with the fish! fish.gif

Posted by: John Clements 01-Feb-2007, 12:45 PM
Guys,

That is, maisky and stoirmeil, and anyone else paying attention.

When you have forgot what you’ve been talking about. It’s time to log off and reflect for a while. Besides, I think its time I got dressed.

Talk on you later

JC

PS- You can hit me with a fish anytime. AS long as you through in some frys. Or should I say chips?

Posted by: John Clements 02-Mar-2007, 09:53 AM
If you don’t already know, on the 17th of this month, thousands of patriotic Americans, from over 43 states, will be standing in front of the Pentagon. The overall theme of the protest is to impeach Bush and Chaney…

You can rest assured… I will be there.

PS… So what do you think, should I bring my Hockey helmet to this one…

JC

Posted by: maisky 02-Mar-2007, 12:24 PM
Speaking as a patriotic American, You make me Proud! Just the hockey mask should be enough. biggrin.gif

Posted by: John Clements 09-Mar-2007, 03:55 PM
If vengeance is mine, say it the lord.
I don’t think impeachment, is nearly enough punishment, for the BUSH CORPORIT CRIME CARTELL! Why even hell, would be too good for them.

JC

Posted by: maisky 14-Mar-2007, 03:25 AM
After weeks of denials by the White House about the political agenda involved in the firing of 8 US Attorneys, the true extent of the Shrub Syndicate's dirty politics is beginning to emerge.

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An e-mail from the Justice Department's Kyle Sampson in March 2005 laid out a simple formula for evaluating whether the 93 U.S. attorneys should stay or go.

On a chart given to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Sampson -- chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- listed attorneys in three categories:

"Bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. attorneys who have managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general.

"Strikeout = Recommend removing; weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc.

"Nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively."

Sampson was in charge of deciding which U.S. attorneys would be removed in a shakeup last year. Eight prosecutors were eventually removed. Sampson resigned from his post Monday, just as the e-mails he wrote were released publicly.

The e-mails show how closely officials in the White House and the Justice Department coordinated in deciding which names to include for firing, as well as the method and timing of the announcements. (Read Sampson's e-mail exchanges with administration officials - pdf)

The White House disclosed Tuesday the shakeup was first proposed by then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who wanted to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys with "fresh blood" after President Bush's re-election in 2004, spokesman Tony Snow said.

In a three-page memo dated January 1, 2006, Sampson noted the practical and political obstacles of dismissing U.S. attorneys.

"Wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys would cause significant disruption to the work of the Department of Justice," he wrote. "Individual U.S. attorneys often were originally recommended for appointment by a home-state senator who may be opposed to the president's determination to remove the U.S. attorney."

But Sampson concluded, "None of the above obstacles are insuperable," suggesting instead "the replacement of a limited number of U.S. attorneys," not the wholesale changes Miers wanted.

He then went on to recommend three U.S. attorneys for dismissal: Margaret Chiara of Michigan, Henry "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas and Carol Lam of California.

From the winter through the fall of 2006, Miers and Sampson traded e-mails, adding names and outlining the political fallout that might result from the prosecutors themselves and their congressional allies.

One e-mail involved efforts to replace Cummins with Timothy Griffin, a former aide to top White House official Karl Rove. (Read documents on Griffin's nomination - pdf)

"We have a senator problem," noted Monica Goodling, a Justice Department liaison to the White House, over Cummins' pending dismissal. The August 18 e-mail also suggested a possible "confirmation issue with Griffin."

Word of Cummins' pending departure and Griffin's nomination was leaked to an Arkansas newspaper in late August, one memo notes.

About a month later, on September 13, Sampson placed Little Rock-based Cummins on the list of U.S. attorneys "in the process of being pushed out."

Miers thanked him four days later, but noted she had not had much time to focus on the issue. "Things have been crazy," she wrote.

Two months later there still was no decision from the White House on the final "cut" list. In a November 15 memo, Sampson urged Miers to reach out to Rove's office as a "pre-execution necessity I would recommend."

Messages anticipate 'political upheaval'
He added, "I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result. ... If we start caving to complaining U.S. attorneys or senators then we shouldn't do it -- it'll be more trouble than it is worth."

Three weeks went by and Sampson was getting anxious waiting for the "green light" from the White House counsel's office.

Finally, on December 4, William Kelley, Miers' deputy, gave the word: "We're a go for the U.S. attorney plan. WHU leg (office of legislative affairs), political (office), and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes." (Read how officials dealt with the reaction - pdf)

A detailed memo outlined each U.S. attorney to be let go, and the names of key senators or party officials from the prosecutors' home states who would be informed.

Talking points were suggested to help "prepare to withstand political upheaval." Such points included that "the administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or the Department of Justice)."

The White House says President Bush never directed the Justice Department to fire a U.S. attorney, and that concerns about the performance of certain prosecutors were appropriate.

As Sampson suggested back in January 2006, Chiara, Cummins and Lam were among the eight fired prosecutors. In Arkansas, Cummins' post was filled by former Rove aide Griffin on an interim basis, but he said last month he would not seek Senate confirmation because of the "partisan circus" surrounding the firings.

The reaction on Capitol Hill to the dismissals was mixed. Deputy White House Counsel Kelley told Sampson and Miers in a December 8 memo of "disgruntlement" in Nevada. Republican Sen. John Ensign "is very unhappy about the decision" to let U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden go, he said.

But in New Mexico, Kelley reported, Republican Sen. Pete Domenici was "happy as a clam" and offered to quickly provide names of possible replacements.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 15-Mar-2007, 07:46 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 02-Mar-2007, 10:53 AM)
If you don’t already know, on the 17th of this month, thousands of patriotic Americans, from over 43 states, will be standing in front of the Pentagon. The overall theme of the protest is to impeach Bush and Chaney…

You can rest assured… I will be there.

PS… So what do you think, should I bring my Hockey helmet to this one…

JC

John,
It's good to see folks standing up against the Bush gang, whose lawlessness becomes apparent to more folks every day. The hockey helmet may come in handy--I recall being the object of a police club while marching in LA as part of a contigent of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Fortunately, I saw the blow coming, and used my Air Force parachute training to miniimize the impact. angel_not.gif

Posted by: John Clements 21-Mar-2007, 01:05 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 15-Mar-2007, 08:02 AM)
As some of you may know. Like last year. I was planning on renting a kilt, and going to McCarthy’s St Paddy’s day party. But I’m afraid I’m going to have to amend that, because St Paddy’s day conflicts with a huge impeach Bush demonstration in Washington, which I will be attending instead. Hey, maybe I’ll wear the kilt to that?

Question everything,
JC


Hi all,

The march on the Pentagon Saturday for me was a little disappointing, at least as far as the turnout was concerned… I’m sure it was lower then I'd had hoped for, because of the sleet storm in the North East corridor. I my self almost didn’t go, based on the icy conditions on my own street, but once we got on the NJT, it was pretty much clear sailing to and from Washington.

Unlike the demonstration I went to in January, there seemed to be a lot more young people at this one, and there was also a large contingent of, “right wing neo-fascist’s biker type,” apposing us. But, fortunately it didn’t get out of hand, although I must admit that I was itching for a fight, since I believe that it’s going to come to that anyway. You know it wouldn’t surprise me at all, if the biker boys weren’t just mercenaries, being paid by this administration. Not that I have anything against bikers in general, I use to be one myself.

I’m sorry to say that I didn’t wear a kilt, or a Hockey helmet to the demonstration, but none the less, I'm glad I went! Anyway, I hope you all had a good St Paddies day.

Later,
JC

Posted by: maisky 23-Mar-2007, 09:37 AM
With the political flap over US attorney firings, The Republican position on Executive privilege has undergone a "transformation".

Tony Snow, now and then:

"We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument."
-- Tony Snow, 3/20/07, on the White House's use of "executive privilege" to keep top aides from testifying to Congress about the U.S. attorney firings

VERSUS

"Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."
-- Snow, 3/29/98, on President Clinton's use of executive privilege




Posted by: John Clements 23-Mar-2007, 01:27 PM
Yes I saw that Black House press conference. When Tony tow the line Snow, supposedly took a broad side, from the I don’t how they stand themselves, press corps.

Bush, being a given, I didn’t think that I could dislike anyone more, then the last White House Press guy. Who’s name I rather not say, because he might be to close to my blood line…

And here it comes…

But, this guy Snow takes the cake, and I’m sure just about anything else he can lay his hands on!


Push back!
JC

Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Mar-2007, 08:29 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 23-Mar-2007, 10:37 AM)
With the political flap over US attorney firings, The Republican position on Executive privilege has undergone a "transformation".

Tony Snow, now and then:

"We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument."
-- Tony Snow, 3/20/07, on the White House's use of "executive privilege" to keep top aides from testifying to Congress about the U.S. attorney firings

VERSUS

"Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."
-- Snow, 3/29/98, on President Clinton's use of executive privilege

bash.gif censored.gif death.gif fyou.gif furious.gif giljotiini.gif mad2.gif ranting.gif

Posted by: maisky 25-Mar-2007, 07:09 AM
This was forwarded to me by a friend in California, a letter from another Presidential hopeful. I think she feels rather strongly about the Iraq fiasco. Text take from: http://kucinich.us/


It Is Time To Take A Strong Stand
Submitted by Elizabeth Kucinich on Sat, 2007-03-24 18:07. Iraq
Today as the Democratic leadership celebrates the passage of HR 1591, Dennis and I are in mourning. We mourn the deaths of those who have passed and those whose lives are now on the line, both in the military and civilian Iraqis. We mourn the destruction, the ecocide. We mourn with families in Iraq and the US who will see more death and devastation. We mourn the callous and calculated political spin cloaking the Congress's hawkish support of war with the rhetoric of peace.

Congressman Kucinich voted NO. Standing firm with him on this NO vote were 13 Democrats: John Barrow [GA], Dan Boren [OK], Lincoln Davis [TN], Barbara Lee [CA], John Lewis [GA], Jim Marshall [GA], Jim Matheson [UT], Michael McNulty [NY], Michael Michaud [ME], Gene Taylor [MS], Maxine Waters [CA], Diane Watson [CA], and Lynn Woolsey [CA].

I would like to thank Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Gold Star Mothers and all those other organizations who have worked so valiantly in recent years to raise awareness about what is going on in Iraq and to end the war. We would also like to thank the other 13 Democrats who voted against the additional Administration's appropriation request of $120 billion.

$120 billion for an escalation of the war, the privatization of Iraqi oil assets and a possible extension of the war into Iran. And the President said he will veto this because it's not enough. By showing such a weak position against the Administration and the war, the Democrats have thoroughly undermined whatever bargaining position they could have had.

Americans must be heard. It is time to take a strong stand for the end of the war and for peace. It is time to return to the town halls of America to develop a powerful movement for change.

In peace and with love,
Elizabeth Kucinich

Posted by: John Clements 24-Apr-2007, 05:51 PM
Right on……. Kucinich for president.

Posted by: maisky 25-Apr-2007, 07:48 AM
From today's "American Progress":





From the Cartoonist Group.

Job Performance Anxiety
Deterioration of Civil Rights Under Bush
The Facts About Minimum Wage

Posted by: maisky 19-May-2007, 03:19 AM
This is a clear case of the hypocricy of the Bush adminstration's blatant misuse of power and their hyporacy. The Pentagon has become a mindless tool of the administration. In any other branch of government, this brave man would have legal recourse as a "whistle blower". The final section in the article sums it up well.

From the Associated Press:


NORFOLK, Virginia (AP) -- A military jury recommended that a Navy lawyer spend six months in prison and be dismissed from the service for sending a human rights attorney the names of 550 Guantanamo Bay detainees in an unmarked Valentine's Day card.

Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz was convicted Thursday at his court martial of communicating secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees that could be used to injure the United States and three other charges of leaking information to an unauthorized person.

The jury of seven Navy officers recommended Friday that Diaz receive his pay and benefits while incarcerated, but the sentence must still be approved by Rear Admiral Rick Ruehe. The dismissal will also be reviewed by a military appellate court, the Navy said.

Diaz, who could have received up to 14 years in prison, gave emotional testimony during the sentencing hearing, apologizing for his actions.

"I just want the members to know I'm sincerely sorry for what I did -- a stupid act," Diaz said. "I'm better than that."

"The prosecutors were right: I'm a meticulous man. I should have done better. It was extremely irrational for me to do what I did."

However, after the first day of his trial on Monday, Diaz told The Dallas Morning News that he felt sending the list was the right decision because of how the detainees were being treated.

"My oath as a commissioned officer is to the Constitution of the United States," Diaz said. "I'm not a criminal."

In early 2005, as he was finishing a six-month tour of duty as a legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Diaz sent an anonymous note to a lawyer at a New York civil liberties group with a list of the detainees' names.

The Center for Constitutional Rights earlier had won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that terrorism suspects had the right to challenge their detention. But the Pentagon was refusing to identify the men, hampering the group's effort to represent them.

"I had observed the stonewalling, the obstacles we continued to place in the way of the attorneys," Diaz said. "I knew my time was limited. ... I had to do something."

Diaz said he now believes it was "cowardly" to release the names and other identifying information in that manner.

"I was more concerned about damaging my career," Diaz said. "Obviously I chose the wrong path because here I am: My career is in jeopardy, serious jeopardy, much more serious jeopardy than it would have been if I had raised the issue to my chain of command."

Diaz, 41, of Topeka, Kansas, did not testify at his court-martial.

But in an hourlong interview after the opening day of his trial Monday, Diaz said he believes the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror is illegal. He accused officials of violating international law, such as the Geneva Conventions on the humane treatment of war prisoners, and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process.

"I made a stupid decision, I know, but I felt it was the right decision, the moral decision, the decision that was required by international law," Diaz told the Dallas newspaper. "No matter how the conflict was identified, we were to treat them in accordance with Geneva, and it just wasn't being done."

The Defense Department strenuously rejects such comments.

Bush administration officials have characterized the Guantanamo population overall as "the worst of the worst." Diaz said that is one of two incorrect or false statements.

"The other statement was 'We do not torture,' " said Diaz, whose jobs included tracking and investigating abuse allegations.

"I think a good case could be made for allegations of war crimes, policies that were war crimes," he said. "There was a way to do this properly, and we're not doing it properly."

Posted by: stoirmeil 22-May-2007, 08:05 AM
That's the saddest story I've heard in a long time. With any luck, the guy will find a new career direction in international human rights law. It doesn't pay anything like the inflated government legal money, but he'll feel like a human being again. Which he is, clearly, anyway -- the egg on his face is not of his own laying.

Posted by: maisky 24-May-2007, 05:16 AM
I agree, milady Stormiel.

I am a patriotic American and have been proud of my country for most of my life. The actions and policys of the Bush administration makes me ashamed of my country. So sad.

Some of my British friends are expressing some of the same feelings (in a more reserved way). The Canadiens neatly sidestepped the whole Iraqi thing. They can be proud of their leadership.

Posted by: John Clements 24-May-2007, 09:09 AM
I don’t think this guy bush isn’t going to leave Iraq, or the white house. You watch… martial law is right around the corner. (If I thought it would help, I’d pray).

JC

Posted by: John Clements 25-Jul-2007, 07:56 AM
[QUOTE=John Clements,24-May-2007, 10:09 AM]I don’t think this guy bush isn’t going to leave Iraq, or the white house. You watch… martial law is right around the corner. (If I thought it would help, I’d pray).

Since no one seems to want to respond to my last post of May 24th 07, concerning impeaching, the “entire” Bush administration, I guess I'll have too.

I don’t know about you guys, but every time I hear someone blow off the idea of impeaching the “entire” administration, simply because the impeachment proceedings would tie up the government, and there for nothing would get done. To this argument I have to say bull crap, because in my opinion nothing being done by this administration. Would only be a step in the right direction.

Now I know you all have heard this before, but never has it been truer, at least in my life time. (If you wan to kill a snake…cut off the head.)

But hey what do I know. Except what I perceive to be right and wrong, and that it’s only our lives, and the lives of your children’s children, that are at stake, right here and now.

JC

Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Jul-2007, 09:40 AM
Well -- I want to do you the honor of responding, good buddy, but I wish I could agree with you.

In effect we "impeached" the entire administration in Iraq, and look at it now. Do you honestly think this country would behave itself perfectly if the head and shoulders were suddenly cut off? Especially with this nauseatingly partisan presidential campaigning going on? Jockeying for position after that would take on all the restraint of an opportunistic fungal infestation, and NOTHING could be depended on to get done. Fractioning into city-states is what we'd do. Perfect time for another brutal hurricane in the gulf, for one thing, or any of the other impending natural disasters we have seeded in the country really getting out of hand. I know we like to think that an echoing vacancy would have been better than Great-Job Brownie, but I would not like to test it. An absolute chaos of finger pointing would ensue, far worse than last time for lack of a target, and it wouldn't be slowed down one bit by bodies choking the storm drains.

Posted by: John Clements 25-Jul-2007, 04:55 PM
I’m sorry but I think this situation has gone far beyond finger pointing. Besides isn’t the speaker of the house supposed to step I as president. Or are we just going to allow them to ignore that law as well. Hey, maybe we should just ignore the law that gives the Supreme Court Justice a life time term. And we thought that there no justice before.
And so my dear friend, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree, because I’ll take anarchy… over slavery…any-day.
Signing off
JC

Posted by: maisky 26-Jul-2007, 02:50 AM
John, I would argue with you, but I agree with all you are saying. The US administration is nothing more than an organized crime family. THEIR kids arent dying in Bushnam while we grow members of Middle Eastern Terror organizations ten times faster than we can kill them. Time to make Georgie put away his toy soldier set and go to bed....in prison.

Posted by: John Clements 26-Jul-2007, 06:15 AM
Thanks maisky, you always say it more eloquently than I do.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 26-Jul-2007, 07:06 AM
Let's face it--the Democrats in Congress aren't going to impeach the Bush gang because they are just as rotten as the Republicans. Being something of a libertarian, I have sometimes thought that paralysis at the Federal level would be a good thing. However, I do see one extremely bad consequence of such paralysis at the present time, which is that the global corporations will have even more free rein than they have now. In my darker moments I sometimes wonder whether the global war on terror is being exploited by the global corporations to increase their domination on all aspects of our lives, from the music we listen to (i.e., the recent assault on internet radio) to the food we eat to the electronics we use to the conditions of work, and just about anything else. It seems as though our entire society is being subsumed by the incessant greed of the global corporations whose entire raison d'etre seems to be: grow profits, cut costs.
I don't know what the solution is, and am not at all convinced that putting a Democrat in the White House will make a real difference. I do have real concerns about what kind of world we will be bequeathing to our children and future generations.

Posted by: John Clements 14-Aug-2007, 12:26 PM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 26-Jul-2007, 08:06 AM)
Let's face it--the Democrats in Congress aren't going to impeach the Bush gang because they are just as rotten as the Republicans. Being something of a libertarian, I have sometimes thought that paralysis at the Federal level would be a good thing. However, I do see one extremely bad consequence of such paralysis at the present time, which is that the global corporations will have even more free rein than they have now. In my darker moments I sometimes wonder whether the global war on terror is being exploited by the global corporations to increase their domination on all aspects of our lives, from the music we listen to (i.e., the recent assault on internet radio) to the food we eat to the electronics we use to the conditions of work, and just about anything else. It seems as though our entire society is being subsumed by the incessant greed of the global corporations whose entire raison d'etre seems to be: grow profits, cut costs.
I don't know what the solution is, and am not at all convinced that putting a Democrat in the White House will make a real difference. I do have real concerns about what kind of world we will be bequeathing to our children and future generations.

Right on! Hey, remember when he said he was a uniter, not a divider. (or words to that effect) To me that statement alone is enough to impeach him.


Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Aug-2007, 01:29 PM
Why impeach? Just wait for all his cronies to fall off the branch like rotten apples, til he's stuck out on a limb all by himself. That process seems to be moving along fine.

Posted by: John Clements 14-Aug-2007, 04:37 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 14-Aug-2007, 02:29 PM)
Why impeach? Just wait for all his cronies to fall off the branch like rotten apples, til he's stuck out on a limb all by himself. That process seems to be moving along fine.

What ever works stoirmeil, but I need restitution too. Why you could even call it revenge, because there doesn’t seem to be ant justice.

Posted by: maisky 14-Aug-2007, 04:46 PM
Rove leaving is just a prelude to the "antichrist Rove" joining another Republicant camp. Dont get to excited about.

Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Aug-2007, 05:08 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 14-Aug-2007, 05:46 PM)
Rove leaving is just a prelude to the "antichrist Rove" joining another Republicant camp.  Dont get to excited about.

Well, you know, if it were only Rove it would be less exciting, but coming after Rumsfeld's bailout and Gonzalez's microwaving, it's promising. All the little sucking vacuums. Whoozh, whoozh . . .

Interesting thought, maybe: if Rove is a private citizen now and not under command of his boss, can the president still order him not to speak, on the grounds of breaching security, should he be subpoena'ed? I mean, how many times can Bush get away with that? And if anybody needs a microwaving it's Rove. If these were good old Roman times he would be taking hemlock to protect his emperor's integrity.

Posted by: Dogshirt 14-Aug-2007, 06:48 PM
I belive that was the Geeks......I mean Greeks!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Aug-2007, 08:03 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 14-Aug-2007, 07:48 PM)
I belive that was the Geeks......I mean Greeks!


beer_mug.gif

Right, right . . . in Rome the discarded senators would sit in a warm bath and open their veins.

Those were the days, huh? and they never went home and cleaned up profits on their bad behaviour by publishing a memoir, either. nono.gif

Is There a (Tell-All) Book in Him?
Publishers Ask How Rove Would Balance Loyalty, Candor

By Sridhar Pappu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; Page C01

He's the man that Democrats blame for everything from Hurricane Katrina to the breakup of Britney and K-Fed. He's the supposed puppet master of the 43rd president's administration; Bush's brain, he's been called. And now, with his departure from the White House, Karl Rove has set imaginations ablaze with his recent comments that he plans to teach and write a book.

Would Rove, the nation's man of mystery who is legendary for his loyalty, actually write a book that revealed life behind the White House's wrought-iron fence? That's the question publishers are asking themselves and eager to take a chance on.

The White House's deputy chief of staff actually hadn't done anything about a book other than "what everybody does, and that is talk to Bob Barnett," he told a group of reporters on Air Force One on Monday. That's the Bob Barnett, the Washington attorney-turned-super-powered book agent who brokered deals for everyone from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Jenna Bush. Barnett declined to comment.

This wasn't the first time that Rove declared his literary aspirations. Last month, according to the owner of a Colorado lodge where Rove stopped on his way to Aspen, the presidential adviser told him he planned to write books after leaving the White House.

But the very prospect of a Rove tome on his tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., is serious business and would most certainly be highly anticipated. While it might not draw Harry Potter-like crowds when -- and if -- it debuts (though we'd love to see midnight lines at your local Barnes & Noble with men and women donning bald caps), the book certainly would earn Rove a considerable sum.

"He's not going to have the slightest trouble selling the book," says Sara Nelson, editor of Publishers Weekly. "The advance I imagine would be in the seven figures, but it's not going to be a $10 million advance."

"Would I take his call?" asks Paul Bogaards, senior vice-president at Alfred A. Knopf -- the Random House imprint that published Bill Clinton's "My Life." "Absolutely. In a heartbeat."

"There isn't a publisher worth his salt that wouldn't take a meeting with Mr. Rove," Bogaards says. "You don't have to be a president to write a bestseller. Proximity can dictate a lot, and certainly there's been no person in better proximity to the inner workings of this administration than Karl Rove."




Posted by: John Clements 31-Aug-2007, 07:05 AM
IMPEACH OR BUST…

Compared to impeachment everything else is minutia, so as fare as I’m concerned. If congress doesn’t act now, they’re either a bunch morons, cowards, or complicit. Either way, it’s become clear to me, that we’re on our own.

Posted by: maisky 10-Sep-2007, 05:20 AM
We are due for our latest "report" on the war in Bushnam. It will be the usual administration sales job, full of lies and fabricated "evidence" about how well the occupation of Iraq is going. This is getting harder to sell. Republicants as a group may not be the brightest folks around, but the are not ALL stupid. The rest of us have recoginzed the lies for a very long time. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: John Clements 12-Sep-2007, 07:07 AM
So what do you think? Which protest sign should I take to the rally in Washington D.C. this Saturday?

IMPEACHMENT IS… VETO PROOF!

It's not in three words or less, or a double entendre, like my main sign…

ABORT BUSH NOW

But it’s still pretty fast, and goes to the heart of the problem.

JC

PS: Can’t I be president?

Posted by: maisky 12-Sep-2007, 07:13 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 12-Sep-2007, 07:07 AM)
So what do you think? Which protest sign should I take to the rally in Washington D.C. this Saturday?

IMPEACHMENT IS… VETO PROOF!

It's not in three words or less, or a double entendre, like my main sign…

ABORT BUSH NOW

But it’s still pretty fast, and goes to the heart of the problem.

JC

PS: Can’t I be president?

I think the "IMPEACHMENT IS… VETO PROOF!" sign is much more tasteful and refined....so use the other one.

You can be President of Vice....is that ok??

Posted by: John Clements 12-Sep-2007, 07:19 AM
I like “VICE”. I have a lot of experience in that area.

Posted by: John Clements 10-Oct-2007, 11:22 AM
For those of you who may be interested, below is a letter I received from my Congressman: Steve Rothman, along with my response to it. Although my response may be harsh, these are harsh times.

October 5, 2007

Dear Mr. Clements:

Thank you for contacting me in support of impeaching
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. I
appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the opportunity to
respond.

Like you, I am outraged over President Bush's failed
leadership on a variety of issues, in particular his disastrous and
reckless policy in Iraq as well as his overreaching intelligence
gathering measures. While I oppose these and have fought them
every chance I could, I do not believe that sufficient evidence has
been uncovered at this time to proceed with articles of
impeachment against the President and Vice President.

As you may know, the Constitution of the United States
defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment
to "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the
United States" who may only be impeached and removed for
"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." While I
don't believe that there is sufficient evidence for impeachment
proceedings at this time, I support an investigation of the President
and Vice President's actions to see if there is enough evidence to
commence impeachment proceedings. That is why, last Congress,
I supported and cosponsored H. Res. 635, H. Res. 636, and H.
Res. 637, three resolutions that were introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) on
December 18, 2005. If enacted, H. Res. 635 would have created a
committee to investigate the Bush Administration's intent to go to
war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war
intelligence, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for
possible impeachment of the President. H. Res. 636 and H. Res
637 would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney,
respectively, for failing to respond to requests for information
concerning allegations that they and others in the Bush
Administration misled Congress and the American people
regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq. None of these
resolutions came to the House floor for a vote before the last
Congress concluded .

I strongly believe that we must hold President Bush and
Vice President Cheney accountable for their actions. That is why I
support and am a proud original cosponsor of H. Res. 625, a
resolution censuring the President and Vice President, which was
introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) on August 4, 2007. If enacted, this
resolution would formally reprimand President George W. Bush
and Vice President Richard B. Cheney for misleading the
American people about the basis for going to war in Iraq, failing to
plan adequately for the war, pursuing policies in Iraq that have
strained our military and undermined our homeland security, and
misleading the American people about the insurgency in Iraq. H.
Res. 625 is currently pending before the House Committee on the
Judiciary. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this
situation, keeping our shared concerns about the Bush
Administration's failed leadership very much in mind as Congress
continues to debate this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me. As your
Representative in the United States Congress, it is a privilege and
an honor to serve you and to act as your voice in Washington.
Please feel free to contact me again with any other issue or matter
that concerns you. You may also want to visit my website at
www.house.gov/rothman where you can find out how I have voted
on legislation, learn which bills I have introduced and
cosponsored, and keep current with my latest Congressional
activities and policy statements.

Sincerely,

Steven R. Rothman
Member of Congress


Oct. 10th/2007

Attn: Rep. Steven R. Rothman,

Excuse me Steve, but how can you honestly say, that there isn’t enough evidence, to start impeachment proceeding against Bush and Cheney? In light of the evidence, evidence such as:

Going to war without submitting, “In writing” a declaration of war to congress, and, illegal wire tapping, both, if I’m not mistaken are blatant violations of the constitution, and are both punishable, by fines, and or imprisonment, much less impeachment!

Of course, that’s not to forget, all the other suspicious low life offenses committed by the Bush administration, like: Appointing officials while congress is out of session, end runs around Habeas Corpus, politically stacking the supreme court, the fact that billions upon billions of dollars have gone missing, rendition, refusal to testify under oath, war profiteering, torture, and just plain old lying. I mean isn’t lying…to commit a crime…a crime?

As for impeaching Cheney, that would be easy, because he simply conspired in it all. You know I’d even bet that Cheney was drunk…when he shot that guy in the face. I mean come on man…it’s not that we didn’t know, that both Bush and Cheney didn’t already have suspicious records, long before we got to this point.

Let me put it this way, Steve. If I were a lawyer, or for that matter a politician, I could probably build a good case against George W. Bush, for “Negligent Homicide”. Based on having neglected those who died in New Orleans, of course that’s not to forget the possibility of convicting them of war crimes, and extorting us all, into being complicit, in the needless deaths of thousands upon thousands, of innocent people.

All in all, to say that the Bush administration is “treasonous” would be a gross understatement. Why, it’s enough to make one think, that 9/11 was an inside job!

And so Mr. Rothman, I’ve come to the conclusion. That maybe I should stop putting me efforts into impeaching Bush and Cheney, and direct my effort into impeaching …you.

Impeachment Is Veto Proof,
John Clements

Posted by: John Clements 05-Nov-2007, 08:04 AM
This Tuesday Dennis Kucinich will bring a resolution to the floor of the house to impeach Dick Cheney. Contact you reprehensive and tell him or her to, support Kucinich on this bill. And while you’re at it, support Kucinich for president.

Kucinich Will Impeach Cheney
Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 333 in April to impeach Vice President Cheney for his pre-war lies about Iraq and for threatening an invasion of Iran. And thanks to your heroic grassroots efforts, there are 21 co-sponsors.
Speaker Pelosi blocked Judiciary Committee hearings on the bill, but Rep. Kucinich will force a floor vote on Tuesday using his right of personal privilege.
Kucinich's courageous act will put members of the House on record. Are they going to fulfill their oath of office to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Or will they support a Vice President whose lies about Iraq cost the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans and possibly $2.4 trillion in our tax dollars - and whose lies about Iran threaten to start World War III?
Call your Representative (not Senators) and tell them to support Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney, H.Res. 333:

More actions to support Kucinich's impeachment resolution:
http://impeachcheney.org
Kucinich explains this week's vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSbGUOOQCpU
Brave New Films Video about Cheney's impeachable offenses:
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/4987-impeach-dick-cheney

IMPEACHMENT IS VETO PROOF…and it may be our last chance to save our country.

PS: If you post a comment on this please quote/copy the original post so that other’s can go right to the links as well.
Thanks, JC

Posted by: ogdenmusic 05-Nov-2007, 08:38 AM
Hey John, thanks for the info. Kucinich is the only one I have seen standing
up going forward with his words. Lets hope this gets the support it needs.

Posted by: maisky 06-Nov-2007, 01:56 PM
QUOTE (ogdenmusic @ 05-Nov-2007, 08:38 AM)
Hey John, thanks for the info. Kucinich is the only one I have seen standing
up going forward with his words. Lets hope this gets the support it needs.

It is a pity he only has the support of 2 % of the Democrats, because he has some good ideas.

Posted by: John Clements 07-Nov-2007, 11:40 AM
So this morning, I open the so called, “newspaper of record”: (The New York Times), and guess what the all important headline is?

REPUBLICANS JOIN VETO TO OVERRIDE WATER BILL VETO???

Oh, I guess the water bill is far more important, then the real new, that the bill to impeach Cheney passing in the House yesterday. A bill championed by Dennis Kucinich.

The funny thing about the vote yesterday was: That a lot of republicans voted in favor in favor of impeaching Cheney, rather then to just table the bill. So what’s going on here? Could it be that the republicans have finely come to their senses?
I don't think so, because I think the republicans who voted to impeach Cheney, are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock being, that if they didn’t vote to impeaching Cheney, they might not get reelected, and the hard place being, that they really didn’t want the bill to impeach to pass. Hey, maybe this system is worth saving?

Oh, not to be totally impartial. I’m sure the house democrats are stuck too, since a lot of them voted against the bill to impeach Cheney.

It kind of all brings us back to, “the good cop bad cop scenario", don’t you think?

Posted by: John Clements 28-Nov-2007, 10:14 AM
You know…I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before, if impeachment isn’t working, how about water boarding?

Posted by: Tiffany Mitchell 28-Nov-2007, 10:39 PM
I do not know why Bush has not been impeached or anything. Especially after all that has happened the past eight years. I mean your regular american republican does not like Bush. He is one of the dumbest predidents out there. I am ashamed to say that he is my president.

Posted by: John Clements 29-Nov-2007, 10:25 AM
QUOTE (Tiffany Mitchell @ 28-Nov-2007, 11:39 PM)
I do not know why Bush has not been impeached or anything. Especially after all that has happened the past eight years.  I mean your regular american republican does not like Bush. He is one of the dumbest predidents out there. I am ashamed to say that he is my president.

Hi Tiffany, first of all, I’d like to say that’s refreshing, that you’re using your real name. (Why one could even say that it takes courage these days.)
Second of all, I see that this is your first post, and I’m happy to know that you have your ducks in a row. All though I must say, that I’m long past being ashamed, and well into being angry.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts,
JC

Posted by: gwenlee 29-Nov-2007, 11:38 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 29-Nov-2007, 12:25 PM)
Hi Tiffany, first of all, I’d like to say that’s refreshing, that you’re using your real name. (Why one could even say that it takes courage these days.)
Second of all, I see that this is your first post, and I’m happy to know that you have your ducks in a row. All though I must say, that I’m long past being ashamed, and well into being angry.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts,
JC

Those in Washington can't impeach President Bush because they would have to resign. They are all guilty of not telling us everything, and working for their own agenda. That is politics everywhere. Don't think that President Bush is the only one in the drivers seat.

Tiffany it is nice to see a teen that is interested in politics, but don't get drawn in to the agenda of a political party. You have to look at the individual candidate. And at 19 I can't say you have all of your ducks in a row because you have a lot to learn in life and there will be events that happen through out your lifetime that will mold and change your political opinion.

gwenlee ( my real name)

Posted by: John Clements 29-Nov-2007, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 29-Nov-2007, 12:38 PM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 29-Nov-2007, 12:25 PM)
Hi Tiffany, first of all, I’d like to say that’s refreshing, that you’re using your real name. (Why one could even say that it takes courage these days.)
Second of all, I see that this is your first post, and I’m happy to know that you have your ducks in a row. All though I must say, that I’m long past being ashamed, and well into being angry.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts,
JC

Those in Washington can't impeach President Bush because they would have to resign. They are all guilty of not telling us everything, and working for their own agenda. That is politics everywhere. Don't think that President Bush is the only one in the drivers seat.

Tiffany it is nice to see a teen that is interested in politics, but don't get drawn in to the agenda of a political party. You have to look at the individual candidate. And at 19 I can't say you have all of your ducks in a row because you have a lot to learn in life and there will be events that happen through out your lifetime that will mold and change your political opinion.

gwenlee ( my real name)

Hi Tiffany, see that, one political post and already you’ve been corrupted. Now I might be wrong about this, but I was always under the impression, that the *president was in the drivers seat, especially, during “war time”. (remember the buck stops here)
Of course that’s not to say that he is the only bad guy out there, it’s true, there are plenty of them on both sides. The funny thing is though…that my thinking, even at the age of 19, has only been proven to me, over and over again, now that I’m 62. But hey, what do I know, except that I consider my self to be, a good judge of character.

Good luck Tiffany,
John Clements

PS: Sorry about the names remark, it was uncalled for.

* I didn’t vote for this president, and I’m proud of it.

Posted by: maisky 02-Dec-2007, 02:45 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 29-Nov-2007, 11:38 AM)
gwenlee ( my real name)


Good one. My user name (maisky) isnt my real name. I dont use it to hide it from the government. They know all about me. tongue.gif

They know all about Richard Fitzpatrick. My comment to them: "phhhttttthhhhh"!!

Posted by: gwenlee 03-Dec-2007, 09:01 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 02-Dec-2007, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 29-Nov-2007, 11:38 AM)
gwenlee ( my real name)


Good one. My user name (maisky) isnt my real name. I dont use it to hide it from the government. They know all about me. tongue.gif

They know all about Richard Fitzpatrick. My comment to them: "phhhttttthhhhh"!!

I'm sure the government know about all of us, more than what we want them to.


Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 03-Dec-2007, 10:15 AM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 03-Dec-2007, 10:01 AM)

I'm sure the government know about all of us, more than what we want them to.

in the distant past (see http://www.silent-warriors.com/ for the type of work I was doing), I had a sufficiently close relationship to NSA to suspect that there's considerably more truth to what Gwenlee says than most people realize. One thing to keep in mind is that they are sucking up far more communications of all types than they can actually listen to or read, and rely on highly sophisticated computer analysis to decide which communications to actually focus on. Knowing what I do about how the Federals work provides me with what I consider a sound basis for believing neither party is the least bit trustworthy.

Posted by: John Clements 04-Dec-2007, 11:58 AM
As some of you may know. I have been an ardent protester of the Bush administration, and I’m sure they know exactly who I am. Having held my "ABORT BUSH NOW!" sign high, at every protest I possible could, ever since the inaugural address, in 2004.

In fact I once got that sign right in his face, down in a little town in South Jersey. Having stepped off curb, in order to force the motorcade to either run me down, or slow down to guide around me. (As of yet, that day is still one of the proudest days of my life.)

As you all know, this isn’t a joke anymore.

Posted by: John Clements 13-Dec-2007, 02:26 PM
In case any of you have forgotten. I am so in favor of impeachment that I have an impeachment list, and it goes like this: First…Chaney, second…George W…and third, Nancy Pelosi.
Of course the basic idea is to keep on “impeaching”, until we finely get to somebody honest! Come to think of it, we’d probably run out of candidates. (Hey, does anyone want to run for office?)

Posted by: maisky 13-Dec-2007, 05:59 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 13-Dec-2007, 02:26 PM)
(Hey, does anyone want to run for office?)

I nominate "Chessebar Chocolate Paws". A TOTALLY honest candidate! (other than the unfortunate tendency to poop on the floor) She will lead the country as FIRST BITCH and President!

Posted by: valpal 59 14-Dec-2007, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 13-Dec-2007, 05:59 PM)
I nominate "Chessebar Chocolate Paws". A TOTALLY honest candidate! (other than the unfortunate tendency to poop on the floor) She will lead the country as FIRST BITCH and President!

I second the nomination. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 14-Dec-2007, 05:12 PM
Hey Bush may be trying to find the WMD's all by himself, but more likely he is trying to book a room in the tunnel that his friend Bin Laden is rooming in, after all it was Bin Laden not Saddam that attacked the US but since Bush and Bin Laden are friends (King George Bush I put Bin Laden in Power) he decided to attack Saddam who had threatened his daddy. King George II is being a good son but a Bad Leader! **==

Posted by: John Clements 14-Dec-2007, 09:05 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 14-Dec-2007, 06:12 PM)
Hey Bush may be trying to find the WMD's all by himself, but more likely he is trying to book a room in the tunnel that his friend Bin Laden is rooming in, after all it was Bin Laden not Saddam that attacked the US but since Bush and Bin Laden are friends (King George Bush I put Bin Laden in Power) he decided to attack Saddam who had threatened his daddy. King George II is being a good son but a Bad Leader! **==


I agree with all of that, (in fact I have often said that Bin Laden is probably pool side in Crawford Texas. But as to George 2 being a good son, but a Bad Leader. I don’t think that’s possible. Unless of course George 1 is a Bad Leader too, (how’s it go, the fruit and the tree thing) oh enough pussy footing. Bush 1 is a crook too.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 14-Dec-2007, 09:30 PM
Aye Laddie tha he is, but remember he was once the head of the CIA!

Posted by: John Clements 20-Dec-2007, 04:00 PM
For those who might want, you can go to this site and sign a petition, to move on the impeachment of Cheney…

http://wexlerwantshearings.com/

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 10:37 AM
Cheney Impeachment: Wexler Delivers Names to Congress

www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Jan-2008, 10:39 AM
John On this we agree, but I think they should Impeach Bush and Cheney

Posted by: stoirmeil 17-Jan-2008, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 17-Jan-2008, 11:37 AM)
Cheney Impeachment: Wexler Delivers Names to Congress

www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

All good things come to those who wait. I would like to see the creep out too, but by the time they spend all that money and move the big slow gears, a whole bunch of your and my tax money will disappear down the Federal Justice toilet. It's almost over -- he's not going to go to jail for anything, so why bother? Just more material for his memoir that will go for $60 a copy in hard cover. sad.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Jan-2008, 11:52 AM
Hey you have a point look at all Hillary and Bill made off their books, and Hillary will probably write one win or lose about her try for the Presidency. And you can bet the Liberals will see that she gets a small fortune for her effort, but thats okay after all she is a woman and a Democrat...right?

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 12:16 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 17-Jan-2008, 11:39 AM)
John On this we agree, but I think they should Impeach Bush and Cheney

Hooray! We agree on something, although I would actually like to start impeachment, with my representative Steve Rothman, and keep impeaching until we finely get to some one honest! But alas, I think that we would run out of people to impeach!
By the way, I’m a not so liberal independent!

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 12:18 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 17-Jan-2008, 12:43 PM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 17-Jan-2008, 11:37 AM)
Cheney Impeachment: Wexler Delivers Names to Congress

www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

All good things come to those who wait. I would like to see the creep out too, but by the time they spend all that money and move the big slow gears, a whole bunch of your and my tax money will disappear down the Federal Justice toilet. It's almost over -- he's not going to go to jail for anything, so why bother? Just more material for his memoir that will go for $60 a copy in hard cover. sad.gif

True Justice is worth any price!

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 12:38 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 17-Jan-2008, 12:52 PM)
Hey you have a point look at all Hillary and Bill made off their books, and Hillary will probably write one win or lose about her try for the Presidency. And you can bet the Liberals will see that she gets a small fortune for her effort, but thats okay after all she is a woman and a Democrat...right?

This is amazing we agree again! (Boy! This could be a new record)? You know as an “Art Director” I never would have selected the cover photo of Bill and Hillary’s latest book, because they look like they’re conspiring, (don’t you think)? But hey! Far be it from me to talk about conspiracies!
PS: It’s nice to think that someone might think that I am “learned”. But why don’t we just say, that I’ve been around!

Oh yes, before I forget. I just looked at the constitution, and guess what? Outside of having the right to practice religion, it doesn’t mention God anywhere!

Posted by: Camac 30-Jan-2008, 02:01 PM
30/01/08

Why would you want to lynch such a lovable character as George (Yosemite Sam) Bush? Let him just ride off into the sunset.

Camac.

Posted by: stoirmeil 30-Jan-2008, 02:03 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 17-Jan-2008, 01:38 PM)
You know as an “Art Director” I never would have selected the cover photo of Bill and Hillary’s latest book . . .

smile.gif
Are you an art director?

Posted by: John Clements 09-Feb-2008, 04:44 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 30-Jan-2008, 03:03 PM)
smile.gif
Are you an art director?

Sorry for not responding for so long, as I just came on your question. Anyway the answer is yes, (as I have held the title Art Director, as well as Senior Art Director, and Associate Creative Director) for some 35 years, in the “creative” end of the advertising business. Although the truth is, even though I couldn’t spell for beans. I could always write much better then I could art direct. In fact I once said: “That no amount of art direction can make up for “No Idea”!

To get back to the subject of impeachment:
The Attorney General is supposed to works for us, not just for the president! Check it out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7M9sjRLCtQ

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 09-Feb-2008, 03:28 PM
Bush has shown flagrant disregard for the Constitution, and has instead tried to set himself up as a Monarch, thus Impeachment is it seems not possible, for a Corrupt King to be ousted requires a Revolution. We must rise up and toss him from the throne.

Posted by: John Clements 09-Feb-2008, 05:08 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 09-Feb-2008, 04:28 PM)
Bush has shown flagrant disregard for the Constitution, and has instead tried to set himself up as a Monarch, thus Impeachment is it seems not possible, for a Corrupt King to be ousted requires a Revolution. We must rise up and toss him from the throne.

I couldn't agree more Druid. Now is a good time, the army is out of town.

Posted by: John Clements 09-Mar-2008, 11:08 AM
No Justice! No Peace!

http://wexlerforcongress.com/multimedia.asp?ItemID=239

Posted by: John Clements 10-Mar-2008, 10:27 AM
Let’s hear it for two little towns in the State of Vermont, (who’s names escape me at the moment), for having issued “Arrest Warrants” for both Bush and Chaney, (for alleged war crimes) should either of them set foot in either of those towns. Vermont sounds like a good place to relocate, don't you think!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-iIkmt-eco&feature=related



Posted by: lawrence50 10-Mar-2008, 11:15 AM
I think Bush is a frontman and Cheney is the real power behind the scenes. After all Haliburton,Cheneys Company, is in every conflict the States are in. They provide whatever needs to be done whether it is arms,machinery or manpower.

Posted by: FamhairCloiche 10-Mar-2008, 11:45 AM
QUOTE (lawrence50 @ 10-Mar-2008, 11:15 AM)
I think Bush is a frontman and Cheney is the real power behind the scenes. After all Haliburton,Cheneys Company, is in every conflict the States are in. They provide whatever needs to be done whether it is arms,machinery or manpower.

I think you guys give them way too much credit. In my opinion, the bulk of our problems today stem from the fact that in order to get Congress to continually fund his war, Bush had to write them a blank check for whatever other damn toys they wanted.
Now every man woman and child in the US is in debt to the tune of $400K a piece!

Posted by: Patch 11-Mar-2008, 12:52 PM
I feel that the little bush will go down in history as one of the most dangerous leaders we have had to deal with! Few realize the true extent of our loss of Constitutional rights under this president. Clinton lied about sex and to my knowledge no one died because of it. Our little bush lied about much more important things and many of our finest young people have died because as a result, and tens of thousands more have been greviously injured and/or horribly maimed. My Grandfather was a very wise man. One of his favorite sayings was,"the nut never falls far from the treee." I watched Bush Sr. tell me "read my lips, no new taxes." A few months later we had new taxes. I suspect we will find in years to come that the little bush NEVER gave up alcahol "nose candy" or women. Cocaine would better explain rug burns on the face than a pretzel. Very few people ever kick cocaine addiction and none do it on their own! The really sad part is there is no one running now who will fix any of this. We have a sick economy. A credit colapse. Real estate values are plumeting (home equity was a source of easy money for years) Inflation is on track to hit double didgits this year and energy prices will destroy the service sector. Industry is leaving the country with NO penalty. We are borrowing trom China and Japan (a trillion dollars) with no end in site. It is not a rosy picture!

Slàinte,

Patch    

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 12-Mar-2008, 11:44 AM
I dislike arrogance and incompetence. I dislike a leader that acts as if he won by overwhelming mandate and then radically change policy and procedure based on a false sense of righteousness. I detest those placed into positions of authority who do not know the first thing of running the business of public governance nor specifics of their responsibility to the constitution. I am dead against those who place their ideology above form or function (and reality for some). I abhor those that believe might is right regardless of right or wrong. I do not care for bureacrats, pharisees and paperpushers who don't place common sense in the action performed. I don't believe government should represent the interest of its people through business and they in turn take care of the people. I don't believe privatization is in the best interest of our country because it takes away accountability and responsibility of the public. I believe if you have a vested interest in your country everyone is better off.
This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it. king.gif

Posted by: John Clements 12-Mar-2008, 01:17 PM
QUOTE (FamhairCloiche @ 10-Mar-2008, 12:45 PM)
I think you guys give them way too much credit.  In my opinion, the bulk of our problems today stem from the fact that in order to get Congress to continually fund his war, Bush had to write them a blank check for whatever other damn toys they wanted.
Now every man woman and child in the US is in debt to the tune of $400K a piece!

Excuse me FamhairCloiche, but I can’t help but think that you haven’t read a lot of the posts, prior to your above post, because if you had. You would know that a lot of us, (and most definitely me), don’t give these people credit for anything, unless of course your talking about the “BAD” things they’ve done, in which case I totaly agree with you, but even more vehemently. Anyway, well said.

Posted by: John Clements 12-Mar-2008, 01:18 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 11-Mar-2008, 01:52 PM)
I feel that the little bush will go down in history as one of the most dangerous leaders we have had to deal with! Few realize the true extent of our loss of Constitutional rights under this president. Clinton lied about sex and to my knowledge no one died because of it. Our little bush lied about much more important things and many of our finest young people have died because as a result, and tens of thousands more have been greviously injured and/or horribly maimed. My Grandfather was a very wise man. One of his favorite sayings was,"the nut never falls far from the treee." I watched Bush Sr. tell me "read my lips, no new taxes." A few months later we had new taxes. I suspect we will find in years to come that the little bush NEVER gave up alcahol "nose candy" or women. Cocaine would better explain rug burns on the face than a pretzel. Very few people ever kick cocaine addiction and none do it on their own! The really sad part is there is no one running now who will fix any of this. We have a sick economy. A credit colapse. Real estate values are plumeting (home equity was a source of easy money for years) Inflation is on track to hit double didgits this year and energy prices will destroy the service sector. Industry is leaving the country with NO penalty. We are borrowing trom China and Japan (a trillion dollars) with no end in site. It is not a rosy picture!

Slàinte,

Patch    

Well said.

Posted by: John Clements 12-Mar-2008, 01:19 PM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 12-Mar-2008, 12:44 PM)
I dislike arrogance and incompetence. I dislike a leader that acts as if he won by overwhelming mandate and then radically change policy and procedure based on a false sense of righteousness. I detest those placed into positions of authority who do not know the first thing of running the business of public governance nor specifics of their responsibility to the constitution. I am dead against those who place their ideology above form or function (and reality for some). I abhor those that believe might is right regardless of right or wrong. I do not care for bureacrats, pharisees and paperpushers who don't place common sense in the action performed. I don't believe government should represent the interest of its people through business and they in turn take care of the people. I don't believe privatization is in the best interest of our country because it takes away accountability and responsibility of the public. I believe if you have a vested interest in your country everyone is better off.
This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it. king.gif

Right on man!

Posted by: maisky 13-Mar-2008, 03:11 PM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 12-Mar-2008, 11:44 AM)
I dislike arrogance and incompetence. I dislike a leader that acts as if he won by overwhelming mandate and then radically change policy and procedure based on a false sense of righteousness. I detest those placed into positions of authority who do not know the first thing of running the business of public governance nor specifics of their responsibility to the constitution. I am dead against those who place their ideology above form or function (and reality for some). I abhor those that believe might is right regardless of right or wrong. I do not care for bureacrats, pharisees and paperpushers who don't place common sense in the action performed. I don't believe government should represent the interest of its people through business and they in turn take care of the people. I don't believe privatization is in the best interest of our country because it takes away accountability and responsibility of the public. I believe if you have a vested interest in your country everyone is better off.
This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it. king.gif

OMG! Truth and Common Sense in the Politics forum!! What will be next? Pigs flying? Wow! Very well said!

Posted by: FamhairCloiche 13-Mar-2008, 04:00 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 13-Mar-2008, 03:11 PM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 12-Mar-2008, 11:44 AM)
I dislike arrogance and incompetence. I dislike a leader that acts as if he won by overwhelming mandate and then radically change policy and procedure based on a false sense of righteousness. I detest those placed into positions of authority who do not know the first thing of running the business of public governance nor specifics of their responsibility to the constitution. I am dead against those who place their ideology above form or function (and reality for some). I abhor those that believe might is right regardless of right or wrong. I do not care for bureacrats, pharisees and paperpushers who don't place common sense in the action performed. I don't believe government should represent the interest of its people through business and they in turn take care of the people. I don't believe privatization is in the best interest of our country because it takes away accountability and responsibility of the public. I believe if you have a vested interest in your country everyone is better off.
This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it. king.gif

OMG! Truth and Common Sense in the Politics forum!! What will be next? Pigs flying? Wow! Very well said!

Common Sense?
Could it be that UlsterScotNutt has read Mr. Paine's pamphlet as well?

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 14-Mar-2008, 07:28 AM
QUOTE (FamhairCloiche @ 13-Mar-2008, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 13-Mar-2008, 03:11 PM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 12-Mar-2008, 11:44 AM)
I dislike arrogance and incompetence. I dislike a leader that acts as if he won by overwhelming mandate and then radically change policy and procedure based on a false sense of righteousness. I detest those placed into positions of authority who do not know the first thing of running the business of public governance nor specifics of their responsibility to the constitution. I am dead against those who place their ideology above form or function (and reality for some). I abhor those that believe might is right regardless of right or wrong. I do not care for bureacrats, pharisees and paperpushers who don't place common sense in the action performed. I don't believe government should represent the interest of its people through business and they in turn take care of the people. I don't believe privatization is in the best interest of our country because it takes away accountability and responsibility of the public. I believe if you have a vested interest in your country everyone is better off.
This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it. king.gif

OMG! Truth and Common Sense in the Politics forum!! What will be next? Pigs flying? Wow! Very well said!

Common Sense?
Could it be that UlsterScotNutt has read Mr. Paine's pamphlet as well?

Thank you..... thank you very much.

I have not but will now read Paine's pamphet. I understand he was quite a firebrand in the cause for revolution.

I, sadly sad.gif , did not take my education serious in my youth and as I age I find I have a need to know more.

Posted by: maisky 01-Apr-2008, 07:31 AM
Another one of GWB's buddies bites the dust:

ADMINISTRATION
Alphonso Gets Evicted
This morning, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson announced he is stepping down effective April 18. While the White House has so far refused to give a reason for his departure, Jackson faces ongoing probes "by a federal grand jury, the Justice Department, the FBI and the HUD inspector general." Earlier this month, Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) sent a letter to President Bush "urging him to request Mr. Jackson's resignation, arguing that accusations of wrongdoing had made him ineffective." Their calls joined similar ones from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Rep. Henr y Waxman (D-CA), and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in 2006. Jackson was one of Bush's few remaining holdovers from Texas, after a parade of these loyalists -- including Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Dan Bartlett -- left the White House last year. Like so many of Bush's Texas friends, Jackson's legacy will be one of incompetence, corruption, and political cronyism. While he was busy awarding lucrative no-bid contracts to his golfing buddies and erecting giant photo homages to himself, the nati on was spiraling into the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression.

A PHILADELPHIA STORY: One of the most recent scandals to come to light focuses on Jackson's willingness to retaliate against employees unwilling to participate in his cronyism. In 2006, Jackson allegedly demanded that the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) "transfer a $2 million public property" at a "substantial discount" to Kenny Gamble, a developer, former soul-music songwriter, and friend of Jackson's. When PHA director Carl Greene refused, Jackson and his aides called Philadelphia's mayor and "followed up with 'menacing' threats about the property and other housing programs in at least a dozen letters and pho ne calls over an 11-month period." For example, Orlando Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at HUD, suggested in an e-mail that the agency "make his [Green's] life less happy." Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing, proposed that they "[t]ake away all of his Federal dollars." According to Green, Jackson's politically motivated plan to remove federal funds from Philadelphia "could raise rents for most of its 84,000 low-income tenants and force the layoffs of 250 people." "This kind of stuff undermines public confidence in our officials," Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said to Jackson durin g a recent congressional hearing.

LOYAL BUSHIES ONLY: In May 2007, Jackson testified to Congress, "I don't touch contracts." In retrospect, that statement appears to have been at best a gross inaccuracy, and at worst, an outright lie. In 2006, Jackson told a group of business leaders in Texas that he refuses to award contracts to people who disagree with the President. During this controversial speech on April 28, 2006, Jackson recounted a conversation he had with a prospective contractor who had a "heck of a proposal." This contractor, however, told Jackson, "I don't like President Bush." Jackson said that he thought to himself, "Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected." Jackson subsequently refused to award the man the contract, despite the merits of the proposal. A former HUD assistant secretary also confirmed that Jackson told agency employees to "consider presidential supporters when you are considering the selected candidates for discretionary contracts." He also said that he "did not want contracts" awarded to certain "political groups," which included "Democrats." Jackson's actions appeared to violate the Federal Aquisition Regu ations (48 CFR 3.101-1), which states, "Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and...with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none."

CRONYISM OVER COMPETENCE: In Oct. 2007, federal investigators looked into whether, after Hurricane Katrina, Jackson lined up an emergency "no-bid contract" at the HUD-controlled Housing Authority of New Orleans for "golfing buddy" and friend William Hairston. According to HUD, the emergency contract paid Hairston $392,000 over a year and a half; Hairston's partner companies also received "direct contracts" with HUD. One of the companies which received a contract in New Orleans, Columbia Residential, had "significant financial ties to Jackson." Jackson's wife also had "ties to two companies that did business with the New Orleans authority." Atlanta lawyer Michael Hollis, another Jackson friend, "appears to have been paid approximately $1 million for managing the troubled Virgin Islands Housing Authority," despite having "no experience in running a public housing agency." A "top Jackson aide" reportedly made it clear to officials within HUD that "Jackson wanted Hollis" for the job. Curiously, Hollis received more than four times the salary of his predecessor.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 01-Apr-2008, 05:18 PM
Just under 100 years ago this country and in Particular Chicago, IL were over-run with Gangs and Violence, that was from Mobsters. Now we have progressed to where instead of Mobsters thinking themselves above the Law...THEY ARE THE LAW!

Posted by: Camac 01-Apr-2008, 05:47 PM
Druid of Ark;

Shakespeare character in Henry VI had it right when he said " The first thing we should do , let's kill all the Lawyers (substitute Politicians) "They are of a breed. They become Lawyers in order to become Politicians who make the Laws and then get more Lawyers to interpet those laws who in turn become politicians: ad nausium, ad nausium. puke.gif puke.gif disgust.gif

Camac

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 01-Apr-2008, 05:54 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 01-Apr-2008, 06:47 PM)
Druid of Ark;

Shakespeare character in Henry VI had it right when he said " The first thing we should do , let's kill all the Lawyers (substitute Politicians) "They are of a breed. They become Lawyers in order to become Politicians who make the Laws and then get more Lawyers to interpet those laws who in turn become politicians: ad nausium, ad nausium. puke.gif puke.gif disgust.gif

Camac

Thomas Jefferson said, "That government which governs least, governs best." Other than that I agree with Camac that Lawyers/Politicians are Nauseating and add to Nausea.

Posted by: John Clements 02-Apr-2008, 08:26 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 01-Apr-2008, 06:18 PM)
Just under 100 years ago this country and in Particular Chicago, IL were over-run with Gangs and Violence, that was from Mobsters. Now we have progressed to where instead of Mobsters thinking themselves above the Law...THEY ARE THE LAW!

Druid, I have to say…I like the fire in those words.
JC

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 02-Apr-2008, 09:49 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 01-Apr-2008, 08:31 AM)
Another one of GWB's buddies bites the dust:

ADMINISTRATION
Alphonso Gets Evicted
This morning, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson announced he is stepping down effective April 18. While the White House has so far refused to give a reason for his departure, Jackson faces ongoing probes "by a federal grand jury, the Justice Department, the FBI and the HUD inspector general." Earlier this month, Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) sent a letter to President Bush "urging him to request Mr. Jackson's resignation, arguing that accusations of wrongdoing had made him ineffective." Their calls joined similar ones from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Rep. Henr y Waxman (D-CA), and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in 2006. Jackson was one of Bush's few remaining holdovers from Texas, after a parade of these loyalists -- including Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Dan Bartlett -- left the White House last year. Like so many of Bush's Texas friends, Jackson's legacy will be one of incompetence, corruption, and political cronyism. While he was busy awarding lucrative no-bid contracts to his golfing buddies and erecting giant photo homages to himself, the nati on was spiraling into the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression.

A PHILADELPHIA STORY: One of the most recent scandals to come to light focuses on Jackson's willingness to retaliate against employees unwilling to participate in his cronyism. In 2006, Jackson allegedly demanded that the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) "transfer a $2 million public property" at a "substantial discount" to Kenny Gamble, a developer, former soul-music songwriter, and friend of Jackson's. When PHA director Carl Greene refused, Jackson and his aides called Philadelphia's mayor and "followed up with 'menacing' threats about the property and other housing programs in at least a dozen letters and pho ne calls over an 11-month period." For example, Orlando Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at HUD, suggested in an e-mail that the agency "make his [Green's] life less happy." Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing, proposed that they "[t]ake away all of his Federal dollars." According to Green, Jackson's politically motivated plan to remove federal funds from Philadelphia "could raise rents for most of its 84,000 low-income tenants and force the layoffs of 250 people." "This kind of stuff undermines public confidence in our officials," Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said to Jackson durin g a recent congressional hearing.

LOYAL BUSHIES ONLY: In May 2007, Jackson testified to Congress, "I don't touch contracts." In retrospect, that statement appears to have been at best a gross inaccuracy, and at worst, an outright lie. In 2006, Jackson told a group of business leaders in Texas that he refuses to award contracts to people who disagree with the President. During this controversial speech on April 28, 2006, Jackson recounted a conversation he had with a prospective contractor who had a "heck of a proposal." This contractor, however, told Jackson, "I don't like President Bush." Jackson said that he thought to himself, "Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected." Jackson subsequently refused to award the man the contract, despite the merits of the proposal. A former HUD assistant secretary also confirmed that Jackson told agency employees to "consider presidential supporters when you are considering the selected candidates for discretionary contracts." He also said that he "did not want contracts" awarded to certain "political groups," which included "Democrats." Jackson's actions appeared to violate the Federal Aquisition Regu ations (48 CFR 3.101-1), which states, "Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and...with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none."

CRONYISM OVER COMPETENCE: In Oct. 2007, federal investigators looked into whether, after Hurricane Katrina, Jackson lined up an emergency "no-bid contract" at the HUD-controlled Housing Authority of New Orleans for "golfing buddy" and friend William Hairston. According to HUD, the emergency contract paid Hairston $392,000 over a year and a half; Hairston's partner companies also received "direct contracts" with HUD. One of the companies which received a contract in New Orleans, Columbia Residential, had "significant financial ties to Jackson." Jackson's wife also had "ties to two companies that did business with the New Orleans authority." Atlanta lawyer Michael Hollis, another Jackson friend, "appears to have been paid approximately $1 million for managing the troubled Virgin Islands Housing Authority," despite having "no experience in running a public housing agency." A "top Jackson aide" reportedly made it clear to officials within HUD that "Jackson wanted Hollis" for the job. Curiously, Hollis received more than four times the salary of his predecessor.

Excellent posting.

This is a classic example of how the Bush administration operated, from the Justice Department to HUD to EPA and on and on. Political favoritism and idealogy over substance and benifit to the nation. These people were only interested in creating a world through their eyes, for their themselves in a false sense of rightiousness. They placed themselves above others, the nation and the Constitution. The means and the ends were all justified in their reality.

As VP Cheney has said in numerous situations. Lets not let the facts cloud the issue, paraphrased.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 02-Apr-2008, 06:06 PM
Lest we forget the American Red Cross was independent of Government meddling before the Bush Administration forced the ARC to accept Elizabeth Dole (wife of Bob Dole) as the Director. This crossed the line of being non-Political. And in her short tenure she destroyed the ARC, and that gave rise to FEMA (Federal Emergency Mismangement Administration). Which showed its wprth in the aftermath of Katrina. The next President should disband FEMA and give money to the Red Cross to do what they have done best for years, by Congressional Mandate. They are the only Agency that is mandated by Congress to act in Emergencies.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 03-Apr-2008, 02:46 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 01-Apr-2008, 06:54 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 01-Apr-2008, 06:47 PM)
Druid of Ark;

Shakespeare character in Henry VI had it right when he said " The first thing we should do , let's kill all the Lawyers (substitute Politicians) "They are of a breed. They become Lawyers in order to become Politicians who make the Laws and then get more Lawyers to interpet those laws who in turn become politicians: ad nausium, ad nausium.  puke.gif  puke.gif  disgust.gif

Camac

Thomas Jefferson said, "That government which governs least, governs best." Other than that I agree with Camac that Lawyers/Politicians are Nauseating and add to Nausea.

As much as I may feel that lawyers are a disservice , I think we would all do well to remember that we are a nation founded on the rule of law and not a nation founded on the rule of men.

It is just this "forgetfulness" of this administration that "no man is above the law" that really ticks me off.

The disservice comes from those men of the law, "Congress" , for allowing the "rule of men" to win out.
king.gif beer_mug.gif note.gif thumbs_up.gif Peach Cobbler for everyone!!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 03-Apr-2008, 03:36 PM
English 101, The opposite of Pro is Con, thus the opposite of Progress is Congress. The "Laws" are man made and thus often conflict with the natural order of things. Thus they are often contradictory of each other. Brehon Law was designed to flollow the natrual order of things and was thus superior to the man made laws, which change at the whims of Congress.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 03-Apr-2008, 03:59 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 03-Apr-2008, 04:36 PM)
English 101, The opposite of Pro is Con, thus the opposite of Progress is Congress. The "Laws" are man made and thus often conflict with the natural order of things. Thus they are often contradictory of each other. Brehon Law was designed to flollow the natrual order of things and was thus superior to the man made laws, which change at the whims of Congress.

Brehons Law or early Irish Law was and is of men. It is mostly a civil based oral traditon law system. It had its place in time. I don't think the application of social stratus, from lord to serf, to law would go over very well. Though some would say we do have a different application of the law based on economic stratus.
king.gif I want to be king. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Camac 03-Apr-2008, 06:02 PM
Laws are made by man for the governance of man. Some laws are basic such as "Thou shall not Kill". Problems arise in that the majority of Laws are interpretive, a thousand readers a thousand interpretations. There is also the problem that those who make the Laws are the governers therefore they stand above the governed.

Camac.

Posted by: stoirmeil 03-Apr-2008, 06:11 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 03-Apr-2008, 04:36 PM)
English 101, The opposite of Pro is Con, thus the opposite of Progress is Congress.

Sounds like a bumper sticker to me.

"Progress" comes from the root meaning "walk forward;" "congress" means to "walk together." "Contra" is against -- the "con" in "pro and con" is really "contra." I've never seen "contragress," but there's no reason for it not to be coined now if it's useful. "Regress," we already have.

Did Alphonso Jackson say it's because he needs to spend more quality time with his family? rolleyes.gif He's been awful busy -- probably they miss him at home.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 04-Apr-2008, 09:02 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 03-Apr-2008, 07:11 PM)
Sounds like a bumper sticker to me.

"Progress" comes from the root meaning "walk forward;" "congress" means to "walk together." "Contra" is against -- the "con" in "pro and con" is really "contra." I've never seen "contragress," but there's no reason for it not to be coined now if it's useful. "Regress," we already have.

Did Alphonso Jackson say it's because he needs to spend more quality time with his family? rolleyes.gif He's been awful busy -- probably they miss him at home.

stoirmeil,

Say what they will when they leave, they have left a legacy behind and their actions and inactions will speak for them.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 04-Apr-2008, 11:45 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 03-Apr-2008, 07:11 PM)
Sounds like a bumper sticker to me.

"Progress" comes from the root meaning "walk forward;" "congress" means to "walk together." "Contra" is against -- the "con" in "pro and con" is really "contra." I've never seen "contragress," but there's no reason for it not to be coined now if it's useful. "Regress," we already have.

Did Alphonso Jackson say it's because he needs to spend more quality time with his family? rolleyes.gif He's been awful busy -- probably they miss him at home.

The "congress" rarely walk together thus the more likely meaning is con the opposite of Pro. Instead oif working on solving problems they have simply DIGRESS and created more big government agencies to soak up more money that they do not have in the first place, and in doing so have gotten farther from solving problems. I applaud the members of Government that are trying to shrink the government. Government after all is often refered to as a pain in the arse (which also describes hemorrhoids) So lets get some Preparation G and shrink the government.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 04-Apr-2008, 12:15 PM
"When God punishes a land, he deprives its leaders of wisdom." - Italian Proverb

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 04-Apr-2008, 12:21 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Apr-2008, 07:02 PM)
Laws are made by man for the governance of man. Some laws are basic such as "Thou shall not Kill". Problems arise in that the majority of Laws are interpretive, a thousand readers a thousand interpretations. There is also the problem that those who make the Laws are the governers therefore they stand above the governed.

Camac.

Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature." - Albert Camus

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 04-Apr-2008, 12:35 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Apr-2008, 07:02 PM)
Laws are made by man for the governance of man. Some laws are basic such as "Thou shall not Kill". Problems arise in that the majority of Laws are interpretive, a thousand readers a thousand interpretations. There is also the problem that those who make the Laws are the governers therefore they stand above the governed.

Camac.

Well , we have the 10 Commandments, good basic rules that are fundamental to an orderly society.

Then we have institutions in place to be interpretive of the law and we have institutions in place to insure the governors and the governed are served the same justice by law.
It is the governeds' reponsibility to hold their governors accountable. Thats how our country was founded

It is exactly at the times that "rules" become of "man" and not of "law" that we have things like, Iraq, the housing mortgage debacle, corruption, cronyism, policy and procedures based on idealogy and not need driven.

king.gif beer_mug.gif thumbs_up.gif walkman.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 04-Apr-2008, 12:58 PM
"Well , we have the 10 Commandments, good basic rules that are fundamental to an orderly society." The LAWS, you mention are a plagiarized version of the "Code of Hammarabi" that the Jews used as being from Moses. By Natural Laws, I am refering to the Brehon Laws of the Celts. That are in keeping with the natural order of the Universe. Not the changing moods of humanity.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 04-Apr-2008, 01:38 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 04-Apr-2008, 01:58 PM)
"Well , we have the 10 Commandments, good basic rules that are fundamental to an orderly society." The LAWS, you mention are a plagiarized version of the "Code of Hammarabi" that the Jews used as being from Moses. By Natural Laws, I am refering to the Brehon Laws of the Celts. That are in keeping with the natural order of the Universe. Not the changing moods of humanity.

DoA, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The Code was a basic civil and criminal list of "What if actions" and behaviors expected within Hammurabis' kingdom. They were very much class and status based. If a shepard steals anothers goat, heres the punishment, if a slave runs away heres the result, if a son disobeys a father here is whats gonna happen. A basic cause and effect code book. The Jews/Hebrews very well got some of their laws from this basic and ancient Code. It was even based on an older set of rules.

The 10 Commandments were just that, commandments equal to all, from king to slave and were specific rules saying NO, you may not do this. God said, "Thou shalt not kill/murder" and that was that. Man applied the punishment on earth.

Here is a good quick read on The Code of Hammurabi

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html

Brehon Law was not a "natural order of the universe" . It was a "natural order of the way men see things relative to their time and existence". It is the laws of relationship of man to man. This oral law was based on mans customs and practises, how much more of " moods of humanity " can you get. Did they change from century to century, probably very little in the early times as man was slow to change and his needs were met the same for long periods of time.

Here are a couple of quick reads:

http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster%20Archives/brehon_laws.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon_Laws
http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/3CBAE4FE856E917B80256DF800494ED9?opendocument

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 04-Apr-2008, 02:21 PM
Lest we forget, it seems that this information I got by E-mail is timely and warns us of danger past and present...
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'

Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'

'No, sir,' continued Ollie.

'No? And why not?' the senator asked.

'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'

'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.

'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.

'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'

'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.

'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.


'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.

'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.

Also:

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, BILL CLINTON, demanded Israel release all the Prisoners
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center .. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
If you agree that the American public should be made aware of this fact, pass this on.
One can only Wonder if Bill acted on instructions from Hillary!



Posted by: stoirmeil 04-Apr-2008, 03:25 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 04-Apr-2008, 03:21 PM)

One can only Wonder if Bill acted on instructions from Hillary!

Wow, you have a lot of energy, or at least time on your hands. All this long windy story, just to take another slam at Hilary. I did wonder where it was going for a while there. smile.gif

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 04-Apr-2008, 03:44 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 04-Apr-2008, 03:21 PM)
Lest we forget, it seems that this information I got by E-mail is timely and warns us of danger past and present...
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'

Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'

'No, sir,' continued Ollie.

'No? And why not?' the senator asked.

'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'

'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.

'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.

'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'

'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.

'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.


'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.

'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.

Also:

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, BILL CLINTON, demanded Israel release all the Prisoners
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center .. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
If you agree that the American public should be made aware of this fact, pass this on.
One can only Wonder if Bill acted on instructions from Hillary!

This Ollie North story is all wrong. Please review the facts:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

This Mohammad Atta story is all wrong. Please review the facts:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.asp

So please DO NOT pass it on

Posted by: John Clements 04-Apr-2008, 04:15 PM
This is good stuff guys, keep it up.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 05-Apr-2008, 08:56 PM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 03-Apr-2008, 04:59 PM)
Brehons Law or early Irish Law was and is of men. It is mostly a civil based oral traditon law system. It had its place in time. I don't think the application of social stratus, from lord to serf, to law would go over very well. Though some would say we do have a different application of the law based on economic stratus.
king.gif I want to be king. rolleyes.gif

IMHO, there is a lot to be said in favor of Brehon Law. It lasted for at least a millenium or two, and possibly longer, until brutally suppressed by the Anglo-Normans. It was a very libertarian system, which depended on the consent of everyone to work, to such an extent that an Englishman (I don't recall which one) commented to the effect that an Irishman would rather have a Brehon rule against him than make an unjust ruling in the Irishman's favor, so long as all rulings by the Brehon were just, even against the king. The sense of honor and justice inherent in the Brehon Law are sorely missing in government today at all levels, but particularly at the Federal level.
One key part of the Brehon Law that we could use now is that, unlike Anglo-Norman feudalism, kings were selected on merit and could be removed at any time if they proved unworthy.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 06-Apr-2008, 02:21 PM
Very true!

Posted by: John Clements 06-Apr-2008, 02:31 PM
Impeach Team Radio Spot: http://www.impeachteam.com

Major Impeachment Movement Breakout in Oregon, Three Congressional Candidates Form Impeach Team


InboxX

Reply to all
Forward
Reply by chat
Filter messages like this
Print
Add to Contacts list
Delete this message
Report phishing
Report not phishing
Show original
Show in fixed width font
Show in variable width font
Message text garbled?
Why is this spam/nonspam?
The Pen to me
show details Apr 3 (4 days ago) Reply



Inspired by the valiant primary challenge of Shirley Golub, against
the Speaker of the House herself, other candidates are rising up all
over the country to issue impeachment based congressional primary
challenges of their own.

In Oregon in particular, which has a relatively early primary on May
22, Mark Welyczko OR-01, Joe Walsh OR-03 and Nancy Moran OR-05, are
teaming together to run joint radio spots on Portland's Air America
affiliate. You can listen to the radio spot on this page.

Impeach Team Radio Spot: http://www.impeachteam.com

The beautiful thing about these three districts is that they are
arranged around Portland like a pinwheel, and so each of these
candidates is sure of reaching the constituents of their own
district, plus demonstrating solidarity on the impeachment issue.
Won't you make a contribution from the page above to these brave
candidates today, to join with them in their solidarity?

With the forced retirement of Admiral Fallon, who famously said that
an attack on Iran would not happen on his watch, there is a real
threat the the White House could do something utterly insane if left
unconfronted by a cowardly and docile Congress just trying to tread
water through to the next election. But those in the Middle East know
how imminent and real the danger is. After Cheney visited the Saudis
last week, the next day they were warning their own people about how
to protect themselves from nuclear fallout, as from a nuclear first
strike on Iran.

And the only thing that will get Congress to even remotely pay
attention to we the people is to actually mount serious challenges to
their own seats in the primaries, which is what Shirley Golub is
doing in San Francisco, and what Mark Welyczko, Joe Walsh, and Nancy
Moran are now also doing in their own districts. On this same page
below are links to all their individual sites if you want to know
more about what they stand for on other issues.

Impeach Team Radio Spot: http://www.impeachteam.com

But unless Congress acts on impeachment before the end of this term,
not only is there a threat of an even wider war, you can take it to
the bank that Bush will not only blanket pardon every one of his
cronies, he will also pardon himself. Those of you who might hold out
some hope of accountability after Jan 2009, remember we warned you
this was coming. Indeed, we believe starting an even bigger war is
their PLAN to elect another war president, on a wave of resurrected
war fever.

We have one and only one chance to save the Constitution, by forcing
Congress to stand up for itself, and for us, now. And only viable
primary challenges will do it. Otherwise the damage will be complete.
If Bush and Cheney are not guilty of the highest of high
Constitutional crimes then no president need ever fear being held to
account ever again. If we do not act now, whether there are 7 months
left or 7 minutes, then any future president will take that as a free
pass to do whatever the hell they want the last year or so of their
elected term.

And remember, if you can contribute $100 or more to this urgent
initiative, the Impeach Team will send you one of the new bright
orange "IMPEACH BOTH!!" caps, to proudly proclaim your membership on
the Impeach Team.

Paid for equally by The Committee to Elect Mark Welyczko, Joe Walsh
for Congress, and Nancy Moran for Congress

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.shirley08.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.shirley08.com/out.htm

usalone205b:96911

Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2008, Patent pending,
All rights reserved

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 07-Apr-2008, 08:34 AM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 05-Apr-2008, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 03-Apr-2008, 04:59 PM)
Brehons Law or early Irish Law was and is of men. It is mostly a civil based oral traditon law system. It had its place in time. I don't think the application of social stratus, from lord to serf,  to law would go over very well. Though some would say we do have a different application of the law based on economic stratus.
king.gif I want to be king. rolleyes.gif

IMHO, there is a lot to be said in favor of Brehon Law. It lasted for at least a millenium or two, and possibly longer, until brutally suppressed by the Anglo-Normans. It was a very libertarian system, which depended on the consent of everyone to work, to such an extent that an Englishman (I don't recall which one) commented to the effect that an Irishman would rather have a Brehon rule against him than make an unjust ruling in the Irishman's favor, so long as all rulings by the Brehon were just, even against the king. The sense of honor and justice inherent in the Brehon Law are sorely missing in government today at all levels, but particularly at the Federal level.
One key part of the Brehon Law that we could use now is that, unlike Anglo-Norman feudalism, kings were selected on merit and could be removed at any time if they proved unworthy.

I do not challenge Brehons Laws as fair and equitable and they very well met the needs of the times. Many say they were the very first truly enlightened laws and of equal justice for all. The lesson in them is in how they met the peoples needs at the time, in creating a fair and just system were all felt they had equality under the law.


I challenge the original statement that they were "the natural order of the universe" and the very first statement " designed to follow the natural order of things and was thus superior to the man made laws"

I am stating that "they are man made laws". They may very well have been ahead of their time, they served their people well and have been recognised as enlightened. Their application by the breitheamhm was sought out and respected.

Is dealing with things like inheritence rights, property disputes and such truly universal in scope and application.
The "natural" order of things applies to truth and how it was perceived and then applied to the dispensation of justice, not to any great and deep connection to a universal or godly knowledge above and beyond man.

These are laws by man, of man and for man. I have already commented on their merits.

So, are they universal and still servicible in todays world?
Are they superior to man made law or are they man made law?
Are they mystical and hence their origin and fountainhead unknown to man?

Posted by: John Clements 11-Jun-2008, 06:16 AM
Want to impeach Bush and Cheney, impeach Pelosi first!

Check out the 35 count indictment brought to the house by Dennis Kucinich, to “IMPEACH” Bush and Chaney on C-SPA today. (We can not afford not too!)

PS; I like Obama, but Kucinich is the man!

Posted by: Patch 11-Jun-2008, 10:03 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 11-Jun-2008, 01:16 AM)
Want to impeach Bush and Cheney, impeach Pelosi first!

Check out the 35 count indictment brought to the house by Dennis Kucinich, to “IMPEACH” Bush and Chaney on C-SPA today. (We can not afford not too!)

PS; I like Obama, but Kucinich is the man!

I wish it could happen. HoweverI do not think the Democrats are organized enough to pull it off. I have pressured my Republican rep to vote for impeachment if it comes up but since I personally know that both he and his father, Also a rep, were crooks (and he knows I know) I do not expect he listens to me.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 11-Jun-2008, 10:15 AM

"We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that
the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is
the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape -
that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to
the views of political institutions of a different form? It is
too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the
public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is
the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government
whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the
attainment of this object."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 45)

Reference: Federalist No. 45.

Interesting. One should read all of the Federalist papers to get a "true" view of what our founding fathers intended to accomplish with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously James Madison did not intend for Govt. to degenerate into what we have today!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 11-Jun-2008, 01:05 PM

"[H]onesty will be found on every experiment, to be the best and
only true policy; let us then as a Nation be just."

-- George Washington (Circular letter to the States, 14 June 1783)

Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (244)

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 11-Jun-2008, 01:12 PM
"My confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and
good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Edward Rutledge, 1788)

Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition),
Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., 7:81.


How did we sink so low?!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 11-Jun-2008, 01:22 PM
"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his
countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes
of private life. Pious, just humane, temperate, and sincere;
uniform dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying
to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting;
correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue
always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private charter
gave effulgence to his public virtues;. Such was the man for
whom our nation morns"

-- John Marshall (official eulogy of George Washington, delivered
by Richard Henry Lee, 26 December 1799)

Would bush fare so well today?

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: stoirmeil 11-Jun-2008, 01:36 PM
JC -- it's expensive, this impeachment thing. Explain me this please: The clown is out of office in six months. What do you envision that this burden on the taxpayers will accomplish now, except to put another indelible stain on a legacy that is already discolored beyond all laundering? Is it really more than signally punitive? bangin.gif

Posted by: Patch 11-Jun-2008, 01:40 PM
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the
service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman."

-- Thomas Paine (The American Crisis, No. 1, 19 December 1776)

Reference: Thomas Paine: Collected Writings , Foner ed., Library
of America (91)

Isn't it amazing how some things hold true through the ages?

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: maisky 18-Jun-2008, 06:03 AM
From CNN this morning: The torture of prisoners is now well documented.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former terrorist suspects detained by the United States were tortured, according to medical examinations detailed in a report released Wednesday by a human rights group.


A human rights group has concluded that terrorist suspects held by the U.S. were tortured in captivity.

The Massachusetts-based group Physicians for Human Rights reached that conclusion after clinical evaluations of 11 former detainees, who had been held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan.

The detainees were never charged with crimes.

"We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse often causing lasting suffering," said Dr. Allen Keller, a medical evaluator for the study.

The doctors' group said in a 121-page report that it uncovered medical evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses.

The report is prefaced by retired U.S. Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led the Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2003.

"There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes," Taguba states. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

Over the years, reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib and allegations of torture at Guantanamo prompted the Bush administration to deny that the U.S. military tortures detainees.

Four of the men evaluated were arrested in or taken to Afghanistan between late 2001 and early 2003 and were later sent to Guantanamo Bay, where they were held for an average of three years before they were released without charge, the report says. The other seven were detained in Iraq in 2003 and released within a year, the report says.

Don't Miss
Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts
Release Chinese from Gitmo, U.S. lawmakers urge
All of the subjects told the doctors' group examiners they they were subjected to multiple forms of torture or ill-treatment that "often occurred in combination over a long period of time," the report states.

However, while the report presents synopses of the detainees' backgrounds based on interviews with them, the authors did not have access to the detainees' prior medical histories. Therefore, there's no way to know whether any of the inmates may have had medical or mental problems before being detained.

Among the ex-detainees is an Iraqi in his mid-40s, identified only as Laith, who was taken into custody by U.S. soldiers in October 2003 and released from Abu Ghraib in June 2004. According to the report, Laith was subjected to sleep deprivation, electric shocks and threats of sexual abuse to himself and his family.

"They took off even my underwear. They asked me to do some movements that make me look in a very bad way so they can take photographs. ... They were trying to make me look like an animal," Laith told examiners, according to the report.

Laith, the report states, said the most "painful" experiences involved threats to his family: "And they asked me, 'Have you ever heard voices of women in this prison?' I answered 'yes.' They were saying, 'Then you will hear your mothers and sisters when we are raping them.'"

The examiners concluded in the report that, "Laith appears to have suffered severe and lasting physical and psychological injuries as a result of his arrest and incarceration at Abu Ghraib prison."

Another detainee, Youssef, was detained by U.S. soldiers nearly seven years ago when he tried to enter Afghanistan from neighboring Pakistan without a passport, the report says. He initially was held in an Afghan prison, where he describes "being stripped naked, being intimidated by dogs, being hooded and being thrown against the wall on repeated occasions," the report says.

A few months later, he was taken to the Guantanamo Bay facility, where he was subjected to interrogators who would enter his cell and force him to lie on the floor with his hands tied behind his back to his feet, the report says.

Youssef said the interrogators wanted him to confess to being involved with the Taliban, the report says.

Based on its investigation, the report calls on the U.S. government to issue a formal apology to detainees subject to torture and ill-treatment by the military since fall 2001 in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

The rights group also demands that the Bush administration:

• "Repudiate all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment";

• establish an independent commission to fully investigate and public report the circumstances of detention and interrogation at U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay;

• hold individuals involved in torturing detainees accountable through criminal and civil processes;

• and thoroughly monitor the conditions at U.S.-run prison all over the world.

Since only 11 detainees were examined "the findings of this assessment cannot be generalized to the treatment of all detainees in U.S. custody," the report says.

However, the incidents documented are consistent with findings of other investigations into government treatment, "making it reasonable to conclude that these detainees were not the only ones abused, but are representative of a much larger number of detainees subjected to torture and ill-treatment while in U.S. custody."

Posted by: Patch 18-Jun-2008, 06:45 AM
This is a good reason why the president should always have a military background. Evading active military service does not count as "military service." the attempts of bush and his minions at torture have caused the deaths of american troops as surely as if he would have held a rifle to their head and pulled the trigger. I noticed that McCain now backs the administration on this. The bill of Rights and the amendment passed after the civil war (re: slavery) states that all persons living on territory held by or on American soil or its possessions have the same legal rights and protections as an American citizen. The Constitution further spells out who may establish "courts and tribunals" and the "little bush wasn't even on the "long list!!" We were supposed to be a nation of laws. People spoke poorly of Clinton and I personally believe he didn't use good judgement but he didn't trample our rights as the "bush monkeys" have. We attempted to impeach the wrong person!!! Things just get worse by the day!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 18-Jun-2008, 07:12 AM
Maisky;

This is neither surprising or new. Although I personally condemn the use of torture because not only is it inhumane it is unreliable as the individual will tell you what you want just to end the torment. In some instances it might be necessary and has produced results. I witness torture in Viet Nam in the form of beatings and using a cigarette to burn in an attempt to get information. Sometimes it was reliable more often not. Torture comes in many forms and has been around for millenia and will be for a long time to come its a fact of life. Every government has used it and secretly condoned it but will vehemently deny it.


Camac.

Posted by: John Clements 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 11-Jun-2008, 02:36 PM)
JC -- it's expensive, this impeachment thing.  Explain me this please:  The clown is out of office in six months.   What do you envision that this burden on the taxpayers will accomplish now, except to put another indelible stain on a legacy that is already discolored beyond all laundering?  Is it really more than signally punitive? bangin.gif

Stoirmeil -- you mean other then because it’s the right thing to do, which hasn’t happened in this country, at least in my life time, (without whole a lot of undo suffering.)

Well, for one reason, how about him attacking “Iran” tomorrow, (even though we all know, that their lying about the threat that Iran poses), just like they did in Iraq!

Or, he has “Black-Water” orchestrates another attack on America soil, (not unlike 911)? Either way, he not going to go away, election or no election, unless McCain wins, who is odiously a puppet! (You can tell by the way he moves his arms.)

Martial law will be the last nail in our coffin.

Speaking of the election, I’ve have recently learned that Obama, isn’t nearly as liberal a candidate as I thought. For one thing, he’s not in favor of impeaching the “Bush Gang”, he’s also beating the drum about Iran, and as it turns out. In spite of his campaign wealth, (due to grass root donations), the corporations own him, (just like they do us)!

The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and be dammed.

JC

Posted by: Patch 18-Jun-2008, 09:38 AM
Unfortunately it has been quite some time since a presidential candidate has been what he/she projected to the public. I do expect "martial law" and that will be BAD news!! Probably the best outcome (for survival) here would be a R president and a very strong D majority in the House and Senate. If Obama wins he will have the House and Senate backing him and you will find he is no different than other president (political parasite). Unfortunately American politics is totally corrupted, much as the Roman Empire was before its fall! There are already more people living off of our tax money in America than there are citizens paying taxes. That is not sustainable.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: maisky 19-Jun-2008, 03:04 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM)


The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and dammed.

JC

That would mean that Nadir would get 2 votes! woot!

Posted by: Patch 19-Jun-2008, 04:31 AM
I do not expect my candidate to do all that well, but every vote is important! Even if it is just in making a statement.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 19-Jun-2008, 06:40 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jun-2008, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM)


The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and dammed.

JC

That would mean that Nadir would get 2 votes! woot!

That may be true but then we would be the two smartest people out there.

Posted by: Patch 19-Jun-2008, 07:09 AM
John Clements
That may be true but then we would be the two smartest people out there.

I would have to agree. Both main party candidates are, to me, reminiscent of ripe fish.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: gwenlee 19-Jun-2008, 07:40 AM
When President Bush is out of office will we start calling for the impeachment of the next president too? You know who ever is elected won't make you happy either. wink.gif

Posted by: maisky 19-Jun-2008, 08:01 AM
I don't doubt in the least that President Obama will do a very credible job. Certainly much better than GWB. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Patch 19-Jun-2008, 08:12 AM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 19-Jun-2008, 02:40 AM)
When President Bush is out of office will we start calling for the impeachment of the next president too? You know who ever is elected won't make you happy either. wink.gif

Personally I was a Republican for nearly 40 years. I did not approve of the impeachment of Clinton as I felt what he did exhibited poor judgement it didn't rise to an impeachable offense. On the other hand bush convinced me that it was time to find a more credible party (Constitution Party). His actions did rise to the level for impeachment as did cheney's. Both failed to honor the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and defend it against all enemies both foiegn and domestic. On the false premise of providing safety (we are less safe today than ever before) both infringed on our guaranteed freedoms. That falls under "High Crimes". I personally do not expect either of the two major candidates today to be any better. They will probably be much worse.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 19-Jun-2008, 08:32 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jun-2008, 03:01 AM)
I don't doubt in the least that President Obama will do a very credible job. Certainly much better than GWB. rolleyes.gif

I hope you are right. I have tried to find as much as I could about both. McCain should scare the be-jebers out of everyone! Obama has a lot of areas in his history that as in bush's case seem to have disappeared. I saw today that at Russerts Memorial Service Obama and McCain sat together. Two Islamic women in traditional garb were sitting close enough to Obama to be on camera and were forced to move by Obama's people. (CNN and later on MSNBC)

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Jun-2008, 02:54 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 19-Jun-2008, 09:12 AM)
Personally I was a Republican for nearly 40 years. I did not approve of the impeachment of Clinton as I felt what he did exhibited poor judgement it didn't rise to an impeachable offense. On the other hand bush convinced me that it was time to find a more credible party (Constitution Party). His actions did rise to the level for impeachment as did cheney's. Both failed to honor the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and defend it against all enemies both foiegn and domestic. On the false premise of providing safety (we are less safe today than ever before) both infringed on our guaranteed freedoms. That falls under "High Crimes". I personally do not expect either of the two major candidates today to be any better. They will probably be much worse.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I'm afraid over the next 4 years our safty is only going to get worse.

Posted by: John Clements 19-Jun-2008, 03:00 PM
Breaking news: Army General says Bush administration guilty of war crimes
Bush is on a war crime spree, and only impeachment can stop him


http://mail.google.com/mail/?account_id=jcheadsup%40gmail.com#inbox/11aa1f013b8b30b6

Posted by: Patch 19-Jun-2008, 04:57 PM
I hyst saw that too. I agree but I do not think they will do it!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: stoirmeil 19-Jun-2008, 11:32 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jun-2008, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM)


The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and dammed.

JC

That would mean that Nadir would get 2 votes! woot!

NADER!!!!!!!!!! censored.gif furious.gif mad1.gif ranting.gif taz.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 20-Jun-2008, 01:09 AM
QUOTE
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jun-2008, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM)


The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and dammed.

JC 


That would mean that Nadir would get 2 votes! woot! 


NADER!!!!!!!!!!   



My! Such language! wink.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Patch 20-Jun-2008, 03:07 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 19-Jun-2008, 09:54 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 19-Jun-2008, 09:12 AM)
Personally I was a Republican for nearly 40 years.  I did not approve of the impeachment of Clinton as I felt what he did exhibited poor judgement it didn't rise to an impeachable offense.  On the other hand bush convinced me that it was time to find a more credible party (Constitution Party).  His actions did rise to the level for impeachment as did cheney's.  Both failed to honor the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and defend it against all enemies both foiegn and domestic.  On the false premise of providing safety (we are less safe today than ever before) both infringed on our guaranteed freedoms.  That falls under "High Crimes".  I personally do not expect either of the two major candidates today to be any better.  They will probably be much worse.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I'm afraid over the next 4 years our safty is only going to get worse.

You are right. Though if the present economic trend continues the next president will be in for one term only.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 20-Jun-2008, 11:30 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 20-Jun-2008, 12:32 AM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jun-2008, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM)


The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and dammed.

JC

That would mean that Nadir would get 2 votes! woot!

NADER!!!!!!!!!! censored.gif furious.gif mad1.gif ranting.gif taz.gif

Nadir:The lowest point
Nader: Poliitician who made a career out of destroying the Corvair, a vehicle that was ahead of its time, and for which the defects had been cured before he put it out of business, a low point for launching a political career.
Therefore,
Nader = Nadir (at least for those of us who disagree with his m.o.)
wink.gif tongue.gif biggrin.gif rolleyes.gif angel_not.gif

Posted by: John Clements 20-Jun-2008, 01:11 PM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 20-Jun-2008, 12:30 PM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 20-Jun-2008, 12:32 AM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jun-2008, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM)


The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and dammed.

JC

That would mean that Nadir would get 2 votes! woot!

NADER!!!!!!!!!! censored.gif furious.gif mad1.gif ranting.gif taz.gif

Nadir:The lowest point
Nader: Poliitician who made a career out of destroying the Corvair, a vehicle that was ahead of its time, and for which the defects had been cured before he put it out of business, a low point for launching a political career.
Therefore,
Nader = Nadir (at least for those of us who disagree with his m.o.)
wink.gif tongue.gif biggrin.gif rolleyes.gif angel_not.gif

Excuse me, but why was the Covair ahead of its time? Was it the engine in the rear, (which if I’m not mistake wasn’t the first car to have done that), was it because it was quit, or because it didn’t come with standard seatbelts, or was it the fact that it was fire trap, (having cause the death’s of a good number of people, having exploded in flames, at the slightest of rear end collision!)

So all Ralph did was to point out those the problems, and GM killed it, rather then redesigning it.

But then, that’s what a “Public Advocate” is supposed to do, (which was the position that Nader had at the time.)

So, if that’s all you know about Ralph Nader, maybe you should check out his website.

Posted by: Patch 20-Jun-2008, 02:43 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 20-Jun-2008, 08:11 AM)
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 20-Jun-2008, 12:30 PM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 20-Jun-2008, 12:32 AM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Jun-2008, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jun-2008, 08:45 AM)


The bottom line is, I just may vote for Nader, and dammed.

JC

That would mean that Nadir would get 2 votes! woot!

NADER!!!!!!!!!! censored.gif furious.gif mad1.gif ranting.gif taz.gif

Nadir:The lowest point
Nader: Poliitician who made a career out of destroying the Corvair, a vehicle that was ahead of its time, and for which the defects had been cured before he put it out of business, a low point for launching a political career.
Therefore,
Nader = Nadir (at least for those of us who disagree with his m.o.)
wink.gif tongue.gif biggrin.gif rolleyes.gif angel_not.gif

Excuse me, but why was the Covair ahead of its time? Was it the engine in the rear, (which if I’m not mistake wasn’t the first car to have done that), was it because it was quit, or because it didn’t come with standard seatbelts, or was it the fact that it was fire trap, (having cause the death’s of a good number of people, having exploded in flames, at the slightest of rear end collision!)

So all Ralph did was to point out those the problems, and GM killed it, rather then redesigning it.

But then, that’s what a “Public Advocate” is supposed to do, (which was the position that Nader had at the time.)

So, if that’s all you know about Ralph Nader, maybe you should check out his website.

I had one. A Monza Spyder Convertible. The ahead part was the gas tank. It was ahead of the passengers/driver. I had a close call and heard "water" (?) sloshing around. When it finally came to me that it was Gasoline, I traded it for a Chrysler 300. I was afraid of damaging the front of the Monza I wish I could have afforded to park the Monza in storage.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 22-Jun-2008, 07:12 PM
For just one of the many defenses of the Corvair, see:
QUOTE
In 1972, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a report exonerating the Corvair from Nader's accusations. It arrived too late. Chevrolet had deep-sixed the Corvair seven years earlier. Even without the safety controversy, Chevy knew Ford's highly conventional Falcon was about to eat their lunch. What's more, GM's beancounters had proclaimed that the Corvair was too expensive to make profitably (setting a pattern for small car thinking that continues to this day).
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/in-defense-of-the-chevrolet-corviar/
The NHTSA report (which is available from NTIS), states:
QUOTE
The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests," and, "The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic.

In a letter to Corvair after issuance of its report, NHTSA states:
QUOTE
The Corvair handling and stability compared favorably with the other contemporary vehicles used in the NHTSA testing programs. Vehicle rollover did not occur in any of the comparative tests for the Corvair, Falcon or Valiant. The Volkswagen and the Renault did rollover in some of the comparative tests.

Of course, the media did not find the exoneration of the Corvair to be newsworty, and did not report on it.
See lhttp://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html.
I learned to drive with a Corvair and had no difficulties with it whatsoever.

Posted by: Patch 22-Jun-2008, 07:48 PM
I Thought it was a great little car and fun to drive. It was the near head on collision that made me realize the front gas tank was not good! The handling kept me out of the accident.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 23-Jun-2008, 06:47 AM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 22-Jun-2008, 08:12 PM)
For just one of the many defenses of the Corvair, see:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/in-defense-of-the-chevrolet-corviar/
The NHTSA report (which is available from NTIS), states:

In a letter to Corvair after issuance of its report, NHTSA states:

Of course, the media did not find the exoneration of the Corvair to be newsworty, and did not report on it.
See lhttp://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html.
I learned to drive with a Corvair and had no difficulties with it whatsoever.

I always loved the Corvair, and although I never drove one. I’m sure it handled well, but that didn’t solve the problem that it was prone to catch on fire, (in an accident) more so then other cars. Like I said, I wish that they had solved that problem and kept making it.

Posted by: Patch 23-Jun-2008, 08:24 AM
I do not know if they could. The gas tank had virtually no protection and unlike the Pinto, which was the next fire trap, the tank could not be designed be pushed out of the way in a rear end crash. With the Monza the tank was upright along the "firewall" and everything, including the front axle, came back against it in a frontal crash.

I recently saw a rough Monza Spyder that did not run and was in need of major restoration. The asking price was $8,900. As best I recall, that is about what I spent on a new one.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 23-Jun-2008, 12:22 PM
Ok, it’s my fault that this thread turned automotive, (when I mentioned Ralph Nader), so let’s get back on track.

Apparently, Pelosi has to be impeached before Bush and Chaney can be!

JC

Posted by: Patch 23-Jun-2008, 12:36 PM
For some reason she is opposed to it. I can usually figure out why they act as they do but this makes me wonder!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 23-Jun-2008, 12:41 PM
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 23-Jun-2008, 12:54 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 07:41 AM)
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Impeachment is a tool for the "people" to maintain good government. I have seen two here, Nixon (justified) and Clinton (not justified) Nixon was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton purely for political reasons. Bush would qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" but no move in that direction has been made. I think the members of the House of Representatives are afraid of bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 23-Jun-2008, 02:51 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 07:41 AM)
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Impeachment is a tool for the "people" to maintain good government. I have seen two here, Nixon (justified) and Clinton (not justified) Nixon was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton purely for political reasons. Bush would qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" but no move in that direction has been made. I think the members of the House of Representatives are afraid of bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

I don't think they are afraid of Bush, its the powerful people behind him. If irrefutable evidence was to crop up against him they would drop him so fast it would take his butt an hour to catch up with his feet.


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 23-Jun-2008, 04:28 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 09:51 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 07:41 AM)
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Impeachment is a tool for the "people" to maintain good government. I have seen two here, Nixon (justified) and Clinton (not justified) Nixon was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton purely for political reasons. Bush would qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" but no move in that direction has been made. I think the members of the House of Representatives are afraid of bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

I don't think they are afraid of Bush, its the powerful people behind him. If irrefutable evidence was to crop up against him they would drop him so fast it would take his butt an hour to catch up with his feet.


Camac.

I say bush in that he is the figurehead of the group. The Republican machine does not give up easily. The "anti American label" threat will carry him out of office. There could be criminal charges after he leaves office but I suspect Obama or McCain would pardon him. Crimes against humanity charges could, but probably will not, trip him up. I think the little bush will get a pass. I doubt history will be kind to him though.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 24-Jun-2008, 06:37 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 09:51 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 07:41 AM)
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Impeachment is a tool for the "people" to maintain good government. I have seen two here, Nixon (justified) and Clinton (not justified) Nixon was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton purely for political reasons. Bush would qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" but no move in that direction has been made. I think the members of the House of Representatives are afraid of bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

I don't think they are afraid of Bush, its the powerful people behind him. If irrefutable evidence was to crop up against him they would drop him so fast it would take his butt an hour to catch up with his feet.


Camac.

I say bush in that he is the figurehead of the group. The Republican machine does not give up easily. The "anti American label" threat will carry him out of office. There could be criminal charges after he leaves office but I suspect Obama or McCain would pardon him. Crimes against humanity charges could, but probably will not, trip him up. I think the little bush will get a pass. I doubt history will be kind to him though.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I agree the members of congress are afraid to try to impeach Bush, (because there is no doubt that he’s a terrorist himself), but I’m sure they are also afraid of exposing themselves, because they are complicit. (At least that’s the way I see it.)

Like I’ve said before, this is a good cop bad cop situation, and we’re taking it, you know where!

At this point I could care less what history thinks of the Bush administration, I want justice now!

JC

Posted by: Patch 24-Jun-2008, 08:48 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jun-2008, 01:37 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 09:51 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 07:41 AM)
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Impeachment is a tool for the "people" to maintain good government. I have seen two here, Nixon (justified) and Clinton (not justified) Nixon was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton purely for political reasons. Bush would qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" but no move in that direction has been made. I think the members of the House of Representatives are afraid of bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

I don't think they are afraid of Bush, its the powerful people behind him. If irrefutable evidence was to crop up against him they would drop him so fast it would take his butt an hour to catch up with his feet.


Camac.

I say bush in that he is the figurehead of the group. The Republican machine does not give up easily. The "anti American label" threat will carry him out of office. There could be criminal charges after he leaves office but I suspect Obama or McCain would pardon him. Crimes against humanity charges could, but probably will not, trip him up. I think the little bush will get a pass. I doubt history will be kind to him though.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I agree the members of congress are afraid to try to impeach Bush, (because there is no doubt that he’s a terrorist himself), but I’m sure they are also afraid of exposing themselves, because they are complicit. (At least that’s the way I see it.)

Like I’ve said before, this is a good cop bad cop situation, and we’re taking it, you know where!

At this point I could care less what history thinks of the Bush administration, I want justice now!

JC

I think 70 percent of the public feels the same way. Any legal action will now come after he leaves office. I expect him to issue a blanket pardon to all of his cabinet and lesser advisers when he leaves office. As for Government, my experience has been that the Govt will always act to preserve its self, the public be damned!

I was attending a state wide labor relations meeting to go over a new contract with management. The information was being presented by a cute red haired 30 year old attorney. Finally after an hour of listening to her describe the gains secured by labor, one of those in attendance asked what management got in bargaining. A big smile came over er face and she said "bend over and pick up the soap boys." Her supervisor left the room with that one.

That is pretty much where we are at today!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 25-Jun-2008, 09:09 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 24-Jun-2008, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jun-2008, 01:37 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 09:51 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 07:41 AM)
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Impeachment is a tool for the "people" to maintain good government. I have seen two here, Nixon (justified) and Clinton (not justified) Nixon was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton purely for political reasons. Bush would qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" but no move in that direction has been made. I think the members of the House of Representatives are afraid of bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

I don't think they are afraid of Bush, its the powerful people behind him. If irrefutable evidence was to crop up against him they would drop him so fast it would take his butt an hour to catch up with his feet.


Camac.

I say bush in that he is the figurehead of the group. The Republican machine does not give up easily. The "anti American label" threat will carry him out of office. There could be criminal charges after he leaves office but I suspect Obama or McCain would pardon him. Crimes against humanity charges could, but probably will not, trip him up. I think the little bush will get a pass. I doubt history will be kind to him though.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I agree the members of congress are afraid to try to impeach Bush, (because there is no doubt that he’s a terrorist himself), but I’m sure they are also afraid of exposing themselves, because they are complicit. (At least that’s the way I see it.)

Like I’ve said before, this is a good cop bad cop situation, and we’re taking it, you know where!

At this point I could care less what history thinks of the Bush administration, I want justice now!

JC

I think 70 percent of the public feels the same way. Any legal action will now come after he leaves office. I expect him to issue a blanket pardon to all of his cabinet and lesser advisers when he leaves office. As for Government, my experience has been that the Govt will always act to preserve its self, the public be damned!

I was attending a state wide labor relations meeting to go over a new contract with management. The information was being presented by a cute red haired 30 year old attorney. Finally after an hour of listening to her describe the gains secured by labor, one of those in attendance asked what management got in bargaining. A big smile came over er face and she said "bend over and pick up the soap boys." Her supervisor left the room with that one.

That is pretty much where we are at today!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

To say that we’ve got the cart before the horse in this country is a gross understatement. Can you imagine we have “LYING CROOKS” running this place, and the “so called” new is still talking about the three G’s: God, Guns, and Gays!

The way I see it, we all must be either, morons, cowards, or one of them!

JC

Posted by: Patch 25-Jun-2008, 09:19 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 25-Jun-2008, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 24-Jun-2008, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jun-2008, 01:37 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 09:51 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 07:41 AM)
Patch. JC.
Some times I really wish we had impeachment here in the True North. There is quite a few of "The Ottawa Crowd" I would like to see gone. (Bushe's clone Steven).


Camac.

Impeachment is a tool for the "people" to maintain good government. I have seen two here, Nixon (justified) and Clinton (not justified) Nixon was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton purely for political reasons. Bush would qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" but no move in that direction has been made. I think the members of the House of Representatives are afraid of bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

I don't think they are afraid of Bush, its the powerful people behind him. If irrefutable evidence was to crop up against him they would drop him so fast it would take his butt an hour to catch up with his feet.


Camac.

I say bush in that he is the figurehead of the group. The Republican machine does not give up easily. The "anti American label" threat will carry him out of office. There could be criminal charges after he leaves office but I suspect Obama or McCain would pardon him. Crimes against humanity charges could, but probably will not, trip him up. I think the little bush will get a pass. I doubt history will be kind to him though.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I agree the members of congress are afraid to try to impeach Bush, (because there is no doubt that he’s a terrorist himself), but I’m sure they are also afraid of exposing themselves, because they are complicit. (At least that’s the way I see it.)

Like I’ve said before, this is a good cop bad cop situation, and we’re taking it, you know where!

At this point I could care less what history thinks of the Bush administration, I want justice now!

JC

I think 70 percent of the public feels the same way. Any legal action will now come after he leaves office. I expect him to issue a blanket pardon to all of his cabinet and lesser advisers when he leaves office. As for Government, my experience has been that the Govt will always act to preserve its self, the public be damned!

I was attending a state wide labor relations meeting to go over a new contract with management. The information was being presented by a cute red haired 30 year old attorney. Finally after an hour of listening to her describe the gains secured by labor, one of those in attendance asked what management got in bargaining. A big smile came over er face and she said "bend over and pick up the soap boys." Her supervisor left the room with that one.

That is pretty much where we are at today!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

To say that we’ve got the cart before the horse in this country is a gross understatement. Can you imagine we have “LYING CROOKS” running this place, and the “so called” new is still talking about the three G’s: God, Guns, and Gays!

The way I see it, we all must be either, morons, cowards, or one of them!

JC

I separated myself from the "crooks" and I do not see many of the religious right flocking to the Constitution party but I will fight over my Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections! Further, I believe these rights are "engraved in stone", not a work in progress!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 25-Jun-2008, 09:31 AM
This election will be decided on the economy which does not bode well for the Republicans. The fighting Iraq will be a close second as it is tied to the economy. I believe that with either president the second amendment is in trouble. Obama will pose the greatest threat. Only the Supreme Court can prevent that with a broad decision in the Washington firearms case.

Slàinte,    

Patch    


Posted by: John Clements 18-Jul-2008, 12:20 PM
Send Karl Rove to jail, and throw away the key.


http://sendkarlrovetojail.com/?utm_source=rgemail

Posted by: Patch 18-Jul-2008, 02:54 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jul-2008, 07:20 AM)
Send Karl Rove to jail, and throw away the key.


http://sendkarlrovetojail.com/?utm_source=rgemail

Unfortunately he along with many others will be pardoned after the election!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 18-Jul-2008, 03:43 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 18-Jul-2008, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jul-2008, 07:20 AM)
Send Karl Rove to jail, and throw away the key.


http://sendkarlrovetojail.com/?utm_source=rgemail

Unfortunately he along with many others will be pardoned after the election!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Probably so Patch, but why not make them do it.
JC

Posted by: Patch 18-Jul-2008, 03:51 PM
I agree with you but Even if he isn't charged by Nov. he will be pardoned for crimes he "MAY" have committed.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 18-Jul-2008, 03:55 PM
“May”, you must be kidding? His very existence is a crime!

Posted by: Patch 18-Jul-2008, 04:43 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Jul-2008, 10:55 AM)
“May”, you must be kidding? His very existence is a crime!

Bush is a criminal too and he would pardon himself if he could. That is why he has to "take care of" the rest of the scum. Do I sound like I used to be a Republican?

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 18-Jul-2008, 07:26 PM
JC & Patch;

Great system. Become a crooked politician screw the country up then get pardoned. It is a miracle you people have survived for over 200 years.Maybe you need another Revolution.


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 19-Jul-2008, 07:57 AM
Fortunately it can only be done at federal and state level. If they ever figure out how to pardon themselves it will be bad news. We gad a governor who it was said pardoned a mafia killer for a fee of 1 million dollars. It is a joke to look at the pardon list when a president or governor leaves office. Especially if you read the justification given.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 19-Jul-2008, 08:04 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 19-Jul-2008, 08:57 AM)
Fortunately it can only be done at federal and state level. If they ever figure out how to pardon themselves it will be bad news. We gad a governor who it was said pardoned a mafia killer for a fee of 1 million dollars. It is a joke to look at the pardon list when a president or governor leaves office. Especially if you read the justification given.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch'

Up here the Prime Minister cannot give pardons it has to go through Parliament and be approved by the Govenor General. Under our system I believe what is called a Queen's Warrant must be issued. Not to sure about that part.


Camac.

Posted by: John Clements 19-Jul-2008, 09:22 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 18-Jul-2008, 05:43 PM)
Bush is a criminal too and he would pardon himself if he could. That is why he has to "take care of" the rest of the scum. Do I sound like I used to be a Republican?

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Hi Patch;

Most definitely sound like a republican, but then Lincoln was one too. You know there is all this worry, about what we’re going to do about all our problems. When frankly, I don’t that any of our problems as important as getting these criminals!
Want to take down a stool…take out a leg.


Later, JC

Posted by: John Clements 19-Jul-2008, 09:30 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 19-Jul-2008, 09:04 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 19-Jul-2008, 08:57 AM)
Fortunately it can only be done at federal and state level.  If they ever figure out how to pardon themselves it will be bad news.  We gad a governor who it was said pardoned a mafia killer for a fee of 1 million dollars.  It is a joke to look at the pardon list when a president or governor leaves office.  Especially if you read the justification given.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch'

Up here the Prime Minister cannot give pardons it has to go through Parliament and be approved by the Govenor General. Under our system I believe what is called a Queen's Warrant must be issued. Not to sure about that part.


Camac.

No more pardons! I think that’s one of my “New Rules” if I’m not mistaken?

Posted by: Camac 19-Jul-2008, 09:52 AM
Patch;

My mistake Queens Warrant is for arrest and a Queens Pardon forgives. Not thinking to straight to-day.

Camac

Posted by: Patch 19-Jul-2008, 10:51 AM
It would be better if we had to have legislative approval here. It would be hard to "buy" a majority of the legislative branch. By hard, I mean very costly! With some of the stupid things this administration has done their pardon list should be a joke.

Two of the best were: #1 they honored a 26/27 year old as the "successful young Republican businessman of the year." He received the award, gave a speech, enjoyed the dinner and as he left the building, he was arrested by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Seems his business was a front for his drug business. # 2 was a middle aged woman who was presented at a fund raiser in Cincinnati Ohio as an example of the robust economy. She had been receiving welfare and had pulled herself out of poverty by her boot straps so to speak. They didn't check back far enough. After the TV coverage aired a very irate man called the media. (and was interviewed for that nights news) Seems the lady had worked for him and was convicted of embezzling over 100K. Upon her release from prison, she lived in a "half way house" and for the most part lived on welfare. While there she repaid about 2K as ordered by the court. After she found work (not around money) she moved out on her own and WALLA, the bush people found her and put her on the stage with bush.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 19-Jul-2008, 10:53 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 19-Jul-2008, 04:30 AM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 19-Jul-2008, 09:04 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 19-Jul-2008, 08:57 AM)
Fortunately it can only be done at federal and state level.  If they ever figure out how to pardon themselves it will be bad news.  We gad a governor who it was said pardoned a mafia killer for a fee of 1 million dollars.  It is a joke to look at the pardon list when a president or governor leaves office.  Especially if you read the justification given.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch'

Up here the Prime Minister cannot give pardons it has to go through Parliament and be approved by the Govenor General. Under our system I believe what is called a Queen's Warrant must be issued. Not to sure about that part.


Camac.

No more pardons! I think that’s one of my “New Rules” if I’m not mistaken?

Good rule but how do you enforce it?

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 19-Jul-2008, 11:58 AM
The same way they do, of course.

Posted by: Patch 19-Jul-2008, 01:49 PM
The people will not stand together and are no match for the military. If we get "out of line" we will be in Guantanamo learning about "water-boarding" and some of the governments other delicate touches.

That is what the patriot act is all about.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 19-Jul-2008, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 19-Jul-2008, 02:49 PM)
The people will not stand together and are no match for the military.  If we get "out of line" we will be in Guantanamo learning about "water-boarding" and some of the governments other delicate touches.

That is what the patriot act is all about.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

The way things are going the military just might see it our way, it’s happened before you know, or maybe we are just sheep.
Given my opinion, I could be labeled a terrorist, although I much prefer the term anarchist.
Good night man,
JC

Posted by: Camac 19-Jul-2008, 08:13 PM
JC. The North American Anarchist Part is still looking for new members. The cell door is always opened.


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 20-Jul-2008, 02:11 AM
The term the founding fathers used in the federalist papers was "Patriot." as the people were expected to limit the government and they did for a while. Then greed and lust for power set in. Now the citizens stand with their faces upturned waiting for the government to shower them with benefits and favors. In view of that I fear the Republic is already lost. Apathy of the German people and the rest of the world was the enabling factor in Hitler's rise to power.

It is happening again today but that is another post.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 20-Jul-2008, 08:46 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 19-Jul-2008, 09:13 PM)
JC. The North American Anarchist Part is still looking for new members. The cell door is always opened.


Camac.

The cell door is open 24-7. The problem is, the get out of jail card’s, are in the hands of those who should be the inmates.

Some times I just can’t keep my mouth shut. Thanks for warning me again Camac.

JC

PS: You should see the flashing job on that round top window. Since I used copper, it looks like an Inca headdress…shinning in the sun. (Maybe I should leave it that way…Nah.)

Posted by: John Clements 20-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 20-Jul-2008, 03:11 AM)
The term the founding fathers used in the federalist papers was "Patriot." as the people were expected to limit the government and they did for a while. Then greed and lust for power set in. Now the citizens stand with their faces upturned waiting for the government to shower them with benefits and favors. In view of that I fear the Republic is already lost. Apathy of the German people and the rest of the world was the enabling factor in Hitler's rise to power.

It is happening again today but that is another post.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I agree Patch, its history.

JC

Posted by: Camac 20-Jul-2008, 09:44 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 20-Jul-2008, 09:49 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 20-Jul-2008, 03:11 AM)
The term the founding fathers used in the federalist papers was "Patriot." as the people were expected to limit the government and they did for a while.  Then greed and lust for power set in.  Now the citizens stand with their faces upturned waiting for the government to shower them with benefits and favors.  In view of that I fear the Republic is already lost.  Apathy of the German people and the rest of the world was the enabling factor in Hitler's rise to power. 

It is happening again today but that is another post.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I agree Patch, its history.

JC

Patch;

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.


Camac.

Posted by: John Clements 20-Jul-2008, 04:06 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 20-Jul-2008, 10:44 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 20-Jul-2008, 09:49 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 20-Jul-2008, 03:11 AM)
The term the founding fathers used in the federalist papers was "Patriot." as the people were expected to limit the government and they did for a while.  Then greed and lust for power set in.  Now the citizens stand with their faces upturned waiting for the government to shower them with benefits and favors.  In view of that I fear the Republic is already lost.  Apathy of the German people and the rest of the world was the enabling factor in Hitler's rise to power. 

It is happening again today but that is another post.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I agree Patch, its history.

JC

Patch;

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.


Camac.

Who!!! Camac, thanks for bring me back to my senses.
JC

Posted by: Camac 20-Jul-2008, 06:43 PM
JC. Glad I could help. Anytime my friend.


Camac

Posted by: maisky 22-Jul-2008, 06:36 AM
As Ben Franklin said: "He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither."

Posted by: Camac 22-Jul-2008, 08:19 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 22-Jul-2008, 07:36 AM)
As Ben Franklin said: "He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither."

Maisky;

The following by James Madison does not just pertain to the US but to every country;

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

There are more instances of this in history than any revolution or coup.

Camac.

Posted by: John Clements 23-Jul-2008, 07:49 AM
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

Posted by: Camac 23-Jul-2008, 08:56 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 23-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM)
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

JC.

You can sign all the petitions around for impeachment. With the money and power behind Georgie Boy, it ain't gonna happen. This of course is an outsiders opinion.


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 23-Jul-2008, 03:35 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jul-2008, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 23-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM)
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

JC.

You can sign all the petitions around for impeachment. With the money and power behind Georgie Boy, it ain't gonna happen. This of course is an outsiders opinion.


Camac.

If the Democrats saw it as helping their chances in Nov. it would happen. However, they do not.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 24-Jul-2008, 07:43 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jul-2008, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jul-2008, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 23-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM)
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

JC.

You can sign all the petitions around for impeachment. With the money and power behind Georgie Boy, it ain't gonna happen. This of course is an outsiders opinion.


Camac.

If the Democrats saw it as helping their chances in Nov. it would happen. However, they do not.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Hi Dave;

You said it yourself just the other day… “Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”

You know even if I were an outsider, I would still sign to impeach those alleged leaders. That being said, did you or anyone else out there sign it?

If impeachment is a fantasy…then so is this country!

JC

Posted by: Camac 24-Jul-2008, 07:52 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jul-2008, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jul-2008, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jul-2008, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 23-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM)
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

JC.

You can sign all the petitions around for impeachment. With the money and power behind Georgie Boy, it ain't gonna happen. This of course is an outsiders opinion.


Camac.

If the Democrats saw it as helping their chances in Nov. it would happen. However, they do not.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Hi Dave;

You said it yourself just the other day… “Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”

You know even if I were an outsider, I would still sign to impeach those alleged leaders. That being said, did you or anyone else out there sign it?

If impeachment is a fantasy…then so is this country!

JC

JC>
I am not saying that people should not sign petitions . What I am saying is that with the money and power behind Bush Jr. it will not happen. If he were to be impeached it would also splatter Cheney and that is a powerful dangerous man. Looking at it from my point Cheney was the puppet master and Georgie was Pinochio. No there are too many powerfull people behind Bush to let impeachment go through. Georgie has played his part and he will now be quietly pushed into obscurity to fade from peoples memory and the powers that be will groom someone else to play the part. The behind the scenes powerbrokers are the ones that "Good Men" should be on the watch for.


Camac






Posted by: John Clements 24-Jul-2008, 08:23 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Jul-2008, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jul-2008, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jul-2008, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jul-2008, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 23-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM)
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

JC.

You can sign all the petitions around for impeachment. With the money and power behind Georgie Boy, it ain't gonna happen. This of course is an outsiders opinion.


Camac.

If the Democrats saw it as helping their chances in Nov. it would happen. However, they do not.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Hi Dave;

You said it yourself just the other day… “Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”

You know even if I were an outsider, I would still sign to impeach those alleged leaders. That being said, did you or anyone else out there sign it?

If impeachment is a fantasy…then so is this country!

JC

JC>
I am not saying that people should not sign petitions . What I am saying is that with the money and power behind Bush Jr. it will not happen. If he were to be impeached it would also splatter Cheney and that is a powerful dangerous man. Looking at it from my point Cheney was the puppet master and Georgie was Pinochio. No there are too many powerfull people behind Bush to let impeachment go through. Georgie has played his part and he will now be quietly pushed into obscurity to fade from peoples memory and the powers that be will groom someone else to play the part. The behind the scenes powerbrokers are the ones that "Good Men" should be on the watch for.


Camac

I’m aware of all that Dave, but the question still remains… When are we going to do somethimg about it? (When it’s too late?)

It has to start somewhere, because you know this is going to come to a fight anyway!

And you didn't answer the question,

JC

Posted by: Camac 24-Jul-2008, 09:01 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jul-2008, 09:23 AM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Jul-2008, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jul-2008, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jul-2008, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jul-2008, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 23-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM)
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

JC.

You can sign all the petitions around for impeachment. With the money and power behind Georgie Boy, it ain't gonna happen. This of course is an outsiders opinion.


Camac.

If the Democrats saw it as helping their chances in Nov. it would happen. However, they do not.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Hi Dave;

You said it yourself just the other day… “Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”

You know even if I were an outsider, I would still sign to impeach those alleged leaders. That being said, did you or anyone else out there sign it?

If impeachment is a fantasy…then so is this country!

JC

JC>
I am not saying that people should not sign petitions . What I am saying is that with the money and power behind Bush Jr. it will not happen. If he were to be impeached it would also splatter Cheney and that is a powerful dangerous man. Looking at it from my point Cheney was the puppet master and Georgie was Pinochio. No there are too many powerfull people behind Bush to let impeachment go through. Georgie has played his part and he will now be quietly pushed into obscurity to fade from peoples memory and the powers that be will groom someone else to play the part. The behind the scenes powerbrokers are the ones that "Good Men" should be on the watch for.


Camac

I’m aware of all that Dave, but the question still remains… When are we going to do about it? (When it’s too late?)

It has to start somewhere, because you know this is going to come to a fight anyway!

And you didn't answer the question,

JC

John my Friend;
It is not my place to sign it as I am not a citizen of the US but of Canada. I will voice an outsiders opinion but other than that I can do nothing.

Camac (David)

Posted by: Patch 24-Jul-2008, 11:03 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Jul-2008, 04:01 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jul-2008, 09:23 AM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Jul-2008, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 24-Jul-2008, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 23-Jul-2008, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jul-2008, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 23-Jul-2008, 08:49 AM)
Want to impeach? Sign the petition…We can't let up now!


http://kucinich.us

JC.

You can sign all the petitions around for impeachment. With the money and power behind Georgie Boy, it ain't gonna happen. This of course is an outsiders opinion.


Camac.

If the Democrats saw it as helping their chances in Nov. it would happen. However, they do not.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Hi Dave;

You said it yourself just the other day… “Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”

You know even if I were an outsider, I would still sign to impeach those alleged leaders. That being said, did you or anyone else out there sign it?

If impeachment is a fantasy…then so is this country!

JC

JC>
I am not saying that people should not sign petitions . What I am saying is that with the money and power behind Bush Jr. it will not happen. If he were to be impeached it would also splatter Cheney and that is a powerful dangerous man. Looking at it from my point Cheney was the puppet master and Georgie was Pinochio. No there are too many powerfull people behind Bush to let impeachment go through. Georgie has played his part and he will now be quietly pushed into obscurity to fade from peoples memory and the powers that be will groom someone else to play the part. The behind the scenes powerbrokers are the ones that "Good Men" should be on the watch for.


Camac

I’m aware of all that Dave, but the question still remains… When are we going to do about it? (When it’s too late?)

It has to start somewhere, because you know this is going to come to a fight anyway!

And you didn't answer the question,

JC

John my Friend;
It is not my place to sign it as I am not a citizen of the US but of Canada. I will voice an outsiders opinion but other than that I can do nothing.

Camac (David)

I signed the petition but since Pelosi adjourned the House 8 days early I am not sure whether Kucinich got his time before the committee.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 25-Jul-2008, 09:36 AM
Good man Patch...

Impeachment hearings on C-Span now…

Who know?
JC

Posted by: Patch 25-Jul-2008, 10:15 AM
Thanks, I want to see that!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 25-Jul-2008, 03:36 PM
I was surprised at the amount of bipartisan support the matter got today. I was also impressed with Bob Barr's (Libertarian candidate) support and explanation of his position. I do believe he just secured my vote in November.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 25-Jul-2008, 08:27 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 25-Jul-2008, 04:36 PM)
I was surprised at the amount of bipartisan support the matter got today. I was also impressed with Bob Barr's (Libertarian candidate) support and explanation of his position. I do believe he just secured my vote in November.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Hi Patch;

I like Bob Barr too. Where does he stand on a woman’s right to chose, and the separation of church and state?
I have to get that book “The Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder”. My guess is, it’s non fiction.

Good night man,
JC

Posted by: Patch 26-Jul-2008, 11:01 AM
I have heard little lately but within the last year they were planning on charging him with "crimes against humanity" in the international court. I doubt he is ever arrested for that but it will certainly limit his travel. From the impeachment hearing it appears we can try him for crimes against the people in this country though I do not think it has ever been done. This would be a good time to start!

As a Constitutional Conservative he would be against abortion (that can not be changed without a change in the Supreme Court) and should promote the separation of church and state. The Libertarians tend to take a bit of a softer view, especially on social issues. That probably is why the rank and file of the Libertarian party is not happy with Barr at the head of the party. The mail I get from them indicates he has their support though. This could be the best thing that ever happened to them.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 30-Jul-2008, 04:47 PM
Did I dream this, or did I actually hear about some people who were arrested for attempting to make a citizens arrest of Carl Rove? Anyway, I understand that the house has vote to hold Rove to be in contempt. Good!

JC

Posted by: Patch 30-Jul-2008, 07:29 PM
I missed that. Citizens Arrest is pretty shaky in that you need a willing prosecutor and you are open to massive Civil Litigation. Since it is a "legal" procedure they should not have been arrested unless they broke into his house or were in illegal possession of firearms. The mess the country is in may cause charges to be filed that ordinarily would not be. I will check my news lady.

Slàinte,    

Patch    






















1

Posted by: John Clements 31-Jul-2008, 08:02 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 30-Jul-2008, 08:29 PM)
I missed that. Citizens Arrest is pretty shaky in that you need a willing prosecutor and you are open to massive Civil Litigation. Since it is a "legal" procedure they should not have been arrested unless they broke into his house or were in illegal possession of firearms. The mess the country is in may cause charges to be filed that ordinarily would not be. I will check my news lady.

Slàinte,    

Patch    






















1

Thanks Patch, if that story is true, I wonder why it’s not big news. No need to respond Patch we all know the reason.

JC


Posted by: John Clements 31-Jul-2008, 08:04 AM
Impeachment hearings, lets go to the video tapes...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35061

Posted by: Patch 31-Jul-2008, 10:28 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 31-Jul-2008, 03:02 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 30-Jul-2008, 08:29 PM)
I missed that.  Citizens Arrest is pretty shaky in that you need a willing prosecutor and you are open to massive Civil Litigation.  Since it is a "legal" procedure they should not have been arrested unless they broke into his house or were in illegal possession of firearms.  The mess the country is in may cause charges to be filed that ordinarily would not be.  I will check my news lady.

Slàinte,    

Patch    






















1

Thanks Patch, if that story is true, I wonder why it’s not big news. No need to respond Patch we all know the reason.

JC

I can find nothing anywhere.

Slàinte,    Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 31-Jul-2008, 12:15 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 31-Jul-2008, 11:28 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 31-Jul-2008, 03:02 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 30-Jul-2008, 08:29 PM)
I missed that.  Citizens Arrest is pretty shaky in that you need a willing prosecutor and you are open to massive Civil Litigation.  Since it is a "legal" procedure they should not have been arrested unless they broke into his house or were in illegal possession of firearms.  The mess the country is in may cause charges to be filed that ordinarily would not be.  I will check my news lady.

Slàinte,    

Patch    






















1

Thanks Patch, if that story is true, I wonder why it’s not big news. No need to respond Patch we all know the reason.

JC

I can find nothing anywhere.

Slàinte,    Patch    

I found this article Patch. Google is a great thing
JC

http://www.thelangreport.com/solvers-and-solutions/citizens-arrest-of-karl-rove-attempted-in-iowa/

Posted by: Patch 31-Jul-2008, 03:41 PM
Thanks

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 31-Jul-2008, 03:55 PM
I posted my thoughts on the site.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 31-Jul-2008, 03:58 PM
I have often said we old farts should fight the wars. What could be worse than a bunch of old people with attitudes coming over hill after you!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 31-Jul-2008, 05:17 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 31-Jul-2008, 04:58 PM)
I have often said we old farts should fight the wars. What could be worse than a bunch of old people with attitudes coming over hill after you!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

Sounds like my kind of fun. One problem most wheelchairs have trouble get up the hill. Going down is great fun I'm told


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 31-Jul-2008, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 31-Jul-2008, 12:17 PM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 31-Jul-2008, 04:58 PM)
I have often said we old farts should fight the wars.  What could be worse than a bunch of old people with attitudes coming over hill after you!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

Sounds like my kind of fun. One problem most wheelchairs have trouble get up the hill. Going down is great fun I'm told


Camac.

I saw a chair on tracks a couple of years ago.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 07-Aug-2008, 06:09 PM
We did it, but it aint over yet...

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2386&Itemid=76

Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Aug-2008, 10:57 AM
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages. The library will include…

…the Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.

…the Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.

…the Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.

…the Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

…the Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.

…the Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.

…the National Debt Room which is huge and has no ceiling.

…the "Tax Cut" Room with entry restricted to millionaires.

…the Economy Room, located in the toilet.

…the Iraq War Room where, after your first tour, they make you to go back for a 2nd, 3rd, even 5th tour.

…the Dick Cheney Room, in an undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.

…the Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.

…the Supreme Court Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.

…the Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.

…the 'Decider Room' complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.

…the Document Signing Room complete with latest colors of Crayola Crayons.


The museum will also have an electron microscope to help you locate the President's accomplishments.

Posted by: John Clements 14-Aug-2008, 02:17 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 14-Aug-2008, 11:57 AM)
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages. The library will include…

…the Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.

…the Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.

…the Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.

…the Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

…the Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.

…the Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.

…the National Debt Room which is huge and has no ceiling.

…the "Tax Cut" Room with entry restricted to millionaires.

…the Economy Room, located in the toilet.

…the Iraq War Room where, after your first tour, they make you to go back for a 2nd, 3rd, even 5th tour.

…the Dick Cheney Room, in an undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.

…the Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.

…the Supreme Court Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.

…the Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.

…the 'Decider Room' complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.

…the Document Signing Room complete with latest colors of Crayola Crayons.


The museum will also have an electron microscope to help you locate the President's accomplishments.

Hey Lynn!
Next time I hope you post a warning, so I can go first.
Good stuff, I hope you wrote it?

Later, JC

Posted by: John Clements 16-Aug-2008, 02:11 PM
Now! More then ever!

Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Aug-2008, 02:22 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 14-Aug-2008, 03:17 PM)
Good stuff, I hope you wrote it?


No, no, it comes from the great public ocean of the web -- someone sent it around and I passed it on. One of my friends advised me that this list leaves out Scooter Libby -- perhaps we can think of a Scooter entry among us?

Posted by: John Clements 03-Sep-2008, 07:33 AM
http://www.impeachplay.com/

If you’re an Independent, or even a Concretive Republican, take 20 minutes out of watching the convention tonight, and watch this Play.

Then I think that you’ll be voting…like the Constitution, and the fate of America, depends on it!

Yours Truly,
JC

Posted by: Camac 03-Sep-2008, 08:38 AM
JC.

I have a funny gut feeling that you guys are in for four more years of Bush via McCain. I think the Democrats are going to self destruct. (again) Outsiders opinion.

David

Posted by: Patch 03-Sep-2008, 11:58 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Sep-2008, 10:38 AM)
JC.

I have a funny gut feeling that you guys are in for four more years of Bush via McCain. I think the Democrats are going to self destruct. (again) Outsiders opinion.

David

I agree with you though I doubt either will solve our problems. The signs are going up now and I have seen only ONE Obama sign! That didn't include Biden's name.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 03-Sep-2008, 03:03 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 03-Sep-2008, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Sep-2008, 10:38 AM)
JC.

I have a funny gut feeling that you guys are in for four more years of Bush via McCain. I think the Democrats are going to self destruct. (again) Outsiders opinion.

David

I agree with you though I doubt either will solve our problems. The signs are going up now and I have seen only ONE Obama sign! That didn't include Biden's name.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

You guys are probably right, but anything’s possible. I’ve heard that Obama is up by some 8 points at the moment,(almost across the board in most of the swing states), and I been hopping that he’s been “rope-a-doping” all this time, and will come out throwing haymakers, as soon as the Republican convention is over. This guy is no pansy. He’s tough, straight, and he’s got brains, (an unusual combination for a politician.) Why it’s enough to make me pray!


http://www.impeachplay.com/

If you’re an Independent, or even a Concretive Republican, take 20 minutes out of watching the convention tonight, and watch this Play.

Then I think that you’ll be voting…like the Constitution, and the fate of America, depends on it!

Are you getting the idea I would like others to see this play, and coment on it, instead odf just blowing it off!
Yours Truly,
JC

Posted by: maisky 05-Sep-2008, 08:12 AM
One thing that hasn't shown itself yet: Obama has an unprecedented ability to raise money from small donors. Additionally, the republicants are reallying almost totally on attacking Obama and trying to sweep their ultra right-wing stance on issues under the rug. I suspect that much of the Obama millions of campaign funds will point this out. beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Patch 05-Sep-2008, 02:32 PM
Money is coming into Obama like a "flood". The R's are begging me to send money.

Also, Obama indicated he would consider charges against bush and his cabinet, if laws were broken, after bush is out of office. Whether this will help or hurt Obama is uncertain!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: John Clements 29-Sep-2008, 07:15 PM
It's never too late to make things right...at least I hope so.

Say no to bailout…

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/TellAFriend?msgId=4561.0&devId=8241&JServSessionIdr001=cka2s6qtd9.app5b

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)