BF2S Forums Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

giving people -1 because you have nothing to say for yourself or your point of view is a reflection of your character, and your point of view.

Spumantiii wrote:

giving people -1 because you have nothing to say for yourself or your point of view is a reflection of your character, and your point of view.

These poor fella's... Still havent seen a valid point from them on Bush... Oh well I guess I can say I met a few of the 27% that favor the crook.

pdanrichey wrote:

[n00b]Tyler wrote:

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Whats that suppossed to mean?

pdanrichey wrote:

You're a liberal...enough said you stupid nagga!

He's impling that Libirals are as bad as Terrorists

Ding ding ding...what do we have for her Johnny???!!!

Go ahead, leave me negative karma!  It truly only demonstrates how pathetically, liberally biased this forum is.  You had your chance in 2000 and 2004 to vote for someone else...guess what??...YOU LOST!!  DEAL WITH IT!  FYI, you don't get voted back into office for a 2nd term unless you're doing a good job!  Although, based on some of the negative karma and posts in many of the threads I've read, I'm beginning to believe that most of you were too young to vote then.  It only goes to show that America's youth is going down the tubes.  Hopefully I'm not around 30 years from now to see what you will do to this awesome nation as it stands now.

You've hit on something here regarding GOP winning elections.  Well, really, they don't "win" them... they cheat in order to garner power.  Gore won Florida.  Period.  Ohio was fixed in 2004.  Stats don't lie and exit polling doesn't miss that far off.  But when you have Diebold in your pocket, cheating is easy.  And when power is acquired, what does the GOP do with it?... they gerrymander the fuck out of congressional districts so that they can get more power and marginalize dissent.  And for what it's worth pdanrichey, I took a look at your stats.  Perhaps you'd like to explain how you got more than 50 kills of the same victim in one round?  You'll fit right into the GOP.  Rules are for suckers.

kr@cker wrote:

Oh dammit, you said "period", now how am I supposed to argue with that? You're right, I give in, the elections were fixed.

Good.  I knew I'd get through to you sooner or later.  I'll remember to spell out my punctuation marks from here on out.  exclamation.

lowing wrote:

BN wrote:

lowing wrote:

No these are YOUR opinions. Just because you adopted the views of some left wing nut job  or newspaper ( the washington post and NY Times come to mind) does not make them facts.

So which newsagency would have to print these things for you to bring your head out of the sand? Phox news?

Answer me this...why, with all their millions of $$ in budgets, did mainstream newsagencies miss the lies in the lead up to war with Iraq.
And, how, with their shoestring budgets, did internet blogs uncover the lies.

Surely this makes all the mainstream newsagencies either grossly incompetent or, more likely, in cahoots with Bush and his merry men.

On the contrary, papers like the New York Times are the best things that happened fpr the terrorists, since all they do is print war plans leaked to them by treasonous assholes in the govt. They owners and editors of this paper should be brought up on charges of treason and sedition.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606290009

foxy news has the answers you're looking for.

have a chat to china to see how it works, they have a similar arrangement with their "press".

lowing wrote:

Well I am certainly not surprised that you support the reporting of our war plans to the enemy. How proud of yourself you must be. I bet all the usual suspects join you in this belief. Like I said, all of you are the best allies the terrorists have.

Your war plans, not mine.

Don’t get mad at the New York Times for putting your troops at risk; get mad at your Criminal in Chief. He put them there in harms way, not the newspaper.

I don’t support terrorism, not sure why you think that. I don’t read, support, or care to look at the New York Times either. I am looking for a more intelligent read.

MoChief wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well I am certainly not surprised that you support the reporting of our war plans to the enemy. How proud of yourself you must be. I bet all the usual suspects join you in this belief. Like I said, all of you are the best allies the terrorists have.

Sounds like you have a problem with the first amendment.  It's hilarious to see right wingers bash the NY Times now (almost on cue) for publishing secret information against admin wishes.  But back when NY Times put Judith Miller on the front page spewing everything the Bush admin wanted to put out in the lead up to the Iraqi war, that was fine eventhough it was chock full of misleading and incorrect information.  So, which is it?  Does NY Times love the enemy or hate them?   (By the way... where was your outrage when Bob Novak printed a CIA agent's name? )

Believe me, I'm no huge fan of the NY Times.  But your argument is extremely shallow with respect to news outlets being aligned with terrorists.  And who needs enemies when we are willing to destroy the 1st amendment all by ourselves?  Perhaps you would be happier in a country with authoritarian rule.  You certainly wouldn't need to worry about the press putting out stories that harm your country as everything would be preapproved.

Are you seriously arguing that treason is a RIGHT guaranteed by the first amendment?? This is war plans and stratagy we are talking about here!!!

so if the NYT gets a list of the procedure for.....let's say making military base ID's, and prints it, then they have done absolutely nothing wrong? what a load of bullshit, if they get word of the POTUS (whoever it is, Bush, Clinton, Ted Nugent..) going to a surprise visit to country X, and they post it on their website in time for someone to set up an AA truck on the flight path, they were just excercising their first amendment rights? That excuse can only go so far, there is also the mention of "life, ilberty, and the pursuit of happiness", note the order in which they are placed, when you "liberty" to say whatever you want starts to interfere with someone else's "life", like the next person killed by a terrorist funded attack, you have illustrated that you are no longer able to handle the responsibility of the first amendment, the ability to do something doesn't mean that you are right to do it


and as stated numerous times before, Valerie Plame was not operating under "protected identity status", therefore her secret identity could not have been forfeited, as it did not exist, the fact that you work for an agency that employs secret agents does not automatically confer that you are a secret agent

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-05 21:28:03)

MoChief wrote:

Are you seriously telling me that our government should be able to tell papers what they should and should not print under threat of prison time?  You can frame your question however you want, but it boils down to this.

Go prosecute the leakers.  Leave the press out of it.   

So let me hear your outrage now about how Rove should have his mouth sewn shut for leaking the name of a CIA agent.  I know you're pissed.  Let him have it.  Tell me how much it pisses you off that Rove would 'out' an agent of the CIA for political gain.  Go on and on about how CIA agents put their asses on the line only to have some pudgy shithead leak their name to get back at someone else.   I'm sitting down and ready to hear the string of 4 letter words that must be used to describe your level of anger on this issue.  Preach it brother.

ANY leaks by ANYONE that jepordizes our national security SHOULD be charged with treason period.

Sorry no one here is worth getting pissed about.

god there is so much true stuff that when ppl see it that support bush can only say: PROVE IT LIBERAL

Alright it's time for me to get this thread back on track (by going a few pages back)

Bubbalo wrote:

joewardog wrote:

The community may want them to be binding, but I'm reminded of a certain example in history, the League of Nations.  Woodrow Wilson (US President) helped to found the League of Nations but the US Senate did not ratify the treaty.  Hence, the US was not a real member of the League.  In essense, screw whatever the world wants or thinks.

A stupid example.  The US didn't assist in the creation of the convention, it voted it also voted it into power.

joewardog wrote:

Out of curiousity though, when was AFAIK ratified (don't have time to do the research)?

After a little checking, I can't find anything.  As such, we'll just assume it hasn't been ratified, for the sake of streamlining argument.

I still argue that it is legally binding on an international setting.  If not, then the President has acted against the will of the Senate.  Surely this would be an offence?

Alright for the history lesson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_nations#Origins

Obviously Wilson is cited as a found with his "Fourteen Points."  So how is that a "stupid example" ?  Furthermore, what do you mean by "it voted it also voted it into power." ?  I need some clarification here.

Now a bit on the workings of the US Constitution:

In article II, Section 2: the President can make treaties "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." This would mean by Article VI, "Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

As this topic focuses on President Bush and whether his actions justify impeachment, I would once again have to say no.

First off, the US did sign and ratify the Geneva Convention but as I stated before under article 2, since neither Al Q. or Taliban respect the Geneva C. the US is not legally bound to follow it while prosecuting this "war on terror."

Second, the US is a signatory when it comes to the AFAIK but as it did not ratify it, it is NOT "supreme Law of the Land."  Yes, the international community may want to hold the US to that standard, but in the US legal system it does not hold up.  Hence, when it comes to impeaching Bush for High Crimes it does not hold up.

On a final note to Spumantiii,
Nixon was never impeached; he resigned hence that was incorrect of you to bring it up.

What did the treaty state?