Impeach George Bush! Call your Congressperson and demand it!
How much more blatant and obvious does the information have to be? We've got a President who very obviously came into power under very corrupt circumstances with the national broadcast of very good information about his part in the "October Surprise!", and his involvement in Iran Contra! Now we've got a member of the administration trying to get us to invade El Salvador! We must stop this now before OUR ARMED FORCES engage in escalating the slaughter that so many of us have been trying to stop for years! The U.S. is on the verge of cutting off military aid to the fascist regime in El Salvador and now Colin Powell wants us to invade to save these Nazi worshipers (liter- ally they look up to the Nazis and have been known to say so). This is not just another Republican administration run amuck! Impeach George Bush Now!
> Impeach George Bush! Call your Congressperson and demand it!
Rick, you might want to wipe the foam off your mouth....
>How much more blatant and obvious does the information have to be?
Obviously alot more blatent than your so-called information is.
MD
-- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: m...@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
In article <1991Apr22.125002.25...@anomaly.sbs.com> m...@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>rburg...@milton.u.washington.edu (Rick Burgess) writes: ><Yawn.> This gets real old after awhile. >> Impeach George Bush! Call your Congressperson and demand it! >Rick, you might want to wipe the foam off your mouth.... >>How much more blatant and obvious does the information have to be? >Obviously alot more blatent than your so-called information is. >MD >-- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM,
Gee Mr. Ex. President Deignan, that isn't very activist of you now is it? When are you gonna read some of the stuff posted to this newsgroup instead of just ignoring it and denying it exists? Perhaps an inactivist like you would be more appropriate for talk.politics, don't you think? After all you obviously fail two very basic attributes of activists:
You aren't encouraging acts You haven't read the information
I guess you're just not into enlightenment. A shining example for your fellow capitalists, huh?
"Our first President named George couldn't tell a lie. Our latest President named George cannot tell the truth."
In article <1991Apr22.125002.25...@anomaly.sbs.com>, m...@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> <Yawn.> This gets real old after awhile.
>>How much more blatant and obvious does the information have to be?
> Obviously alot more blatent than your so-called information is.
Gee, I dunno, Mike. There was a column in, of all places, the Cincinnati Enquirer (or is it Inquirer? It's at home now...well, anyway...) -- hardly a bastion of left-liberal thought -- calling for Mr. Bush to prove that he was in no way a part of any deal to continue the holding of hostages in Iran. I think it's put up or shut up time.
It's my own personal opinion, btw, that the story is accurate, that Bush and other cronies did cut a deal with Iran, promising them weapons and such in exchange for NOT releasing the hostages until after the election. It's also my opinion that Bush would avoid impeachment if this became public, but would of course not run again. The american people can forgive their leaders a lot of foibles, but I don't think they'd put up with a president who actively contributed to americans being held hostage in foreign lands (in the U.S. is okay, of course).
The prospect of "President Quayle" is a bit daunting, I grant you. I'd be surprised to find that Bush could prove his innocence (and no cries of "innocent until proven guilty", such aphorisms do not apply to people who must have unimpeachable (ahem) character). Not disappointed, but surprised. We'll see if this sinks into the oblivion of the Iran- Contra business, where we forgave Ron for reneging on his promise not to deal with terrorists, because, gosh darn it, he was just so amiable. Bush does not have that kind of charisma. As I say, we'll see.
ObActivism: Write your congressthing either way. Demand that they clear this mess up once and for all and move on.
Josh Hayes, Zoology, Miami of Ohio jaha...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
>And just how could he be impeached based on this in the first place? >If you folks would bother to do some research, you'd find that an >impeachable offense has to occur during one's current term of office. >The October Surprise occured before Bush was even VP, let alone Pres.!
To be fair, it might be possible to impeach someone for crimes out of office. My Amer. Gov't. teachers (HS and college) said the above was true; however, the Constitution says: (Art. II Sect 4) The Pres, VP, and all civil officers of the US shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Usually, impeachment charges are brought against someone for conduct unworthy of her/his office, which implies you have to be in office and commit the act while in office....
And now, back to the normal ranting and raving.... :-)
jaha...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes: >Gee, I dunno, Mike. There was a column in, of all places, the Cincinnati >Enquirer (or is it Inquirer? It's at home now...well, anyway...) -- hardly >a bastion of left-liberal thought -- calling for Mr. Bush to prove that he >was in no way a part of any deal to continue the holding of hostages in >Iran. I think it's put up or shut up time.
Why should Bush have to prove he's innocent? He has a right to the protections given to the people by the Constitution just like the rest of us.
>election. It's also my opinion that Bush would avoid impeachment if >this became public, but would of course not run again. The american
And just how could he be impeached based on this in the first place? If you folks would bother to do some research, you'd find that an impeachable offense has to occur during one's current term of office. The October Surprise occured before Bush was even VP, let alone Pres.!
>The prospect of "President Quayle" is a bit daunting, I grant you.
It's prefer to "President Dukakis", the man who wanted to do to the country what he did to Massachusetts! :-) But that's beside the point....
>I'd be surprised to find that Bush could prove his innocence (and no >cries of "innocent until proven guilty", such aphorisms do not apply >to people who must have unimpeachable (ahem) character). Not disappointed,
Since when does one selective apply the protections of the Constitution? You Leftists/Liberals/Whatever always complain about someone's rights being violated, yet you're perfectly willing to violate someone else's rights when it's "Politically Correct" to do so.....
>ObActivism: Write your congressthing either way. Demand that they clear >this mess up once and for all and move on.
Better option: work to vote out all the CongressCritters, or at least work for a term limitation amendment....
jaha...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes: >Gee, I dunno, Mike. There was a column in, of all places, the Cincinnati >Enquirer (or is it Inquirer? It's at home now...well, anyway...) -- hardly >a bastion of left-liberal thought -- calling for Mr. Bush to prove that he >was in no way a part of any deal to continue the holding of hostages in >Iran. I think it's put up or shut up time.
I see. So now we haul off people into court and say "Okay you! Prove you didn't commit <crime>!"
>ObActivism: Write your congressthing either way. Demand that they clear >this mess up once and for all and move on.
Absolutely. The most reasonable and level headed suggestion I've seen thusfar...
MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: m...@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
rburg...@milton.u.washington.edu (Rick Burgess) writes: >Gee Mr. Ex. President Deignan, that isn't very activist of you now is it?
Ex President? Know something my stockholders don't, Rick?
>When >are you gonna read some of the stuff posted to this newsgroup instead of just >ignoring it and denying it exists?
I'll read stuff when it isn't posted by a left-wing reactionary who is more interested in grinding his political axe rather than actually getting to the truth.
Until then, pardon me while I ignore your posts.
>Perhaps an inactivist like you would be >more appropriate for talk.politics, don't you think?
There are many types of activists. Sorry I don't fit your mold. Perhaps I should dump some cows-blood on the steps of the state house and cry "Impeach The Governor"!
>After all you obviously >fail two very basic attributes of activists: > You aren't encouraging acts
Only your form of knee-jerk reactions are acceptable?
> You haven't read the information
More appropiately... I haven't read YOUR information. Key difference.
MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: m...@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
|
