OT: George Bush: An impeachable offence?
Craig Fink
Ron Paul,
It's time to impeach President George Bush for violating his Oath of Office
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. More
specifically, violating the 4th Amendment by wiretapping the entire Nation.
I hope you will all take this matter seriously, and into consideration as
soon as possible.
Craig Fink
Zogby poll: Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528
violation of his oath of office and the 4th Amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
I agree, George Bush should be impeached by the House, and this time
convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little more, any
help would be appreciated.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBe...@GMail.Com
Craig Fink
> Craig Fink <WeBe...@GMail.Com> wrote:
>
> :
> :I agree, George Bush should be impeached by the House, and this time
> :convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little more,
> :any help would be appreciated.
> :
>
> Perhaps Zoloft would help?
Sure go ahead, if you think it would help you. But, I'd suggest you check
with your doctor. Or, were you implying that 52% of the population of the
United States should be taking Zoloft?
Craig Fink
pretty sure Cheney is smart enough to behave himself until 2008.
Craig Fink
> On Jun 9, 6:35 pm, Craig Fink <WeBeG...@GMail.Com> wrote:
>> Dear Senator John Cornyn, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and
>> Representative Ron Paul,
>>
>> It's time to impeach President George Bush for violating his Oath of
>> Office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. More
>> specifically, violating the 4th Amendment by wiretapping the entire
>> Nation. I hope you will all take this matter seriously, and into
>> consideration as soon as possible.
>>
>> Craig Fink
>>
>> Zogby poll: Majority supports impeaching Bush for
>> wiretappinghttp://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528
>> violation of his oath of office and the 4th Amendment.
>>
>> Amendment IV
>>
>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>> violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
>> by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
>> searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>>
>> I agree, George Bush should be impeached by the House, and this time
>> convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little more,
>> any help would be appreciated.
>> --
>> Craig Fink
>> Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeG...@GMail.Com
>
> Unless you set yourself or some congressman on fire, you'll be ignored
> to death :-)
> BTW, if you want to know why impeachment attempts won't work listen to
> this: http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_07_gravel.mp3 (it's about 40
> min, includes several topics, but you can find the impeachment issue
> discussed cogently)
Thanks for the link, I'll have to listen to it, give me some points to make
in the letter. Having never written my Representatives before, I'll have to
make sure it's well written, has the right tone, and even spell check
it. ;-)
Craig Fink
> Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:21:04 PDT (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:01:39 GMT, in a place far, far away, Craig Fink
> <WeBe...@GMail.Com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:50:31 GMT, in a place far, far away, Craig Fink
>>> <WeBe...@GMail.Com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>>> way as to indicate that:
>>>
>>>>I actually agree with you Cheney would be better if Bush is impeached.
>>>>I'm pretty sure Cheney is smart enough to behave himself until 2008.
>>>
>>> I've no idea what you mean. I doubt if you do, either.
>>
>>The Zogby poll was commissioned by;
>>http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
>>that's the subject, if Bush is impeached and convicted, Cheney would then
>>be President. It's OK with me, you brought it up, I agreed.
>>
>>That is what we are talking about in this thread.
>
> I mean that you don't know what you're talking about when you expect
> Cheney to "behave himself," or what the implication is about Bush
> "behaving himself." What does "behaving himself" look like, and why
> do you think that it requires being "smart" to do it, and why do you
> think that Cheney is that "smart"?
First thing we've ever agreed on, and you seem to be back
tracking. "smart", "intelligent", if Bush get's impeached by the House,
tried and convicted by the Senate, it'll certainly leave an impression on
Cheney. He probably would be glad he wasn't impeached along with Bush as
the afterdowningstreet.org group seems to want to do, so he would behave
himself.
You do realize who would be President if Bush and Cheney were
impeached/convicted together?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
That would be Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary wouldn't get to be the first woman
President of the United States. That too would be acceptable to me, but I
doubt you would agree.
Who knows if it true or not but, syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer
writes:
"Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly
wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I
am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his
successor could not get out of "our country's destiny.""
as reported in: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2618
We're still in agreement aren't we?
Cheney would make a fine President if Bush is impeached and convicted.
Craig Fink
> Craig Fink <WeBe...@GMail.Com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :> Craig Fink <WeBe...@GMail.Com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :I agree, George Bush should be impeached by the House, and this time
> :> :convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little
> :> :more, any help would be appreciated.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Perhaps Zoloft would help?
> :
> :Sure go ahead, if you think it would help you. But, I'd suggest you check
> :with your doctor.
>
> Just you, for a start. I suspect if just folks like you did it would
> fix the problem of 'spin polls' like this AND would help your
> 'letter'.
>
Craig Fink
> Craig Fink <WeBe...@GMail.Com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :> Craig Fink <WeBe...@GMail.Com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :I agree, George Bush should be impeached by the House, and this time
> :> :convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little
> :> :more, any help would be appreciated.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Perhaps Zoloft would help?
> :
> :Sure go ahead, if you think it would help you. But, I'd suggest you check
> :with your doctor.
>
> Just you, for a start. I suspect if just folks like you did it would
> fix the problem of 'spin polls' like this AND would help your
> 'letter'.
>
You, aren't ... is on Zoloft? If so, he isn't ...
Craig Fink
convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little more, any
help would be appreciated.
Sure go ahead, if you think it would help you. But, I'd suggest you check
with your doctor.
> fix the problem of 'spin polls' like this AND would help your 'letter'.
You, isn't ... is ...? If so, he isn't ... If your on Zoloft, ...
Craig Fink
I agree, George Bush should be impeached by the House, and this time
convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little more, any
help would be appreciated.
> Fred J. McCall: Perhaps Zoloft would help?
Sure go ahead, if you think it would help you. But, I'd suggest you check
with your doctor.
> Just you, for a start. I suspect if just folks like you did it would
> fix the problem of 'spin polls' like this AND would help your 'letter'.
You, isn't ... is ...? If so, he isn't ... If your on Zoloft, ...
Hyper
Trying to argue with the McCall troll is worse than pointless.
His kneejerk reaction to any criticism of neo-con dogma is to resort
to unimaginative insults.
Although his fixation with all things anal may indicate a repressed
need to come out, you should repress your empathy for opressed
minorities and just killfile him :-)))
Fred J. McCall
:On Jun 10, 4:32 am, Craig Fink <WeBeG...@GMail.Com> wrote:
:> No, no, over here, I'm still writing a response over here.
:>
:> I agree, George Bush should be impeached by the House, and this time
:> convicted by the Senate. I'll have to work on the letter a little more, any
:> help would be appreciated.> Fred J. McCall: Perhaps Zoloft would help?
:>
:> Sure go ahead, if you think it would help you. But, I'd suggest you check
:> with your doctor.
:>
:> > Just you, for a start. I suspect if just folks like you did it would
:> > fix the problem of 'spin polls' like this AND would help your 'letter'.
:>
:> You, isn't ... is ...? If so, he isn't ... If your on Zoloft, ...
:> --
:> Craig Fink
:> Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeG...@GMail.Com
:
:Trying to argue with the McCall troll is worse than pointless.
:
Is THAT what all that incoherent blithering by Craig was - an attempt
to argue?
:
:His kneejerk reaction to any criticism of neo-con dogma is to resort
:to unimaginative insults.
:
I almost hope mainstream Democrats are stupid enough to go this way.
Look how well it worked for Republicans against Clinton, after all?
It's got nothing to do with "neo-con dogma", you silly shit. It's got
to do with political suicide. What do you think people (real people)
are going to say if the Congress hares off after this goal?
Can you say "attempted political payback for Clinton"? What do you
think the reaction of the electorate is going to be when they see
Congress engaging in that sort of thing instead of doing things for
the good of the country?
:
:Although his fixation with all things anal may indicate a repressed
:need to come out, you should repress your empathy for opressed
:minorities and just killfile him :-)))
:
And you've stupidly never heard the use of the phrase "Yeah, and
monkeys might fly out my butt" to describe something that is so
unlikely as to be practically impossible?
No, of course not. Which says much about both your intellect and your
degree of attention to goings on in the world around you.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Craig Fink
lol, yeah arguing for the sake of arguing with the Rand McCall troll, and
trying to make sense out of it. :-/
But, what if the President George Bush were on Zoloft? Wouldn't the use of
that drug (I'm sure there are several others too) while being the President
be of concern to the Nation. I would think it would pretty much disqualify
him from being President. So, shouldn't his medical history be public
knowledge for all to see if he is medically incapacitated, like taking
Zoloft?
Craig Fink
> I almost hope mainstream Democrats are stupid enough to go this way.
> Look how well it worked for Republicans against Clinton, after all?
Or, Nixon, a better example. With Clinton, it was pretty much about lying
about sex. With Nixon it was about illegally wire taping the Democrats, and
Nixon steps down because he is going to be impeached and convicted. I think
the Nixon analogy works better, Bush illegally wire taping the entire
nation using the the vail of secrecy to hide his illegal activities.
Constitutionally, it's Congress duty to look into it further and determine
exactly what went on and if it's an impeachable offense. That and a long
list of other things, there is just so many to choose from to put in the
letter to my Congress men and woman. Better to keep it short and to the
point.
When is enough, enough and it's time to write ones Congress men and women to
lift the vail of secrecy the President is using to hide his TBD illegal
activities.
Contacting your Representative can be done here:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
but, that's an online letter, it's better to send snail mail (USPS):
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
It only takes a majority in the House to Impeach Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
The Senate is 2/3
Rand is right, I think I'll leave Cheney out of my letter because it's going
to take some Republicans to convict Bush. My two Senators are both
Republicans and might have a problem convicting both Bush and Cheney
causing a change in party control of the Presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
President Cheney might be more palatable to them, as opposed to having
President Pelosi. Either that or the Nixon example, VP first, new VP, then
the President. That also might be acceptable to my Senators.
Craig Fink
of that drug (I'm sure there are several others too) while being the
President be of concern to the Nation. I would think it would pretty much
disqualify him from being President. So, shouldn't his medical history be
public knowledge for all to see if he is medically incapacitated, like
taking Zoloft?
> Fred J. McCall wrote: He's not.
How would the rest of us know? Take your word word for it?
Hyper
> Hyper <hyperbor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :Trying to argue with the McCall troll is worse than pointless.
> :
>
> Is THAT what all that incoherent blithering by Craig was - an attempt
> to argue?
He came across as a guy who wants to do something about (perceived)
political injustice.
It was all pretty clear and stated in a reasonable tone.
> :His kneejerk reaction to any criticism of neo-con dogma is to resort
> :to unimaginative insults.
> :
>
> I almost hope mainstream Democrats are stupid enough to go this way.
> Look how well it worked for Republicans against Clinton, after all?
>
> It's got nothing to do with "neo-con dogma", you silly shit. It's got
> to do with political suicide. What do you think people (real people)
> are going to say if the Congress hares off after this goal?
>
> Can you say "attempted political payback for Clinton"? What do you
> think the reaction of the electorate is going to be when they see
> Congress engaging in that sort of thing instead of doing things for
> the good of the country?
I and some others said it was unlikely he succeeds - YOU insulted him
out of hand.
Sophistry and equivocation is are your staple. Xenophobia and bigotry
abound too.
Are you "REAL PEOPLE" Mac? What exactly makes one REAL, agreement with
your bigoted outlook?
> :Although his fixation with all things anal may indicate a repressed
> :need to come out, you should repress your empathy for opressed
> :minorities and just killfile him :-)))
> :
>
> And you've stupidly never heard the use of the phrase "Yeah, and
> monkeys might fly out my butt" to describe something that is so
> unlikely as to be practically impossible?
>
> No, of course not. Which says much about both your intellect and your
> degree of attention to goings on in the world around you.
You know full well what I'm takling about so quit squirming potty boy.
Or is it that monkey trying to get out of your ass?
Showering people with your pathetic coprological rudeness is what
qualifies you as a troll - and raises questions about your intestinal
fortitude :-)
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
You can hear retching from underground every time you use that quote.
Fred J. McCall
:On Jun 10, 6:37 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Hyper <hyperbor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> :Trying to argue with the McCall troll is worse than pointless.
:> :
:>
:> Is THAT what all that incoherent blithering by Craig was - an attempt
:> to argue?
:
:He came across as a guy who wants to do something about (perceived)
:political injustice.
:It was all pretty clear and stated in a reasonable tone.
:
Except for that last incoherent blither, which is what I was referring
to.
:> :His kneejerk reaction to any criticism of neo-con dogma is to resort
:> :to unimaginative insults.
:> :
:>
:> I almost hope mainstream Democrats are stupid enough to go this way.
:> Look how well it worked for Republicans against Clinton, after all?
:>
:> It's got nothing to do with "neo-con dogma", you silly shit. It's got
:> to do with political suicide. What do you think people (real people)
:> are going to say if the Congress hares off after this goal?
:>
:> Can you say "attempted political payback for Clinton"? What do you
:> think the reaction of the electorate is going to be when they see
:> Congress engaging in that sort of thing instead of doing things for
:> the good of the country?
:
:I and some others said it was unlikely he succeeds - YOU insulted him
:out of hand.
:
No, I insulted him when he started bleating incoherently stupid.
You apparently love political shills on Usenet. I think they're just
another form of litter.
:
:Sophistry and equivocation is are your staple. Xenophobia and bigotry
:abound too.
:
And lies and delusion apparently is are yours.
Care to point to any 'xenophobia' or 'bigotry' on my part? I thought
not.
Liar.
:
:Are you "REAL PEOPLE" Mac? What exactly makes one REAL, agreement with
:your bigoted outlook?
:
Stupid Usenet Tricks 101 again. Don't you mindless wankers ever learn
anything new?
Real people are the ones who aren't being counted in Usenet flash spin
polls, which will almost inevitably come up 'libertarian' in flavour.
:> :Although his fixation with all things anal may indicate a repressed
:> :need to come out, you should repress your empathy for opressed
:> :minorities and just killfile him :-)))
:> :
:>
:> And you've stupidly never heard the use of the phrase "Yeah, and
:> monkeys might fly out my butt" to describe something that is so
:> unlikely as to be practically impossible?
:>
:> No, of course not. Which says much about both your intellect and your
:> degree of attention to goings on in the world around you.
:
:You know full well what I'm takling about so quit squirming potty boy.
:
Ever notice how whenever someone uses some variation of "...and you
know it", it's usually because they don't have a single scintilla of
reason on their side?
:
:Or is it that monkey trying to get out of your ass?
:
That's 'butt', you cultural illiterate.
:
:Showering people with your pathetic coprological rudeness is what
:qualifies you as a troll - and raises questions about your intestinal
:fortitude :-)
:
And yet here you are, wanking on and on. Either you know you're lying
with this 'troll' bullshit or you like the feel of the hook in your
lip...
:
:> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
:> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
:> -- Thomas Jefferson
:
:You can hear retching from underground every time you use that quote.
:
Ah, the cluelessness of the .sig flame. What next - spelling flames?
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Craig Fink
to my Congress Men and Woman. Helping in his own way, which usually entails
arguing and insults, but that is Fred, isn't it. Helping to make sure that
it has the right tone and content. The intended audience of the letter is
very important, and Fred has made a contribution. They are not Usenet.
But Fred does bring out a very important point, It'll have to be the
Republican Congress Men and Women who initiate Impeachment proceedings. If
the Democrats do it, it will most surely look like retribution or partisan
politics. The Republicans, they are the ones who need to see the letters,
they are the ones to petition. I guess I'm lucky, all three of my Congress
Men and Woman are Republicans.
It's a first Amendment right of all Americans to petition the government for
a redress of grievances. Redress, "to make right", "to remove the cause of
(a grievance or complaint)". Grievance, George W Bush and what he has done
to our Nation. He is the grievance part to be made right by impeachment. He
created the War on Terror (WOT), not Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. Yes,
Osama bin Laden attacked US using a Tactic. But, Bush created the The War
on a Tactic (WOT), essentially a never ending war...I guess it would be
good to specifically list my grievances...
Whereas:
George W. Bush, created the War on Terror, which essentially is a War on a
Tactic, something that can never be won and is therefore a never ending
war. (he could have chosen from many different strategies that doesn't
involve the shredding of the Bill of Rights...)
George W. Bush, has violated the 4th Amendment Rights of the entire Nation
under a vail of secrecy. (TBD by Congress during the impeachment
process...)
... anybody want to help out with the list of grievances?
As to success of the letter to my Congress Men and Woman, that can be
measured in many different ways. If they read it and it causes them to
think a little bit about where we are going as a Nation, I'll consider it
successful.
Just like WOT has many measures of success. Personally, I measure success in
the WOT by what is going on here in the United States, not in the Middle
East. Liberty and Freedom are important to me, do I have more or less
Liberty and Freedom? Safety, I'm I truely safer, or is it just an illusion
of safety. The Bill of Rights, how are my rights doing? By all measures,
I'd say we are losing the WOT.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBe...@GMail.Com
--