Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I felt dumb because

Posted By: MeddlesomeMT on 2008-01-04
In Reply to: Curious as synonymous with officiousness? - Think Liberal

I had to look up officiousness. But then I found this:
"Officiousness is used about 3 times out of a sample of 100 million words spoken or written in English" and then I did not feel so dumb. LOL

It is perfect though.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Honestly, it was dumb....twaddle dumb....
x
I felt that way too,
which was why I registered as a Libertarian. Socially progressive & fiscally conservative describes me well, or as I like to say (tongue in cheek but not entirely), Do whatever you like, just don't make me pay for it.

But I went to the Libertarian website, not that a Libertarian has a real chance of competing in any election, but what the hay. That guy Barr seemed way too extreme for me, I couldn't relate at all. In the end I might change my affiliation if it feels really important to vote for someone in a primary, but it works better for me to just find the individual with the greatest amount of overlap with my beliefs & go with it. In this case it's Obama. & I have to say, I'm way more scared of Palin than I am of McCain. I find her stupidity & vulgarity absolutely terrifying. So I guess you could say I voted for Vice President this time around. I don't try to vote along party lines any more.
Maybe the DNC felt they, like anyone else, could
nm
I almost felt sorry for him
when I quit laughing.
I felt the same way at first....
I am generally a Republican, but everyone knew from the start, this would be the year for a Democrat. I thought too a change would be good. And in the beginning, I was impressed with Obama. But too soon, that impression soured. He contradicted himself too often and changed his message to suit the audience until the deceit became obvious. His support, judging by the poll numbers was starting to wane as people started to realize what he was, or at least that we had no idea who he really was.

This year should have been a shoo-in for a Democrat. But it wasn't. And not because he was black since as many people voted FOR him for that reason as against him, but because the Democratic candidate was such a poor choice.

That was exactly how I felt, too, especially
nm
Now you know how WE felt for
You learn to suck it up. It didn't matter that we didn't want Bush taking our country into a trumped up war, didn't want his stimulus package which had absolutely NO oversight or accountability. Bush never cared what the American people wanted, yet he got his way.

You will just have to do what we did for 8 years. Take it or move out of the country. Those are basically your only 2 choices.
I meant I felt like it was an act....
I believe it was theatrics. The Hollywood reference was meant to say they would be proud of the acting job...nothing to do with all of Hollywood being amoral, though I believe a good portion of it is. But that could be said for other areas as well. I am also aware of staunch conservatives in Hollywood and I think God for them.
It did not suggest to you that she felt...
"separation to avoid assimilation" was a good thing? That is segregation, and when practiced by whites against blacks, was viewed as racist. And it does not support what her husband said he is about: "There is no black america, there is no white america, there is only america." That thesis is the polar opposite of that line of thought...and brings to mind her comment about "we have a hole in our soul" talking about America.

Sorry...I believe she has an agenda shared by her husband and they want the white house as a bully pulpit to further their personal agenda. Still, that is only a secondary concern. My first concern is he is a far left radical socialist and wants this country to go the way of Cuba (only he thinks it will work here. Didn't in Cuba, didn't in Venezuela...hasn't anywhere it has been tried). I strongly disagree and will not vote for someone who believes that and fully intends to put it into practice.
I have felt in the past...
that I was being attacked for saying something that was never really meant to be offensive. I feel that we should all be able to act like adults and refrain from personally attacking anyone. I just thought that the response was unnecessarily nasty. I hope you have a great evening! I hope the other person does, as well.
I felt his pain.
I really expected him to endorse McCain.  My respect for him just grew because he had the guts to stand up against his own party for what he considers the good of the country.  I really feel there was more to his resignation from the Bush cabinet than meets the eye AND I cannot abide Condalesa (sp?) Rice!!!!!
That's how I felt when I saw the helicopter sm
The announcer was saying this is usually the most moving moment when the departing president blah blah and I was thinking GET IT OUT OF HERE ALREADY!!!!!

Let me dumb it up for you then.

Original thread, second paragraph:


Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, “A Case for Hearings,” that declares, “The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.”


Below are 2 bills I pulled in regards to the articles of impeachment submitted to the judiciary committee. 


109th CONGRESS


2d Session


H. RES. 1106


Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


December 8, 2006


Ms. MCKINNEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


 


RESOLUTION


Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.



Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:


Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that:


ARTICLE I. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION



In violation of the oath of office, which reads: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege, and disregard for the Constitution itself.


This conduct includes the following:


Manipulating Intelligence and Lying To Justify War



In violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution and his subsequent obligation to share intelligence with the Congress, George Walker Bush, while serving as President of the United States of America, in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information by, for example, removing portions of reports such as the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief, and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies to provide intelligence such that `the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' as revealed in the `Downing Street Memo'. To this end, President George Walker Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon to override existing intelligence reports by providing unreliable evidence that supported the claim that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States of America. By justifying the invasion of Iraq with false and misleading statements linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and falsely asserting that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and uranium, these assertions being either false, or based on `fixed' intelligence, with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.


ARTICLE II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE



In violation of his oath to `faithfully execute the office of President of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.


This conduct includes the following:


Failure To Uphold Accountability



In abrogation of his responsibility under the oath of office to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, by which he agreed to act in good faith and accept responsibility for the overall conduct of the Executive Branch, a duty vested in his office alone under the Constitution, George Walker Bush, failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.


Those whom George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, has failed to hold to account include but are not limited to the following top-level officials in his administration:


(a) RICHARD CHENEY- In violation of his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, played a key role in manipulating intelligence in the interest of promoting the illegal invasion of Iraq by pressuring analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency to `fix' their intelligence estimates of the danger posed by Iraq in relation to weapons of mass destruction, whereby Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.


(b) CONDOLEEZZA RICE- In violation of her Constitutional duty to share and provide accurate and truthful intelligence information with the Congress, as former National Security Advisor to the President, did play a leading role in deceiving Congress and the American public by repeating and propagating false statements concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, including false information that the purchase of aluminum tubes demonstrated that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, false information that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium and false information that Iraq sought help in developing a chemical and biological weapons program; whereby Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.


By neglecting to superintend the conduct of these officials and to hold members of the Executive Branch responsible for their negligence or violations of law, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.


Wherefore, by their aforementioned conduct, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice warrant impeachment, trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE III. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED



In violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed', George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.


This conduct includes the following:


Illegal Domestic Spying



In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 U.S.C. Chapter 36], George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit as on April 20, 2004, when he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: `any time you hear the United States Government talking about wiretap, it requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so', whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.


In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and unapologetically misled the American people and has sought to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of arbitrary government, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.




<BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF"


THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO


Next Hit Forward New Bills Search


Prev Hit Back HomePage


Hit List Best Sections Help


Contents Display


 


Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)


HRES 333 IH


110th CONGRESS


1st Session


H. RES. 333


Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


April 24, 2007


Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


 


RESOLUTION


Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.



Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:


Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


Article I



In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:




(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:




(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad AL Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.


(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.


(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.


(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.


(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.




(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.


(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.


(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.




(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.


(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.


(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.


The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.


In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.


Article II



In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:




(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:




(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.


(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.


(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ྖs, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.


(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ཀ Fundraiser in Iowa.


(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.


(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.


(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.


(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.


(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:




(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.


(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.


(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.


The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.


In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.


Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.


Article III



In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:




(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:




(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.


(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.


(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.


(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.


(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:




(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.


(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.


(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.


(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:




(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.


(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.


(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.


(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.


(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.


(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.




(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.


(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.


(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.


The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.


In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.


Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


 


Did I say they were dumb?
I just have a problem with women (even Oprah) demeaning themselves for a pageant that is really just for men to drool over women. Oooh, look at me - I'm purdy.

I suggest some of you go to the following link and read what the people are thinking. I read just about all of them and the one that strikes me is a Canadian making a comment about this election.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/29/1307122.aspx
I may be dumb s/m

but I'm smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall.


VOTING FOR LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!  Add T. Boone Pickens for VP!!!!!


now you are just being dumb
You are putting words in my mouth. You know nothing about me. I asked for some backup when people post things. You finally provided it, after whining in 3 other posts. I never ever claimed to be an ACORN fan. I just was trying to get the point across that if you post backup, you look a little smarter, but I guess it took you a while to get that ... Big shock.
How could someone so dumb
do so many good things for her state?  If she was that stupid, her state would be bankrupt like California is.
Maybe you should ask Dixie Dew what it felt like to be accused by you

of being an alcoholic (and there wasn't even a STORY written about her).  You do this kind of thing to posters on this board on a daily basis.  And you're doing it again to GT.  She has said point blank that she DOESN'T wish that on him, but that doesn't coincide with your lying attack against her so once again the truth doesn't count.


That's how I felt about her until I read about her history
Read about her on Wikipedia. I think that site is not for or against someone they just state what a person has done. I was a very very hard "Obama all the way supporter and defend him to the end". I'm not a republican in any way nor am I a democrat. I agree with some issues and disagree with others but that's on both sides.

This is what I was thinking and asking myself these questions. There is no doubt I cannot stand McCain. I think he is one of the worst choices ever and just a rotten person. Whether people want to believe it or not he is Bush continued.

However...I didn't know who she was so I read about her and what she stands for. She is not the usual "republican". She has worked for people and she does'nt (and won't) put up with any BS. She has done a lot for the state of Alaska and the people there. I read (don't know exact words to use) but I heard she gave every Alaska citizen I think it was $1200 and she took it out of the profits of the oil companies. She was a city council member for 4 years, then a mayor for 6 years, Chairperson for the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission for a year, and Governor of Alaska for 2 years. I also went to Wikipedia to read about Obama because I wanted to prove all those who say he doesn't have experience wrong. What I found is he was a member of the Illinos Senate for 7 years and has been a senator from Illinois for 3 years.

So she has 11 years experience and he has 10. Pretty close. One can argue that one job over the other gives you more experience (or not). To me it's not how many years each has been doing their job, it's been what have they accomplished doing their job.

No, Palin doesn't have any "Washington DC" experience but that is exactly what I like about her. I also like that she is pro-environment. She grew up in a family like mine (not wealthy) and like Barack she has worked for what she has.

She is really worth the time researching her. At first I was shocked on the pick, but I had to put the anger aside and look at her from a non-committed approach.

McCain - yes I can't stand him one iota. I can't trust him as far as I can throw him. I think he is as slimy as all the other Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the other "bad" republicans in DC. I cringe thinking about what it would be like if he wins. It literally makes me nautious. But if it does happen I have a mute button and don't have to listen to him or watch him. But Sarah Palin I like her a lot. I think she is a woman of principal and I do believe whe will be able to step in as president.

Also you cannot argue that she has no experience because neither did Bill Clinton and everyone says he was a good president (even thought I beg to differ).

Not saying I don't like Barack. I think he's okay. I do like Biden. I think he's a man of principal and a wealth of knowledge. But right now I think what Washington needs is someone who is not "Washington". This country needs a fresh face and someone who is not afraid to stand up for what is right for Americans and I believe she will. I'm tired of being "mowed over" by our government. Tired of big business and CEOs and oil companies becoming wealthier while the rest of us continue to become poorer.

Also who do you think was out meeting with "the people" who really run our country. Barack and Hillary. This is the group (name unmentioned) that hold secret meetings every year where no reporter is allowed near the facility and they have posted guards outside. Nobody is allowed in unless your in the group (which Obama and Hillary are and they tried to hide it) and they sit around and determine the fate of what will happen. You should ask yourself why didn't they want Americans to know they were at this meeting. If Obama gets in sure his ideas are great and inspiring, but he is still being controlled by others. Palin is not and not afraid to say "no".

Here's another thing I read about her. Not only are Pilosi and other democrats worried, but the best thing is Hillary has seen her dreams of ever becoming "First Woman President" go down the drain - which I am utterly and ecstatically thrilled about, but what is even better that helped cinch it for me. Two things... first JM was "told" to pick her. This was not his choice no matter what you want to believe. He was getting ready to announce Lieberman was his running mate, but he was told she was going to be the VP choice. That right there tells me that JM will not be making any serious decisions. The people who run him make the decisions and tell him what he will do. That is very important to me because I don't trust his decisions. But second and this is equally as important... Bush and Cheney are not happy she was picked. Hence we will finally have someone in there who is not a Neocon.

All I say is its going to be a very interesting rest of the campaign. I'm really interested to hear all the debates. I can't tell you whether I have a strong feeling that one will win over the other, so it will be interesting.
I've always felt like a misfit
What is generation x? I'll have to look it up. We always called it generation excrement. HA HA HA - ooh and now I find I'm one of them. Too funny.
I've felt a few of those flames...LOL..nm

I felt this way about Republicans under Bush. sm
I am a small government conservative and liberty lover and it knocked me out of that paradigm. Other than Ron Paul, I will not be voting for anymore Republicans or Democrats. The whole system has been taken over by socialists, Dem and Republican. They are going to put our children, grandchildren, and generations after us in debt.

The most insane piece of pork in that bill is Nancy Pelosi's 35 million dollar mouse.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/earmark-less-bill-gives-pelosis-mouse-cookie/
Well, I have never felt more unsafe in my country
nm
Wonder how many who worked at the WTC felt safe on 9/10/01?
I'd bet about 100%. Doesn't mean much, does it? In fact, the majority are often wrong when it comes to things like this.
dumb statement
she gets what she deserves?  All the woman wants is to meet with the person who is supposed to be our servant, the person WE put into office.  That is not asking too much, in my opinion.  It is not like he is a king or dictator.  He is supposed to be working for US.  If he had met with her, she would have went home and none of this shooting guns, crashing into crosses, etc., would have happened.  He is the reason she is getting all this press coverage.  Gets what she deserves?  What a dumb statement. He should get what HE deserves, impeachment, a criminal trial and imprisonment for this illegal immoral war of his.
More dumb stuff.
x
Really dumb, 57 states out of 58!!
xx
No, I am not dumb, and I am not "assuming"
the same things you obviously are. How do you explain starting at the bottom? Do you think he thinks the middle class is the bottom? You really think that?

I think we are beating a dead horse here. You have your opinion, not going to change. I have my opinion, not going to change. I do regret that you think someone must be "dumb" to have my interpretation, or that I am acting "deliberately dumb." Thank you so much for that assessment.
Thank you! Maybe America isn't so dumb after all.......nm
x
Israel felt pulling out of Gaza was okay. sm
Oh, okay, that explains all those wailing Jews being forcefully removed from their homes of 30 plus years.  Glad you cleared that up.  Your statement is ridiculous.  But then, they all are.  Gosh, your lying comment is getting really old.   Does anyone else think so?
I didn't know that Lurker told you how she felt.

In that case, I apologize.


And regarding looking in my own back yard, with all due respect to you and the board and your rules, I thought this WAS my back yard.  Out of respect for you and your rules, I have not posted on the Conservative Board.


All I'm asking is that, unlike me, THEY respect your rules.


Only if I felt that all available options had been considered and rejected...sm
How long has the US had nuclear weapons? More than 60 years. Iran, if they have any capability, it is very limited. Any serious threat or attack by them would only result in their ultimate annihilation. However extremist they may be, they know that.
Dems have already felt that way for the past 8 years...
Get over youselves. It's not fatal.
Why do those who call others dumb object so much...
..to having their own dumbness actually demonstrated in an undeniable way? You start that nonsense, it's going to come back and bite you on the butt. And usually, it's just too easy to make that happen.

Oh and by the way, who's avoiding the issue by launching a personal attack on someone else? Oh my, the very person who is complaining about someone else skirting the issue? Very typical. In fact, I didn't skirt anything. I was actually alive during the Gulf of Tonkin incident and my brother was in line for the draft at the time. My family was following events quite closely and even now continue to read and research the events of the VN war. You, my dunderhead, are out of line - and as usual, display a regrettable lack of character and credibility.
This whole thing is dumb and idiotic
you just go back several months and pull out an obscure post from somebody passionately talking about their support.  She didn't sign any dotted line for  you.  You all are OBSSESSED to the point it's scary.  Maybe she will go back...gosh this is sooooooo  freakin' stupid.
You seem to be enjoying your dumb little games.

Illustrates the high intellectual functioning behind your posts.


That and the fact that you have been too many times to recount to not bash on this board and to be respectful. In looking at other postings I see you are unable to follow this very very simple request from the moderator. 


Is'n't it time to grow up a little, Nan and AG?


W gave dumb a bad rep. 80% want change.
su
I think privatizing SS is a dumb idea and
you think it's a dumb idea but, hey, I guess all the rabid Republican posters on this board are so wealthy they don't need to worry about mundane things like Social Security, affordable insurance,homes,  jobs and stuff like that.  Guess they're like their hero  and own so many houses they've lost count. 
Dumb and uneducated followers?
Most Americans do not want to take that step back 50 years to buy into the bigotry you are promoting. Others never left it behind them, or simply passed it along to their children. Either way, that kind of thinking belongs WAY behind us back in the annals of some of the most shameful days US history ever recorded.
I hope that Hillary isn't dumb enough
to accept the job as SOS. It would be political suicide. In four, maybe eight years, Obama will be just as hated as Bush is right now and anyone associated with his administration might as well have the plague. I'm hoping she realizes this and stays in her senate job for now.
You said DUMB AS A GOURD. That's bashing.
Raed your own message, R-tard.
Yes, we know who is pulling the strings on the dumb

marionette puppet.


Yes, we know who is pulling the strings on the dumb

marionette puppet. 


Because they're not dumb enough to be sucked in
Perhaps, eh?
Not honoring her son by wanting answers, and speaking what she knows he felt.sm
He joined the army in 2002 before the Iraqi war began, so it's plenty possible he didn't agree with the Iraqi war.

No logical thinking person would have thought that Bush would focus his attention after 9-11 on Iraq.
Playing dumb is not your strong suit. nm
nmnmnm
Obiously. Dumb and blind to boot.
need some substance here....white matter gymnastics, intelligence, logic, coherehnce, pertinence. Bye-bye, dead thread deadhead.
Why are you starting these dumb @$$ threads on the liberal board?
x
Yep, pretty dumb to claim you have foreign policy experience from 3 weeks in Pakistan!!!...

Obama started off saying he was confident in his FOREIGN POLICY experience ("Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"). He then proceeded to talk about his visit to Pakistan.


SO WHAT? I visited and lived in several foreign countries, too. Does that mean I understand foreign policy better than someone who may have spent less time but has had actual interaction and policy discussions with those countries' leaders? And with the leaders of 80 countries?


If 3 weeks in Pakistan is the extent of Obama's foreign policy credentials, then I am way more qualified on the "foreign policy" front.


My point is that Obama's claim is ridiculous. Better that he stick to his "better judgement" mantra, since the "3 weeks abroad = foreign policy experience" is just pathetically weak.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html