You said DUMB AS A GOURD. That's bashing.
Posted By: HumBuggle on 2009-03-08
In Reply to: I said Palin was pretty- do you consider that bashing? - Reading
Raed your own message, R-tard.
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
Obama bashing versus Palin bashing... sm
Obama will be in the forefront for the next 4 years, assuming the electoral college pans out the way the popular vote did and providing his BC holds up in court.
Palin, on the other hand, has gone back to the frozen tundra. Whether she resurfaces in 2012 remains to be seen, but can't we just wait until then to start in on her?
You got that right Gourd sm
Why do they think they own God? Why do they think they own the American flag and that disagreeing with a rabid republican is unAmerican? Their whole premise is against God and unpatriotic.
LOL....duh...gourd painter
I didn't even make the connection there with the whole veggie painting and your name there. LOL! That one went over my head.
Bored with the gourd
Why do you read the posts let alone reply if you're bored. LOL
Gourd Painter, I'm trying to help you! You are so right.
these people are dopes on here
I hear you Gourd
I have a dear friend who says she loves Sarah Palin and she talks negatively about "liberals." Yet, when I ask this person about the issues, she admits she isn't really paying attention. She also watches FOX news and doesn't realize it's a tabloid type of program. She thinks it is the news. She is not smart. That explains a lot of these people. Not smart. The other ones who support Palin and McCain are either racist, rich or religious right freaks. I find most of the people though, are uneducated and brainwashed by Fox.
Gourd Painter, .... sm
I was asking how to handle my friends. That is what I need advice about. I find everyone, everywhere to be ready for a fight. Especially republicans and I feel like I'm losing friends over this election. Is there a way to stop people from bringing it up or is there a way to be diplomatic without being nasty back to people? I was crying because I'm losing my friends over this election.
I agree Gourd!!! nm
LJSDKLSJKS
LOL I thought you were gonna go out of your gourd!
LOL
Was bashing her, was bashing his choice of
her. I said she was not the MOST qualified. Did not say she wasn't qualified. I said he picked because she would help with the base. That's actually a compliment.
Rather than attacking, try to understand the content.
I wasn't referring to you as the "pot" it should have been under the gourd's post
x
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.
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.
I felt dumb because
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.
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
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.
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?
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
Nobody's bashing you
Just because someone questions you it does not a bash make.
Who was bashing? sm
Someone pointed out, actually THREE someones, that a link was not working and you freaked out. Now, who is overreacting here? I tried to point out, nicely I might add, that the link was not working and you started with the only liberals could see it conversation. At least have the good graces to admit that this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. The link does not work. It just doesn't. If it works for you, I am surprised as all get out, because it just does not work for me. Settle down. Take a chill pill. No one is bashing you for Pete's sake.
What is bashing?
Thank you for your post, however, I do not need you to clarify what is a bashing post and what is not. Calling someone ignorant is not needed, debating is. I have participated in many debates both in college and within the internet and honestly debating can be done without disparaging another. Calling someone ignorant is a bash. However, you see the world one way, others see it another. Is not that reason enough to keep all posts and debates as kind as can be?
no bashing here, you are so right!
McCain is the man to lead right now. Palin is a great woman too. Obama is a good guy in many respects, but not to lead this country. He does NOT have the judgment, the depth of character or the right morality IMO. He is really a politician at heart, and its not a 'new kind of politics'... i think the senate is the best place for him.
Not bashing at all....I just wonder, though....sm
how many of you Obama supporters will even bother to admit if and when Obama does not live up to your expectations.
I noticed how no one on this board today, could even be bothered about the one issue I raised in my post, of Obama's lack of discretion, and outright disdain for our current president, by leaking their private conversation, and then lying about it. And then coming out and admitting he lied about it (or rather, his campaign supposedly said all these things and leaked them, etc...but he was the one in the oval office, not his campaign, and thus it came from him....).
Not a word from you on that subject.
No bashing here, BWT........ sm
I agree with you on all points. But the point I was making is now is the time to buy cheap and hope for an increase on your money in the future....and it will be WAY in the future.
We're all in the same boat sinking at the same time, and you're right, there is nothing Obama can do about it. Greed has gotten us to where we are, and not just the greed of the filthy rich either. I think we have about run our course here in America and the next years are going to be hard ones. I'll share my refrigerator box with ya!
Why the Bush Bashing?
Your post is nothing more than that. Grow up, get a life that is filled with something other than hate.
why the bush bashing?
Spoken like a true conservative republican..if someone does not agree with you or live like you or vote like you or have the same beliefs or morals like you, you attack them personally, without any basis in fact for the attack. Get a life? Grow up? Things that have been posted here about Bush are the truth..PERIOD..yet, you turn around and attack personally, not knowing anything about the posters. I am grown up and do have a life, full of wonderful things and also full of politics and I will post and shout out and write editorials to the newspapers on this corrupt murderous administration any time I feel like it. Thank you very much. Now, why dont you go back to the Conservative Bush sheep section.
bashing bush
I do not see the media bashing Bush, honestly I still wonder why so Americans voted for him - so confusing our Country has never been in the Pearls it is in today, our poor troops!!!!!!
It is not dissent, it is bashing..
The whole gist of your post is bashing. When I complain about bashing of liberals on the liberal board, you reply by bashing even more....and not just bashing me, but all liberals. Why does it bring you so much pleasure to hate so many?
I don't really want an answer, I'll not read any more of your posts, or AG's crowing about you and her slamming the liberals on the liberal board. They are garbage.
Geez. No one is bashing you....
You post under both monikers and denied it for a long time, then finally admitted it. Not bashing, just the truth. And when I started posting as observer on the conservative board and liberal board when both existed, no one else was using that moniker and did not, and I did not know you had used it (yet ANOTHER one) before I started using it. No one said anything to me when I started using it, including YOU, until the issue was raised about Teddy/Taiga. So, you are the architect of fiction, not me. And as to portraying the truth...I suppose one must be able to recognize it. No synopsis to it, Teddy/Taiga. The truth, and no need to check the archives. You know and I know the truth, and anyone who has been posting and following this knows the truth too. What I don't understand is why you are making such a big deal about it. You posted using two monikers, denied you were doing so when confronted, and finally copped to it. It was not a big deal then and is not a big deal now.
Obama bashing
I agree about the measure of success. It's relative. A 4 or 5 point bump isn't exactly chicken-feed when you are already in the lead, but the success of his trip is not about the polls. They will bump and slump a hundred times between now and November for both candidates and because they are skewed, construed and misconstrued, they are not that meaningful one way or the other, especially since we still have not even made it to the conventions. What Obama succeeded in as a byproduct of his accepting McCain's challenge is that he did not exactly come across as some inexperienced rookie as McCain had hoped he would. Instead, he was well received among world leaders who were obviously quite comfortable around him, some of whom expressed their open support and acceptance. He came out of this trip with an impressive stash of diplomatic capital, something that McCain has yet to even recognize as being desirable or advantageous.
It is impossible to measure the numbers of people who were or were not "impressed" by his world citizen identity, but it is possible to be one and be a patriotic American at the same time. It's not a right or wrong, either/or thing. It is phrase that reflects an approach or attitude toward world view and is more accurately defined as a philosophy behind foreign policy that does not in any way diminish love of country. For those who promote diplomacy as an effective and viable alternative to war, it is well understood. For those who don't, it is just more fodder for personal attack and is often misrepresented as a lack of allegiance. This accusation is ludicrous and insulting. Many believe that the desire to avoid and/or prevent war is the ultimate expression of love for country and it is those people who he represents well.
This "hoohah" statement makes no sense. For the sake of clarity, diplomacy is a 4-letter word for those who subscribe to the belief that diplomatic world citizens are un-American. The Berlin speech sure didn't look so "little," with 200,000 in attendance. When did McCain ever spark such interest and excitement? It does not matter where the speeches are made. It is the message that counts. The time is now for a US president who inspires admiration and unity, rather than division, hatred and terror.
The surge is part of a war that did not work, is not working and will never work. Wasn't it just yesterday and the day before that Bush and McCain said something to the effect that the invasion of a sovereign country was inappropriate for the 21st century? Hypocrites. The horrors of war are the horrors of war, no matter who wages them in no matter what country. The surge is not a black and white issue. It is honest NOT to express support for something he does not believe. Personal attacks like this are not issues, they are tactics that lower the bar on the issues dialogue. The dynamics between Obama and the Reverend run much deeper than political expediency and these cheap shots are not exactly honest either. Long-term, meaningful relationships between people who hold diametrically opposed ideals are nothing new. They happen in families all the time. Michelle and Obama were not in South Chicago as part of some clandestine black militant conspiracy. They were doing neighborhood outreach that paralleled many of Trinity church's programs. To dismiss this subject with even that one statement does not do this subject nearly the justice it deserves.
Here's that information void again. Fox and CNN played a sound byte out of context over and over and over and over. A fifth grader could recognize this as propaganda. This does not constitute "so much information," and in fact, is no information at all. To understand his relationship with Rev Wright and that church requires an open mind, knowledge of black history and of Obama's background and biography, a willingness to step out of a comfort zone long enough to face some harsh realities about race in America and most importantly, a desire to understand. Anyone who parrots the trash that Fox and CNN put out on this subject obviously does not possess those traits and will simply have to be left to fester in their own hatred. These statements are made with a very straight face.
The name calling also is not worth addressing. However, there are plenty of white folks and blacks alike who are not black liberationists who can plainly see that it is time to reign in the corruption of the corporations and all their "special" interests, with the "R" word (regulation). How exactly did Ken Lay and his ilk earn those obscene salaries and perks at the cost of those whose hard work stuffed huge profits into their pockets, and just how many lives did they destroy in the process? In a country of such vast wealth, the plight of the homeless, the depths of the poverty, the existence of hunger, the shrinking middle class, the job flight for the sake of endless corporate greed, the foreclosure rates and the health care crisis (just to name a few) are a national disgrace. What some call Marxism/socialism, others think of as simple, basic humanity. It is time for that one fundamental American value to be restored for all our sakes, once and for all.
I wasn't bashing you
I read your post above where you were claiming everyone was bashing you and you were innocent and just defending yourself. I just want you to know I read my post again and I was not bashing you in case you included me in the group of all the people bashing you.
However, here you are calling me a liar. You also are claiming I am not a religious person, and I'll quote you... "You obviously are not a religious person, but that does not mean you are not a moral person, does it?" First telling me I'm a liar and I'm not a religious person, while you may not call that bashing, I call it disrespectful. You don't know me or my religious background and I take offense to someone who makes judgement about me without knowing me.
You also do not know my viewpoints on abortion but are assuming I'm for it. I find abortion dispicable and vile and I posted that awhile back when you first posted about abortion. So don't assume anything.
And how hard is it to not read posts on abortion? Very hard when it seems to come up every day or two. And when its all in capital letters???
It's time to stop playing the victim saying everyone is picking on you and your tired of being attacked when your the one doing the attacking on others for not believing the way you do and not wanted to discuss abortion every day. I see a lot of people are tired of the subject but your answer is "If that chaps you, so be it".
I really do hope other political issues will be on this board so we can put the abortion subject behind us. Enough has been said about it and it's getting old.
skip the bashing for a second, sim
nm
|
