Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 374

• 0%

  berkeley1 year, 5 months ago

  great essay on how the dems are more attached to the illusion of power than to anything else.

  their actions this week in appearring to want to stop the war by 2008 while actually fully funding it fit right in to this mindset. it is group-think at its worst.

  Reply

  35 Replies

  • 0%

    populist1 year, 5 months ago

    exactly!

    it's orwellian at its best. give the illusion of wanting to end the war, but still give it complete support and funding. i'm sure something will happen before that 2008 date - and they'll have the excuse "we tried!"

    pardon the french, but screw 'em.

    Reply
  • 88%

    miklkit1 year, 5 months ago

    Lest we forget, Watergate started out as a simple office burglary and ended up with Nixon resigning in the face of the threat of impeachment.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      injest1 year, 5 months ago

      Don't ya need to go through some steps first, like

      1. Charge him first with some kind of provable crime (not just some BS political charge), supported with real.

      2. Then have a trial, and if convicted

      3. Impeachment.

      If you can't get to step 1 you can't get to step 3. And that is why GWB has not been impeached.

      If the Dem's scared sh*tless of Fox news or Stephen Colbert do you really believe they could stand up to the questions as to why they believe Bush should be impeached?

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 67%

        Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

        Sorry - you have it a bit out of order and slightly inaccurate.

        1) Investigate alleged wrongdoing; if evidence is found of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors" then

        2) impeachment in the House - like a grand jury deciding whether to "charge"; if impeached, then

        3) trial in the Senate; if convicted, then

        4) removal from office.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          bigG1 year, 5 months ago

          They could impeach Cheney also, possibly at the same time. A "Two for Tuesday" is always possible, with the end result being the U.S.'s first woman President - and it ain't Hillary.

          BTW, all that many legal scholars say is necessary for impeachment is "abuse of power". Also, as Gerald Ford once said(paraphrasedby the bigG), the grounds for impeachment is what the House determines at any point in history.

          Reply
        • 0%

          Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

          Libssuck (God I really HATE that name) - your #5 may be right, but #6 is far from a sure thing, especially if Cheney is implicated (even if not proven) in the Administration's wrongdoing. I do not see how he could avoid being tarred with that brush - he's the 'puppet-master' after all, right?

          I've said it elsewhere - sometimes, you just have to do the right thing despite the consequences, then deal with the consequences.

          Reply
        • 100%

          AnvilHead1 year, 5 months ago

          5)Charged and trial in a criminal court

          Reply
  • 0%

    m-simon1 year, 5 months ago

    The Dems never had the votes.

    Har.

    Conservatives won the '06 election. Some had Ds after their names.

    You remember the Dean Southern Strategy.

    Reply

    26 Replies

    • 67%

      miklkit1 year, 5 months ago

      After the neocons hijacked the republican party, they had no where else to go. Who wants to be associated with criminals?

      Reply

      25 Replies

      • 0%

        SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

        the theory is right... but you do not need proof to impeach. thats what an impeachment proceeding is. the trial to determine whether there is enough proof to confirm guilt in a crime. (not saying we SHOULD impeach without proof, just clarifying)

        and if recent impeachment history is any suggestion (and hopefully it isn't) you don't need much of a crime to impeach over. and surely there is a suggestion that crimes have been committed worthy of it by the recent standard. lying to congress over WMD, dereliction in position as Com. In Cheif, infringement of first am. freedoms, violation of privacy, etc.

        Again not saying that there is enough proof for any of these, or even suspicion to warrant impeachment, but there is the suggestion of impeachable offenses. I don't think the discussion is as absurd as you seem to think, thats all.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          HomerJS491 year, 5 months ago

          2nd chance speaking of pea-brained...it's I before E. But I guess you'll just think I'm an elitist,huh?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            HomerJS491 year, 5 months ago

            Ouch,ouch,okay I've had enough...let me up.

            Reply
        • 0%

          injest1 year, 5 months ago

          lying to congress over WMD,

          Oh please YES, charge Bush with lying to congress about WMD's !! This will be a hoot!

          PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. "The intelligence from "Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2" was CONSISTENT" in concluding Saddam HAD Chemical and Biological weapons and was trying to Develop a Nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.

          The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and ALSO by consulting national security officials from the CLINTON Administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 100%

            SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

            Is the Senator responsible for knowingly presernting eronious claims of the Niger relation in a State of the Union address?

            And what does proving that Hillary Clinton is an idiot say about the guilt/innocense of the President? Surely you arent suggesting that Bush takes his marching orders on War and Peace from Hillary Clinton?

            And you are hoping that the Democrats bring down Bush on these claims because it might prove incompetance in Hillary Clinton as well? Congratulations. That might be a new low in partisan hackery.

            Reply
      • 0%

        bigG1 year, 5 months ago

        "Then you would need to prove wrong doing and or Law Breaking by Bush"

        I think the wrongdoing would be easy to prove. In my informed opinion, the "signing statements" can be viewed as infringing on rights of both the legislative and judicial branches under the Constitution. This could easily be sonstrued as an abuse of power.

        The President can do one of three things - 1) sign the bills as they stand 2)veto the bills as they stand, or 3) do nothing, at which a certain point they become law anyway - as they stand.

        The President does not have the right to interpret the law(judicial), nor modify (legislative).

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago

          Still doing nothing wrong....

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 100%

            bigG1 year, 5 months ago

            Incorrectimundo O 'King of Untruths'. Abuse of power is serious. Again - as Gerald Ford said, grounds for impeachment are what the House decides at any point in history. Who has the House majority?

            Reply
      • 0%

        HomerJS491 year, 5 months ago

        So your point is that since you Pubs are better schemers...you're better people?!? Wow!

        Reply
      • 0%

        Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

        Or those associated with the Bush Administration, I guess. We'll just have to wait and see.

        Reply
      • 0%

        Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

        the term "neocon" is defined in Webster's Dictionary as:

        "Function: noun

        2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means."

        An article in the CSMonitor states:

        Neoconservatives

        ·Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower

        ·Share unwavering support for Israel

        ·Support American unilateral action

        ·Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security

        ·Promote the development of an American empire

        ·Equate American power with the potential for world peace

        ·Seek to democratize the Arab world

        ·Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

        Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

        http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/neoConQuiz.pl

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 0%

          KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago

          All of those are good things....what is the insane lefts problem with that?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

            "unwavering support of Israel" - even when they are wrong;

            "American unilateral action" - even when that is taken in the face of nearly universal international opposition, weakening out international position immensely;

            "preemptive strikes" - even when the basis for the strike is faulty intelligence or outright lies, and when our preemptive action will be used bu others to do the same against our interests;

            "an American empire" - even when history has taught that all empires contain the seeds of their own destruction;

            "equate American power with the potential for world peace" - only if every other country agrees with us (remember - "you're either with us or against us") - some source of peace;

            "seek to deocratize the arab world" - even if their people don't want or are not ready for democracy;

            "push regime change..." - great way to push our weight around - more enemies abroad.

            Reply
        • 0%

          Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

          I didn't realize that Webster's Dictionary and the Christian Science Monitor were "lunatic liberals" - well, you learn something new every day.

          The actions against Milosovic were taken by NATO and the UN to stop ongoing genocidal activities.

          Would you care to provide a more accurate definition? Maybe it has to do with those who follow the PFNAC?

          Parrots are actually among the more intelligent animals, unlike Bushbots, which simply repeat their programming.

          How about this, from Irving Kristol of the Weekly Standard:

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic

          Reply
        • 25%

          SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

          The neo-conservative movement WAS NOT labeled by democrats, libssuck. It was, you may be surprised to know, started by democrats. they were originally followers of president kennedy who viewed America as an absolute good in the world with the responsibility of democrotizing the places of trouble outside of our borders and 'spreading the empire' so to speak. they were turned off of the democratic party by the hippies of the late 60's and 70's and eventually by the carter administration. its interesting that the definition provided aboce includes reagen, because many people dont think of him as one, even though he obviously is. democrat turned republican. low taxes, low welfare, big military, strong distinction tween ally and enemy, active global interference...

          it is not a term of deride. it is a self-applied label... theyre kennedy Dems turned republicans, put simply. Irving Kristol, and the Weekly Standard are the first i know of to have applied the term.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

            That being said- its funny that such a respectable republican needs to get this information from a liberal like me. i know you like to call us educated elitists, but maybe you should stop thinking of education as a bad thing.

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic

            Reply
        • 0%

          Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago

          Hey look at your hero's accomplishments.

          http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/03/29/g...

          Reply
      • 0%

        HomerJS491 year, 5 months ago

        Neo-Conservative....

        WEBSTERS DICTIONARY

        Neo-(prefix) 1)New:recent 2)a.New and different b.)New and abnormal 3)New World.

        Conservative 1)Tending to oppose change

        Shall I spell the rest out for you too? For one thing they're definitly from the Reagan ilk. So I guess thats the NEW part.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 67%

          HomerJS491 year, 5 months ago

          In the same way you and Rush have beat all democrats over the head with Liberal?

          -Oh ye hippocrites_

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

            Youre wrong. You say things like this and it makes liberals look dumb. see my post above. read about neo-conservativism on wikipedia. also check the weekly standard:

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic

            it started before reagen and traditionally was more intellectual in concept than he was... thats not a slam on reagan. he wasnt an intellectual. he was a dancer turned yale drop out turned actor turned politician. 60's libs turned republicans is the basic definition.

            Reply
        • 100%

          Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago

          libsuck,

          (with a moniker like that you don't have an axe to grind right?) Please note liberals did not coin this "bs phrase".

          The cast of ne'r do wells pulling strings behind the last 3-4 repub administrations bestowed it on themselves.

          Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and others described themselves as neoconservatives during the Cold War.

          Before anyone blindly supports the Bush charade, read the stated goals of the PNAC. (Project for a New American Century, established in 1997 with members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz to name a few.) Funded by weapons industries, energy companies, and right-wing foundations, they call for a "new pearl harbor" to trick the populous into supporting their goals, unprecedented hikes in military spending, establishment of military bases in Central Asia and the Middle East, toppling of non-complying regimes who resist the will of multinational corporate plunder- (cont)

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 67%

            Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago

            -the abrogation of international treaties, control of the world's energy sources, militarization of outer space, control of cyberspace, and the willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals.

            It seems most of the rabid supporters haven't even read the neocon "bible" "Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" where all this can be found.

            Do some web searching, much of this is on their own website.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago

              Here is a list of some of the PNAC members.

              Elliott Abrams, a former Reagan-era Assistant Secretary of State. During the Iran/Contra scandal, Abrams pleaded guilty to two counts of lying to Congress but was later pardoned by the first Bush administration. He became president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is currently a member of Bush's National Security Council.

              William J. Bennett, who established himself as a self-proclaimed expert on morality with his authorship of The Book of Virtues.

              Jeb Bush,

              Dick Cheney, the former White House Chief of Staff to Gerald R. Ford, and Secretary of Defense to the first President Bush, was serving as president of the oil-services giant Halliburton Company at the time of PNAC's founding. He subsequently became U.S. vice president under George W. Bush.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 100%

                Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago

                Donald Kagan, speechwriter to Secretary of State George P. Shultz (1984-1985); foreign policy advisor to Congressman Jack Kemp.

                Zalmay Khalilzad, served as a consultant to the oil company Unocal Corporation (UNOCAL) regarding a "risk analysis" for its proposed pipeline project through Afghanistan and Pakistan.

                William Kristol, PNAC's chairman, is also editor of the Weekly Standard, a Washington-based political magazine. His past involvements have included: lead of the Project for the Republican Future, chief of staff to Vice President J. Danforth Quayle,

                I. Lewis Scooter Libby, who later became chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.

                Norman Podhoretz, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of works such as Patriotism and its Enemies.

                J. Danforth Quayle, former vice president under President George Herbert Walker Bush and a presidential candidate himself in 1996.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 100%

                  Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago

                  Paul Dundes Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for President George W. Bush in 2001. Appointed World Bank president.

                  John R. Bolton

                  Bruce P. Jackson, President of the U.S. Committee on NATO. Past experience includes: US Army intelligence (1979-1990), Office of the Secretary of Defense (1986-1990), chief strategist of proprietary trade operations at Lehman Brothers (1990-1993), high level management positions at Martin Marietta and Lockheed Corporation (1993-1999?).

                  Richard N. Perle, an AEI associate, former Reagan administration official, and member (and former chairman) of the Defense Policy Board.

                  Quite a hall of shame, collusion, and treachery.

                  Reply
  • 0%

    NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

    Sighhh....Bush bash article of the day at Libscape. Get some new material guys, seriously.

    Reply
• 75%

  aniokly1 year, 5 months ago

  The Democrats cannot Impeach this President. It is not easy to Impeach a President. He has to do something stupid, like lie under oath, in a court of law. Even if Democrats had Articles of Impeachment, they lack the 2/3 majority vote necessary to Impeach.

  Reply

  19 Replies

  • 100%

    populist1 year, 5 months ago

    "The Democrats cannot Impeach this President. "

    whether that's the case or not, they won't even attempt. and that's my issue with them.

    i call that complicity.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      Tango571 year, 5 months ago

      With all the activity surrounding Congressional investigations, the branches of government are actually heading toward a means for impeachment. (just in case you haven't noticed)They are carrying out a strategic plan that I find intriguing. I expect Rove to take the next fall, after Gonzalez, then Cheney and Bush.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        bigG1 year, 5 months ago

        I agree somewhat Tango - they may not yet have the necessary "smoking gun" proof that they would need (remember Nixon) to get the people calling their Reps by the droves.

        Bush has to be very careful from here on in. 29% approval doesn't bode well for him.

        Reply
    • 100%

      samsara151 year, 5 months ago

      You're right. They should at least try.

      Reply
  • 0%

    earthlingerer1 year, 5 months ago

    ...or maybe break the laws enshrined in the Constitution about search and seizure, particularly concerning illegal wiretapping?

    Or perhaps lying to congress?

    Voting for impeachment is easy, you don't vote according to your constituency, you merely vote pertaining as to whether or not crimes were committed. That's all.

    Reply

    9 Replies

    • 0%

      youpeopledrivemenuts1 year, 5 months ago

      why is it that with this violation you claim (search and seizure, wire tapping,etc)You are still free to post this none sense on the web and no one has come after you?

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        miklkit1 year, 5 months ago

        Who says we are free? I have been threatened on the street, and online. My computer has been hacked. And the nearest FEMA concentration camp ia about 120 miles from my front door.

        http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps1.htm

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-827209672

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 100%

          capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago

          The way I read your post is that you are suggesting FEMA should not be supplying emergency housing for disaster victims? Who threatened you on the street and for what? Are all hackers right wing neocons out to get left wing neolibs? The nature of the Neolib mindset.

          If Bush were impeached, and witnesses began getting called in under oath to expose his and Vice President Dick Cheney's lies and deceit in tricking the nation into war, his illegal NSA spying activities, his obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame outing investigation, his authorization of torture, his obstruction of efforts to combat global warming, his criminal failure to provide troops with armor or to plan for an Iraq occupation or to respond to the disaster in New Orleans, and his usurpation of the powers of Congress and the Judiciary in invalidating over 1200 laws passed by the Congress, it would almost certainly lead to his (and Cheney's) removal from office and to a prompt end to the war. Accusations at best

          Reply
        • 29%

          youpeopledrivemenuts1 year, 5 months ago

          oh please. These links belong with the 911 truth nuts.

          You are still here bashing the us gov and no has has come and taken you away. If you were threatened on the street it was not by the gov. Perhaps you were spouting you anti government crap and found that there are not so many anti America types as you thought?

          Reply
        • 0%

          injest1 year, 5 months ago

          Can you hear the Wuhph wuhph of the Black Helicopters today?

          Reply
        • 0%

          KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago

          miklkit: If you do things to draw attention to yourself even knowing the rules and laws that are in place as well the threat of terrorism and insane rabble rousing liberalism run amok, then you probably deserved whatever extra attention that was being paid to you.....

          Reply
      • 0%

        bigG1 year, 5 months ago

        They would be shot on sight if they tried to come to my abode and infringe on my right of peaceful protest.

        Why is it you don't see the danger in the Government doing as they please with no oversight or repercussions? Are you absolutely positive they aren't doing " misdeeds" like them thar "evildoers"?

        I am not convinced, at least from what I have seen, or in the case of this Administration, have not seen as it has been hidden from the public.

        Reply
      • 0%

        HomerJS491 year, 5 months ago

        Isn't it amazing how you all were screaming about jack booted thugs during the Clinton years when there were NO threats to anyones personal freedoms AND now that there are the best you can do is say,"...it's not that bad...yet."

        -Oh ye hippocrites_

        Reply
      • 100%

        NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

        dont spew facts at them, it just makes their little liberal brains overload.

        Reply
  • 0%

    NelsonR1 year, 5 months ago

    nickly - I answere begs the question, Can a president be impeached for just plain old being stupid? I think this should be the issue.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 50%

      m-simon1 year, 5 months ago

      This is America stupidity is not illegal.

      Why do you think we have a Democrat Party?

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 100%

        IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago

        to keep the criminals in the GOP honest

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 60%

          NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

          yea, kinda like the Dumbocrapic criminals like William Jefferson?

          Reply
  • 50%

    Janetp1 year, 5 months ago

    Notice that this administration is smart enough NOT to say anything UNDER OATH for just that reason...

    Reply
• 0%

  ONEMEMPHISDUDE1 year, 5 months ago

  It's called politics! Speaker Pelosi did not become speaker by being stupid. She realizes that all the campaign promises to: "hang George Bush", "end the war now", the "100 days of progressive agenda", etc...all of these, were pipedreams. Campaign promises are akin to that childhood game of crossing your fingers behind your back, as you tell a little white lie. As a child we called it a game. As an adult, we call it Marketing!

  Democrats now control Congress...barely. Speaker Pelosi, if anything, is practical. There is no mandate for a progressive agenda. President Bush can not be impeached, and a Republican could win in '08. Why should she "win the battle and lose the war?"

  The author of this eassy, David Lindorff, should categorize his books as childrens stories. Only those who are truly naive would buy his product.

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 0%

    spkguy1 year, 5 months ago

    ONEMEMPHISDUDE

    You seem to forget why change was needed.

    Lawmakers Plan Ambitious Agenda as Voter Anger Rises

    Members of Congress will return to Washington next week to face deep challenges including a budget morass in the House and an immigration quagmire in the Senate, while new polls indicate that voters increasingly view the legislative branch as dysfunctional.

    How well Republican leaders navigate their way through the legislative mess could greatly influence the outcome of the midterm elections in November, suggests a poll released yesterday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

    "The American public is angry with Congress, and this is bad news for the Republican Party," the authors of the poll concluded.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 100%

      m-simon1 year, 5 months ago

      $24 bn added to a $100 bn bill is cleaning up the budget morass?

      OK

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 75%

        spkguy1 year, 5 months ago

        M. Simon

        "$24 bn added to a $100 bn bill is cleaning up the budget morass?"

        You Want to talk spending, have you looked at your US National debt?

        Right now it is 8.8 trillion dollars.

        The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

        $1.87 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

        You don't want to go there, this is one area (spending) that your President and this Administration has everyone beat!

        Your childrens grand children will be stuck paying that

        debt down!

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 100%

          capecoralM1 year, 5 months ago

          If Push comes to shove in the world and those that are "holding the debt" are told to f' off by the US what will happen?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

            Ok - gotta ask: what do YOU think would happen, capecoralM?

            Reply
  • 100%

    bigG1 year, 5 months ago

    "President Bush can not be impeached, and a Republican could win in '08."

    Not true - he could be impeached - the definition of which is to have charges brought by the House. It only requires a majority in the House, and the Dems have that. They do not have the 2/3 in the Senate necessary for removal from office. Yet. Let his Administraion start a war with Iran over some BS and that may change rapidly.

    I suspect Pelosi knows that the best thing to do is offer the appearance of standing up to this President since the previous Congresses did not. After a veto, they will ultimately pass a "compromised" bill, and if the war is still going on 2008, the Repubs will have some 'splainin to do' or we will have a Dem in the WH - thanks to W and his obstinance.

    Reply
• 100%

  spkguy1 year, 5 months ago

  Bush's Spy Program and the Fourth Amendment

  "In an earlier post ("King George's Constitution"), I asserted that the recently disclosed Bush spy program is both unconstitutional and unlawful. Since then, defenders of the program have attacked its critics as "hysterical" and "irresponsible," and have offered a mélange of arguments for the program's legality, or at least its possible legality. I want to address those arguments. In this post, I will focus on the Fourth Amendment. In a later post, I will address the statutory issue."

  http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/bus

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago

    Olmstead. The invention of the microphone, the telephone, recorder, it became possible to "eavesdrop" with much greater secrecy and expediency. Inevitably, the use of electronic devices in law enforcement was challenged, and in 1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law. On a five-to- four vote, the Court held that wiretapping was not within the confines of the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Taft, writing the opinion of the Court, relied on two lines of argument for the conclusion. First, inasmuch as the Amendment was designed to protect one's property interest in his premises, there was no search so long as there was no physical trespass on premises owned or controlled by a defendant. Second, all the evidence obtained had been secured by hearing, and the interception of a conversation could not qualify as a seizure, for the Amendment referred only to the seizure of tangible items.

    Reply
• 0%

  shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

  Maybe because there is no reason to impeach him.

  Maybe people should start looking at suing this website for spreading lies constantly.

  What is a "Populist Party" any way. A group of Bush haters who decided to make a website one day and make up a bunch of crap?

  Can we say propaganda anti-us site. I have yet to read any thing on this site that is beneficial to society in any way. Just bashing and useless rants that have 0 truth, 0 facts, 0 intelligence, and a lot of free time on their hands. Put it together, we get this website.

  Reply

  21 Replies

  • 100%

    earthlingerer1 year, 5 months ago

    The Populists are not just anti-Bush, they were anti-Clinton, too.

    They are just anti-Bad, anti-Lies, and anti-bad government.

    Reply

    19 Replies

    • 0%

      youpeopledrivemenuts1 year, 5 months ago

      The populists appear to be anti anything. What a bunch of complainers.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        spikecwc1 year, 5 months ago

        As in anti all government

        Reply
    • 100%

      shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

      anti lies? lmao!!! Have you read any of the articles on this website. Its nearly ALL lies!

      Thats hilarious. Who cares if they were anti clinton too? That make it any better? Liberals hate the Clintons too. Because they know Hillary will squash the competition like she has been. Im no Hillary fan at all. But looking at the Liberal agenda, she is easily the lesser of the 2 evils.

      But I honestly can't say who I support at the moment. I like McCain, and I have heard a few independents whom seem to have some really good ideas. I can't remember the one democrats name whom I heard give a extremely well written speech to.

      Im still waiting to hear what they all have to say. Plenty of time to reveal who is who.

      But the "Populist" website. Is a joke. I have debunked half the crap they post already. They are just a bunch of haters with a website they like to use to spread Anti-US propaganda on. I honestly couldn't tell you who they support. Aside from the liars writing the articles.

      Reply

      16 Replies

      • 0%

        IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago

        "I have debunked half the crap they post already."

        and youve only been registered 3 weeks! havent you been a busy little beaver! get over yourself, you havent "debunked" shyt. from your posts its obvious, another apologist, living in some alternate universe where lies are truth and iraq is going well, and lets not forget, Brownie did a great job, too.

        when will you 30%'ers finally get what the vast majority gets... iraq was the wrong war, its going badly, bush and cheney are lying criminals, and NO ONE buys anything you spew but the other 30%'ers.

        Reply

        15 Replies

        • 0%

          shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

          lol First off, I work for a organization that allows me to speak to tens of thousands of Iraqis and Troops. So sorry to say, unless you do the same. Or this "populistamerica" site does the same. I KNOW MORE1

          As far as people buying what I spew. lol Better then the lies sites like this or people such as your self are constantly spewing.

          You people have no intelligence what so ever, no facts, don't bother speaking to people in the war, don't bother learning the benefits of the war for the Iraqi or American people, as well as the middle east in a whole. Then you quote a 30% figure that changes by the day.

          lol@ me not debunking any thing. Again, I did, you prefer lies over facts. Thats the difference between us. I talk to those there. You talk out your a$$ like this website does, thats basically a anti-us propaganda site.

          Reply

          14 Replies

          • 100%

            Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

            Maybe you can explain this letter:

            http://www.veteransforamerica.org/page/weblog/subp

            I also have spoken personally to several Iraq veterans who express similar feelings (most not quite so extreme, but very critical).

            Regarding your 'debunking' everything on the Populist website - good for you. When will you be starting your own website to post those debunkings, or are you keeping them a secret, like Bush & Co's 'inner workings'?

            Finally, that 30% figure does change - usually moving downward, and for good reason. That is one reason why I choose to believe Populist 'lies' over your lies, until someone can effectively convince me of the real truth.

            Reply

            10 Replies

            • 67%

              shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

              You can always find some one who is against the war who was in the war. Look at how John Kerry acted when he came back from Vietnam. So although you will find some, the amount of troops and Iraqi's I have come in contact with personally is about 99.9999999999999999% supportive of this war and wants to finish it. So from my personal experiance, I have not found our troops to be unsupportive of this war, nor has any REAL news study, nor has any study at all. Aside from politically motivated organizations that constantly lie and manipulate what people are saying. Maybe not all, but again, majority over minority.

              As far as my debunks, I post them on here as much as possible. But I will be submitting my own articles shortly. Of course, I will not mention the site by name, pointless giving them more exposure then they need nor deserve.

              Reply
            • 0%

              shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

              As far a the 30%... Lol I believe these stats about as much as I believe Nancy Pelosi. There are far more left wing media studies taken then any REAL FAIR studies. College studies recently showed how bias the media is and how manipulative they are of facts. So thats no longer up for debate.

              As far as believing Populists lies, do what you want. Your life, your mistakes. But I dont lie. I provide facts, People can take it as they want. If you've been currupted by crap like this, Thats your problem. I constantly post facts, these people refuse to do any of that. The site is nothing more then a anti-USA propaganda web site.

              As far as some one needing to convince you. Why? Do the studies your self. I did. I seen the truth. Its not hard to look through the constant left wing media lies if you just open your mind to allow some thing different then your already rounded idea of whats going on.

              Atleast you admit they are lies though. So supporting any lie doesn't say much for you.

              Reply

              8 Replies

              • 33%

                Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

                Just keep living in your fantasy world, where Republicans are all well-loved and do nothing wrong, Democrats are all single-minded agents of evil and corporations make obscene amounts of money off the hard work of underpaid employees and pay their executives millions for being in the right place at the right time.

                "But I dont lie. I provide facts" - where? You make a lot of statements, claiming they are true, but most of them are either opinions, or simple, unsupported statements. Saying it doesn't make it a fact.

                Watch: "the left-wing media lies" See - saying it doesn't make it true.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

                  lol So instead of responding to things I fully say you respond with assumptions on me and then say I live in a fantasy world? Makes 0 sense. 0 Logic.

                  I just said college studies. Those are used by left wing media when it suits their story, when it doesn't its ignored. Like the latest pole that abc and some other organizations did going around door to door in Iraq to ask how they feel about life since the war. A Overwhelming majority said they feel much safer. Yet this was given a less then 2min spot on the channels that did the study, which were mostly leftist stations.

                  So that is a fact. I have provided countless other facts.... The difference is you call half the facts opinions. Like I said. I dont expect you to accept truths. When you go around lying and supporting liars.

                  lol@ The left wing media lies. Let me guess, thats not true? DO I really need to provide the evidence or have you become so engulfed in the lies you don't care to hear the truth? Looks like it.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Beau78901 year, 5 months ago

                    I've gone over and over your past six comments above, shyanbelle, and to tell you the truth, I've found NO facts whatsoever. You have stated your opinions, but those aren't the facts you keep talking about. Nothing you've said debunks the populistamerica.com site, though you do a good deal of arguing against it.

                    Facts are those assertions that can be backed up with independent evidence rather than your own observation, which is intrinsically limited. That's why good, responsible journalists (and notice I qualified that) use corroborating sources before they print assertions.

                    I'll listen, if you can give me any facts that have to do with your arguments. "I get to speak in front of tens of thousands of Iraqis and troops" really doesn't prove how much you know now, does it? It just means you have some kind of public relations job. What do you speak about? What kind of requirements were necessary for you to get that job? I'm curious.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 100%

                      Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

                      That's why I had nothing to respond to, and why I responded the way I did. Fantasyland.

                      Reply
              • 100%

                IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago

                said it before and ill say it again... your last post convinced me even more.... you SERIOUSLY need to get over yourself....

                hey, all of you that have been here debating this stuff for months, years in some cases, ive FOUND IT!!!

                EUREKA, ive found what we are ALL looking for....

                someone who knows ALL the facts, (just ask her, shell tell you so) hes debunked ALL the lies, and ONLY posts facts....

                ladies and gentlemen i give you shyanbelle, the saviour of netscape!

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

                  lol Says you.

                  Facts are facts. You can call them opinion all you want. In the end of the day. They are still a fact and you all are still Bush haters who would take "George Bush Killed the real superman, who really existed." if it was posted on here. Or Bush caused Katrina with his weather weapon, or Bush is the reason for global warming.....

                  You believe any thing that is against Bush. Why dont you people just admit that and come clean instead of parading around on internet websites every day acting like you really have some evidence to back up any of the crap you constantly spew.

                  I have yet to see a single fact from any of you. I have given you plenty. Yet, to you they are just opinions. I guess thats why you can't argue with you people. Truth isn't truth to you. Fact isn't fact to you. Unless it suits your argument. Basically we talk just to see who can type the longest... Right? Yet I need to get over myself? lmao. Live your life as a liar supporting liars.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Beau78901 year, 5 months ago

                    Please, shyanbelle--I'm trying to understand your logic. Can you give me a definition of the word "fact" as you use it, so that I can see what facts you've given any of us? Do you have sources for us to check and be certain that they're facts? Anything?

                    Otherwise, I'd be foolish to take your word that your assertions are factual, as you'd be foolish to take my word unless I gave you some sort of evidence.

                    Reply
                  • 75%

                    Watchemoket1 year, 5 months ago

                    PLEASE - LIST SOME FACTS, so I can respond to them. Where did ANYONE say that GWB killed superman, or that he created Hurricane Katrina or global warming?

                    These are the tactics of the real radical rightie - set up strawman arguments to then beat down, divert from the real arguments being made and the real facts being asserted.

                    State some facts and I WILL RESPOND.

                    (tomorrow - it is late and I need some sleep so I can go to work tomorrow) G'night all.

                    Reply
          • 100%

            IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago

            the above post debunks NOTHING. it is also very full of assumptions. youve been here 3 weeks, you have no idea who i am, who i talk to, or what i spew. for all you know i am a vet who served in iraq,saw the truth everyday, and now post what i saw with my own eyes.

            any1 can say anything, period

            whats the name of the organization? their address and/or 800 number, who is your supervisor so we can verify your claims... until you provide that info you are no more of an authority on anything than any1 else.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 100%

              shyanbelle1 year, 5 months ago

              "any1 can say anything, period"

              In other words why believe any one unless it suits your already formed agenda is what you basically just said. So you wouldn't listen if I gave you the evidence in your hand for any thing. Then you ask for numbers and supervisors to "check in to my claims"? Why? Any one can say any thing right? When I provide that, you call, its all verified, you can just turn around and say its all fake.

              So like I said, it doesn't matter what proof I provide. You just said it doesn't matter any way. We can say any thing.... As far as what organization I work with. Stay tuned, I will start posting articles from there very shortly so all your Bush haters can come debate some facts from the people in the battle.

              But after all, you will probably say they aren't real, its some made up person, since any one can say any thing.

              Comical to say the least. Proven idiocy.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 40%