What is more important to you? - Page 3

Static · 05-29-2008, 04:39 PM

-Upholding the United States Constitution

or

-Disregarding the United States Constitution and not worrying about impeachment proceedings because the election is so close and it would 'rip the country appart' (as if it isn't already...)

Seriously, this is what is has come to.

I sent a letter to senators Boxer and Feinstein, both D. CA, asking essentially why the hell the president and his entire fucking cabinet havn't been impeached yet, and both responses lingered on the lines of 'it's too close to election time, it would devide the country in a time when we all need to band together, I think they even mentioned it would weaken the democratic runner in the election against McCain! (which I think the opposite, I think it would show the democrats have balls who don't get pushed around)

In light Scott McClellen's book that was just published, I really think there's a strong case for impeachment, and with every passing day more evidence to impeach this administration is found. McClellen says the president lied about going to war; it was not just a case of "bad intelligence," but intentional deception. This is an impeachable crime.

So it seems to me this is the situation;

-The president (and his staff) have committed impeachable crimes (this is fact)
-The next presidential election is almost 6 months away and our representatives in congress (with the exception of Wexler and the judiciary committee) and the senate refuse to hold impeachment proceedings because it would (allegedly) devide the country and weaken the democratic frontrunner

So what does an American citizen do when the leaders of this country don't follow the rules?

...this is the type of stuff that breeds fanatical responses in the public sector. Does anyone else have a feeling of complete helplessness, like nobody will listen to you, and the ones that will won't do anything?

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-04-2008, 11:37 PM

You're missing the point, Congress already has passed laws on this stuff (some are in the Constitution!) so now we have leaders who feel that their position and authority puts them above the law set up to restrain the government not the people.

This is the definition of tyranny.

Static · 06-06-2008, 07:35 PM

YouTube - PROOF! BUSH & CHENEY LIED! *Someone MUST PAY!

I'd like to note something about this video; I don't know if you guys ever watch Fox News, I click it over to that channel every once in a while because I think it's a bad thing to only get one source of information, from either side really, but whenever I do, I always notice that the arguments they bring up and the stories they present usually center around one tiny thing, then they bring in 2 or 3 'analysts' to basically express their own personal opinion on the subject at hand in the typical extreme right, Fox News style. Compare that to the way they handle things at MSNBC, compare ORiley's 'no spin zone' to Olbermann's Countdown. They state fact after fact after fact, then have ONE person come on, who coincedentally usually does seem to be an expert on the subject, come in and give a detailed, expert analysis, with only facts. I'm not going to lie and say Keith never puts in his 2 cents, because most of the time he does, but he does it in a way that doesn't impose on anyone else, he simply states his opinions and that's it, accept it or don't. ORilley will start screaming to the top of his lungs to get a fuckin' point across... (if there even is a point..)

Anyway, in refrence to the video, it is seriously time for some fuckin' justice in this country. Criminals are staring us in the face from the white house and look at what we've all become, even keeping the country together isn't enough encentive for some people to do something, absolutely amazing...

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-06-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

You're missing the point, Congress already has passed laws on this stuff (some are in the Constitution!) so now we have leaders who feel that their position and authority puts them above the law set up to restrain the government not the people.

This is the definition of tyranny.

i'm sorry, i dont ever remember laws being added to the constitution in recent history. if you can cite sources on this, i'd be glad to look it over.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-06-2008, 11:33 PM

I mean the original Constitution was passed and accepted as abiding law, which is now being ignored by some executive orders. Example, Bush issued an EO that gave him line-item veto. This is un-constitutional. I just meant some laws are in the Constitution, not that congress ratified them.

Here's a brief list of criticisms from wikipedia.

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-07-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

I mean the original Constitution was passed and accepted as abiding law, which is now being ignored by some executive orders. Example, Bush issued an EO that gave him line-item veto. This is un-constitutional. I just meant some laws are in the Constitution, not that congress ratified them.

Here's a brief list of criticisms from wikipedia.

okay, we already went over this. i had already said that some executive orders are completely wrong.

and the constitution was accepted to be either elastic, or inelastic (depending on the political party in power. and i also mentioned that during times of war, civil liberties, and certain laws are deemed irrelevant.

Static · 06-07-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I R DANIEL (Sin

okay, we already went over this. i had already said that some executive orders are completely wrong.

and the constitution was accepted to be either elastic, or inelastic (depending on the political party in power. and i also mentioned that during times of war, civil liberties, and certain laws are deemed irrelevant.

The Constitution is not (nor should it be) elastic depending on the political party in power. That is frankly crazy. You choose which ammendments to follow based on which political party you're affiliated with? That doesn't sound crazy to you?

Which civil liberties and certain laws are deemed irrevelant, and by whom, during a time of war?

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-08-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static

The Constitution is not (nor should it be) elastic depending on the political party in power. That is frankly crazy. You choose which ammendments to follow based on which political party you're affiliated with? That doesn't sound crazy to you?

Which civil liberties and certain laws are deemed irrevelant, and by whom, during a time of war?

Not only that, but then Daniel, you say "oh during war times civil liberties are deemed unimportant that's just the way it goes."

The only injustices are the ones that we as human beings tolerate.

So as long as we all keep thinking in this "oh it's just how it goes, freedom isn't that important anyway during war time" it will never change.

People have been detained because of Tshirts. Musicians have had albums confiscated by federal agents. Warrantless wiretapping is now acceptable (as the ACLU has officially ignored the issue, some civil rights group) and soon, it is quite possible that telecom companies who participate will be allowed to do so.

Government documents that give ways to spot a potential terrorist include people who talk a lot about the constitution, property rights, freedom of speech, or who have overtly political attire or material.

This is insanity, and the longer we accept it, the easier it is for them to take over without so much as a squeak from us.

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-10-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

Not only that, but then Daniel, you say "oh during war times civil liberties are deemed unimportant that's just the way it goes."

The only injustices are the ones that we as human beings tolerate.

So as long as we all keep thinking in this "oh it's just how it goes, freedom isn't that important anyway during war time" it will never change.

People have been detained because of Tshirts. Musicians have had albums confiscated by federal agents. Warrantless wiretapping is now acceptable (as the ACLU has officially ignored the issue, some civil rights group) and soon, it is quite possible that telecom companies who participate will be allowed to do so.

Government documents that give ways to spot a potential terrorist include people who talk a lot about the constitution, property rights, freedom of speech, or who have overtly political attire or material.

This is insanity, and the longer we accept it, the easier it is for them to take over without so much as a squeak from us.

like i said, it's war. it's government policy. they've been doing it for hundreds of years. do you know what the tshirt/album was promoting? if you have no evidence on what it was promoting, your argument is moot.

and please, if you have no counter argument to what i just said (and not straying off topic), i feel there is no need to put in a last word. because we have gone fairly off topic.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-11-2008, 05:30 AM

This is not off topic, we are talking about whether Bush is even able to be impeached. These are all results of his policies, which I feel some of are criminal.

The T-shirts have anti-Bush slogans on them, and people are removed from events and detained by secret police. Some have been vulgar, but most of them are perfectly acceptable, from a standpoint of appropriateness. It's been in the news a few times. Do your own homework.

The album was by Death Cab for Cutie's guitarist's side project. I have not heard the album, as it was confiscated at the border. The hard drive with all the master tracks is now in the hands of US officials.

Are you saying that because we are at war, it justifies a president usurping rights and powers from the people and placing them in the federal government? Last I checked, we have INALIENABLE rights in this country. If you are not saying this, or you don't support this, then I don't understand why you would defend Bush to avoid impeachment.

Static · 06-18-2008, 10:44 AM

Report: Exams reveal abuse, torture of detainees

Story Highlights

-Report reveals medical evidence of torture, including beatings and electric shock
-Study calls on U.S. government to issue a formal apology to tortured detainees
-Rights group gives list of demands to Bush administration

Quote:

The detainees were never charged with crimes.

"We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering," said Dr. Allen Keller, a medical evaluator for the study.

In a 121-page report, the doctors' group said that it uncovered medical evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses.

The report is prefaced by retired U.S. Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led the Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2003.

"There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

Four of the men evaluated were arrested in or taken to Afghanistan between late 2001 and early 2003 and later were sent to Guantanamo Bay, where they were held for an average of three years before being released without charge, the report says. The other seven were detained in Iraq in 2003 and released within a year, the report says.

Among the ex-detainees was an Iraqi in his mid-40s, identified only as Laith, whom U.S. soldiers took into custody in October 2003 and who was released from Abu Ghraib in June 2004. According to the report, Laith was subjected to sleep deprivation, electric shocks and threats of sexual abuse to himself and his family.

"They took off even my underwear. They asked me to do some movements that make me look in a very bad way so they can take photographs. ... They were trying to make me look like an animal," Laith told examiners, according to the report.

According to the report, Laith said the most "painful" experiences involved threats to his family: "And they asked me, 'Have you ever heard voices of women in this prison?' I answered, 'Yes.' They were saying, 'Then you will hear your mothers and sisters when we are raping them.' "

I wonder, 50 years from now, will people look back at how the United States acted during this time like we do now at the Nazi's?