His family connections with the bin ladan's. The oil business in Suadi Arabia having financial backing by the Bush family. The hypocracy of the senate, by supporting the war in Iraq, yet no sending their own children there. Recent information about g.w.b who denied the possibility of an attack on america, before 9/11, which his chief intelligence officer called out for an immediate response, but was ignored, and instead, focused on iraq. So again, why is bush still in power, in face of all these mistakes? Shouldn't there be a law that is supposed to insure that the "most powerful man in the world" isn't such a charlatan and crook? Clinton got impeached for sexual relations with a woman 26 years ago, Nixon resigned because of corruption. But a man who gets money from arabian oil lords, while claiming safty for his people, is letting a world renowned terrorist loose?
Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?
- Thread starter reap
- Start date
Interesting article by one of "legitimate" members of the bin Laden family denying any connection with the Bush administration.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...269&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...269&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630
though connections are proven in this case, criminal activity is not.
That would happen in a republican control congress? What when hell freeze over?
This is Bush’s America, although it is beginning to look like it might to an end the US was transfixed on this presidency. Americans foolishly believed and fell into the trap that to be a patriot you have to support the government in power. Americans were scared to voice much opposition to Bush btwn 9/11 and the War in Iraq. I vividly remember here on Canadian TV that a US pundit came on the CBC and said that he felt better here because you can question Bush; he said that in the US they would tell him to tone down his criticism of the president! It looks like most Americans want change and they might just get it. I’ve always said the strongest army on Earth is the American electorate.
Lying, cheating, and stealing are all revered attributes of wealth and power. Adultery still turns the stomachs of the simple-minded.
Conservatism in the US is far easier than liberalism. Starting from the self, American conservatism appears to advocate the empowerment of the self. Who doesn't want to get rich? Who doesn't want to escape the consequences of their mistakes? It's why the GOP appeals to so many of the Americans it seeks to screw--e.g. "You don't need real freedom if you've got money. You don't need to apologize for your mistakes if you can get rich while making them."
And conservatism also appeals to personal authority: If your mores are offended, then attack what offends you. Thus people are willing to violate the same notions that protect them (e.g. Christians on censorship).
The thing is that Americans, in their hearts, seem to be bloodlusting, thieving fools. Every day we try to believe differently about our neighbors, but the true liberal element in the US is aghast. We don't know how to approach our neighbors.
But think about the superficial GOP approach:
• Bombs, bombs, bombs, bombs. Guns, guns, guns, guns. Fire, fire, fire, fire. (Join in the chant!)
• "Equality" equals "personal advantage and reserved entitlement."
• Money is the most important thing in the world.
• Cultural supremacy is the name of the game: "We will respect you," says American conservatism, "but only if you forfeit everything you love."
So we've got a war in Iraq on false pretenses; a push against people based on the genders of persons who they are not; a cheap bribe in the form of a tax-cut; and a holy war to Westernize the world and establish the supremacy of our faults over the merits of others.
For the stupid, the GOP is the ticket. Why would a conservative want to impeach a president who brings them bloodshed? Or who would give them advantages over their neighbor under the law? Or offer them money? Or try to make everything they don't understand in the world just like them?
They're all attractive short-term goals, which is why American conservatism is best reserved for the myopic-at-best.
Prosecute a blowjob? Oh, yes. That merely spins the illusion of cultural supremacy: What offends me is a legal issue. What offends someone else is not important.
Thus, if you want to continue receiving bribes in order to earn your approval of the dismantling of American equality, the shaping of the world in your image, and the sponsoring of cruel bloodshed around the world, by all means vote for the GOP.
And it's attractive enough a ticket in the short-term that there does not exist enough support for the choice to do the right thing.
The rules will change in November. If We, the People, endorse George W. Bush and his prior four years by awarding him a legitimate term in the Oval Office, we will have given away our last appeal against absolute mayhem.
Besides--most people are willing to justify whatever excessive wealth they attain. Few, however, wish to justify themselves as perverts. And when you're as narrowly-cast and dimly-lit as American conservatism demands, yes, a blowjob is a perversion.
So it stands to reason: in the United States, the chance to hurt someone over the issue of a blowjob is far more attractive than doing the right thing while our soldiers are overseas killing and dying for a lie.
Conservatism in the US is far easier than liberalism. Starting from the self, American conservatism appears to advocate the empowerment of the self. Who doesn't want to get rich? Who doesn't want to escape the consequences of their mistakes? It's why the GOP appeals to so many of the Americans it seeks to screw--e.g. "You don't need real freedom if you've got money. You don't need to apologize for your mistakes if you can get rich while making them."
And conservatism also appeals to personal authority: If your mores are offended, then attack what offends you. Thus people are willing to violate the same notions that protect them (e.g. Christians on censorship).
The thing is that Americans, in their hearts, seem to be bloodlusting, thieving fools. Every day we try to believe differently about our neighbors, but the true liberal element in the US is aghast. We don't know how to approach our neighbors.
But think about the superficial GOP approach:
• Bombs, bombs, bombs, bombs. Guns, guns, guns, guns. Fire, fire, fire, fire. (Join in the chant!)
• "Equality" equals "personal advantage and reserved entitlement."
• Money is the most important thing in the world.
• Cultural supremacy is the name of the game: "We will respect you," says American conservatism, "but only if you forfeit everything you love."
So we've got a war in Iraq on false pretenses; a push against people based on the genders of persons who they are not; a cheap bribe in the form of a tax-cut; and a holy war to Westernize the world and establish the supremacy of our faults over the merits of others.
For the stupid, the GOP is the ticket. Why would a conservative want to impeach a president who brings them bloodshed? Or who would give them advantages over their neighbor under the law? Or offer them money? Or try to make everything they don't understand in the world just like them?
They're all attractive short-term goals, which is why American conservatism is best reserved for the myopic-at-best.
Prosecute a blowjob? Oh, yes. That merely spins the illusion of cultural supremacy: What offends me is a legal issue. What offends someone else is not important.
Thus, if you want to continue receiving bribes in order to earn your approval of the dismantling of American equality, the shaping of the world in your image, and the sponsoring of cruel bloodshed around the world, by all means vote for the GOP.
And it's attractive enough a ticket in the short-term that there does not exist enough support for the choice to do the right thing.
The rules will change in November. If We, the People, endorse George W. Bush and his prior four years by awarding him a legitimate term in the Oval Office, we will have given away our last appeal against absolute mayhem.
Besides--most people are willing to justify whatever excessive wealth they attain. Few, however, wish to justify themselves as perverts. And when you're as narrowly-cast and dimly-lit as American conservatism demands, yes, a blowjob is a perversion.
So it stands to reason: in the United States, the chance to hurt someone over the issue of a blowjob is far more attractive than doing the right thing while our soldiers are overseas killing and dying for a lie.
That's a nice rant, but I'd like to see you apply that same reasoning to extreme liberalism. If you could you might score a few points with me. Otherwise a statement like "conservatism in the US is far easier than liberalism" just tunes me out.
What, I have to state some sort of bipartisan position at the start of each message, or I've exposed myself as a right-wing ideologue? I need to throw in a "Bush sucks" before I can critisize Kerry? Is it like a hall pass or something? (grin)
What, you don't think there's such a thing as "extreme liberalism", Undecided?
I don't know about "centrist" but yes I do think I'm a middle-ground guy, and so do you -- you've said so! (grin) I believe the quote (in the Canadian Abuse of Freedom thread) was something like "centrist and slightly to the right" wasn't it?
I'm with Tiassa 100% about the ridiculousness of the Monicagate impeachment. I've said that before. But you know as well as I do that there's just as much ridiculous behavior on the far left.
You want examples? Fine, here are a few:
- Saying Bush "lied" (not admitting it might have been an error in judgement, as everyone from the 9/11 commission to JOHN KERRY says)
- Saying Bush was wholely and entirely responsible for 9/11
- Suggesting that he did 9/11 deliberately
- Suggesting that Bush did 9/11 because of his ties to Saudi Arabia
Come on, you know that garbage is out there. Stop trying to white-wash extremism. You win points with me when you fight extremism on BOTH sides. Fighting it only on one side makes you an ideologue.
What, you don't think there's such a thing as "extreme liberalism", Undecided?
I don't know about "centrist" but yes I do think I'm a middle-ground guy, and so do you -- you've said so! (grin) I believe the quote (in the Canadian Abuse of Freedom thread) was something like "centrist and slightly to the right" wasn't it?
I'm with Tiassa 100% about the ridiculousness of the Monicagate impeachment. I've said that before. But you know as well as I do that there's just as much ridiculous behavior on the far left.
You want examples? Fine, here are a few:
- Saying Bush "lied" (not admitting it might have been an error in judgement, as everyone from the 9/11 commission to JOHN KERRY says)
- Saying Bush was wholely and entirely responsible for 9/11
- Suggesting that he did 9/11 deliberately
- Suggesting that Bush did 9/11 because of his ties to Saudi Arabia
Come on, you know that garbage is out there. Stop trying to white-wash extremism. You win points with me when you fight extremism on BOTH sides. Fighting it only on one side makes you an ideologue.
nbachris2788
Registered Senior Member
If Clinton came close to impeachment about lying about a blowjob, then surely, a president that lies about a war that actually results in deaths should also receive the same treatment? But the Democrats are above the Republicans, who tried their best to bring down Clinton ever since he took office and failed miserably. Clinton's aura will only grow with time and he, not Reagan, was the most popular president upon leaving office. Reagan did some good things for America, but so many are willing to overlook some of the severe immoral acts, such as Iran-Contra, of his administration because he made people feel better about their own insecurities and failures. Pish posh. Clinton's scandal, while an embarrassment, was hardly relevant to his administration duties. If he started a war with a small country over false claims, then maybe people would've sympathized with him more.
Yeah, nice rant tiassa.
Extreme liberals are a tiny group compared to extreme conservatives. It’s a small group who suggests that Bush did 9/11. It’s a large group who would impeach a prez for a blow job but ignore an offensive war. Extreme liberals can be all but disregarded. Extreme conservatives cannot be avoided and affect the rest of us greatly.
Extreme liberals are a tiny group compared to extreme conservatives. It’s a small group who suggests that Bush did 9/11. It’s a large group who would impeach a prez for a blow job but ignore an offensive war. Extreme liberals can be all but disregarded. Extreme conservatives cannot be avoided and affect the rest of us greatly.
No, it goes to show that extreme liberalism is not a small thing. The word "tiny" is not a fair adjective to use.
The words "comparable but smaller" might be acceptable in my book. Certianly there are a LOT of conservatives in the country (take a look at Fox News' ratings vs CNN). But there's a LONG standing tradition of radical liberalism in this country. There's nothing new here, and characterizing these people as some kind of "tiny" minority is a disservice to the debate.
The words "comparable but smaller" might be acceptable in my book. Certianly there are a LOT of conservatives in the country (take a look at Fox News' ratings vs CNN). But there's a LONG standing tradition of radical liberalism in this country. There's nothing new here, and characterizing these people as some kind of "tiny" minority is a disservice to the debate.
True. Conservatives (and liberals responding to them) tend to forget that Moore lambastes the Democratic Party every chance he gets.
Of course, if we plot Moore on some sort of graph, he does come down within the range of the liberal. Then again, as Franken pointed out, Americans appear to be more liberal than their political manifestations.