[quote][url=http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=5441]The resolution lists a series of allegedly impeachable offenses, including
My old college town makes me proud again.
Also setting them apart from many other towns –
The county is world famous for its high grade marijuana and Arcata had a center for distributing medical marijuana
At one time a majority of the city council members were of the Green Party
At one time the mayor of Arcata was a lesbian
Local green party member ran for US President in the last election
The city council has made news for similar resolutions in the past, such as when they made Arcata a nuclear free zone (transport of nuclear weapons or waste through town would have violated city law, not that the feds would have cared), and voted against the invasion of Iraq
They made news worldwide (cover of Newsweek) for their then revolutionary sewage treatment facility using marshland, ponds and natural processes
Other big news: Butterfly someoneorother who sat high up in a giant redwood tree for over a year to prevent it from being cut down
Big lawsuit: the guys who chained themselves to trees to save them and sued the Sheriffs who dabbed pepper spray in their eyes (the tree huggers one, but only $1)
Famous music fest: nearby Reggae on the River, 3 days of world famous musicians in the hot sun in the river with lots of great ganja
Other famous festival: world-famous Kinetic Sculpture Race, for 3 days over streets, mud, water and sand in crazy, home-made contraptions
I could go on, but my point is if you know Arcata this comes as no surprise at all. Thank god for Arcata.
No charges for dereliction of duty as “commander in chief”? How many years have to go by before our troops stuck in his damn Iraq war actually get proper equipment?
How about treason?
Incidentally, the general public seems to support the idea of impeaching Bush.
[quote]A June of 2005 Zogby International poll showed that 42% of all Americans, and 25% of Republicans, would agree that Congress should “hold him accountable through impeachment” if it were found that Bush “did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq”.
In October of 2005, After Downing Street commissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research, which found that by a margin of 50% to 44% Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. . .
A Zogby International poll from October 29 to November 2, 2005 found that by a margin of 53% to 42% Americans say that “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.” . . . A November 2, 2005 Washington Post-ABC News poll found 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration “intentionally misled the public” in making its case for war.
December 15, 2005, Rasmussen Reports released a poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org that showed that 32% of the 1,000 Americans polled would support an impeachment of Bush and 35% would support an impeachment of Cheney.
On December 25, 2005, results were posted from a MSNBC.com live vote asking “Do you believe President Bush’s actions justify impeachment?”, revealing that 86% of the 190,705 respondents believed he should be impeached. . . .[/quote]
As do many politicians, Democrat, Republican and otherwise.
[quote]Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has authored the introduction to John Bonifaz’s book outlining a case for impeaching Bush.
Sen. John Kerry . . . said that if the Democrats retake the House of Representatives in the 2006 U.S. House Elections they have a “solid case” for bringing “articles of impeachment” against the president.
Congressman Frank advocates investigation, but feels that calls for impeachment are premature.
Ralph Nader’s 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachment by raising public awareness of the numerous alleged crimes of the Bush Administration. Nader also wrote an op-ed. . . favoring impeachment. . .
Patrick Buchanan called for a bill of impeachment 'charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against “invasion”'in regards to issues with illegal immigration.
Dennis Morrisseau, a Republican candidate for the Vermont House of Representatives seat has said he will campaign for impeachment against George W. Bush.
. . . the Democratic Party of Wisconsin cited the Downing Street Memo in calling for the Impeachment of both George Bush and Richard Cheney.
Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration stated "The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush
Solidarity with this sentiment is evident…
Tainan Cowboy, I agree that GOP solidarity with those who are trying to hurt the United States is precisely the problem. Is that a photo of GOP staffers setting out for a day’s work?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Solidarity with this sentiment is evident…
Not that it makes any sense…
The money spent in Iraq is enough to medicate and feed every single starving child on this planet. You make little sense to me. Like “shooting yourself in the foot”…
[quote=“bobepine”]The money spent in Iraq is enough to medicate and feed every single starving child on this planet. You make little sense to me. Like “shooting yourself in the foot”…
Sorry bobpine, I’m not taking the bait.
This thread is discussing the fad du jour of radical left-wing clamouring for the impeachment of US Preseident GW Bush during a time of war.
In that case why do you post the picture you did with the comment added - not for baiting I assume?
The funny thing is that it isn’t “radical left wing” whose “clamoring” for anything … it’s normal Americans who are fed up with a president who doesn’t think he’s subject to any laws.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“bobepine”]The money spent in Iraq is enough to medicate and feed every single starving child on this planet. You make little sense to me. Like “shooting yourself in the foot”…
Sorry bobpine, I’m not taking the bait.[/quote]So why did you bother replying. I did not expect much of a reply, in fact I’m surprised you did.
This thread is discussing the fad du jour of radical left-wing clamouring for the impeachment of US Preseident GW Bush during a time of war.[/quote]
Call it a fad if you like but I doubt you’d be able to make victims of this war swallow that one whole…
Your position advocates violence as a remedy against violence. You believe this war is for a good cause. You believe that it’s the right thing to do to spend astronomical amounts of money to free a country from dictatorship. You believe that the lives of civilians and the ones of many US soldiers is a fair price to pay to restore democracy in Iraq.
I believe that this war is about money. I believe that the people running this show do not give a rats ass about you or about anyone. I believe that the very people you support would send you to a sure death without a second thought. I believe that many lives are ruined because of this war and the least I can do is to put up with your illogical responses and tell you what I think.
Again, call it a fad if you’d like because that sir is what doesn’t bother me.
What bothers me is that while they go to war against one dictator, they support many others. It also bothers me that a great country like the US is currently digging a hole for itself while a majority of citizens do not agree. It bothers me that the US democratic system is starting to look like dictatorship. Above all though, it bothers me to think that instead of this war, the US could have fed every starving children on earth. Hence the pic I posted above.
The US potential is great and it’s being used the wrong way at the demise of every single living soul on earth so that a small minority of powerful men in high places can make more money. It’s plain wrong.
Now you’ll ask “what does that have to do with anything? WTF is this about?”
It’s about compassion and common sense. Two things your posts about politics could use in a big way.
Ahhh I see
So now the Arcata city council is going to set aside a % of it operating budget to “Feed the Children” ?
Good for them. Social concern Peace & Justice and all that. :bravo:
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]So now the Arcata city council is going to set aside a % of it operating budget to “Feed the Children” ?
Good for them. Social concern Peace & Justice and all that. :bravo:[/quote]
Just a thought that is. Not that the US would actually spend that kind of money helping starving children anyways. Hell there are starving people in the US as it is…
Besides that, what does the fact that a city council gives money or not to starving children have to do with my own opinion as to how 800 b. would have been better spent that way? The city council’s opinions and my opinions are two different things regardless how similar they may be so do not mix them up for the purpose of humoring my post. It’s not working, in fact I’d say it’s a pretty poor argument on your part.
It’s just weird and mind boggling when I start thinking about what could be achieved with 800b you know…Then you put that next to the atrocities that war causes in Iraq…It’s mind-bogglingly-sad.
[quote=“PPE”]Ahhh I see [/quote]No, it’s more like you’re blind or something. :s
On the surface, if the standard is “high crimes” (severity, impact, etc), it seems to me that George W. Bush has more to answer for, and certainly more need to be investigated, than Clinton ever did, even if you combine Whitewater, Clinton’s sexual behavior, and all of the other “Clinton-gates”. However, the Republican congress that ushered Clinton into the impeachment process will be the same one, by and large, that resists and likely prevents the same destination for Bush. As to what could ever be substantiated during the impeachment process, that’s another story.
One understandable reaction from ordinary people might be, “You know, we might be overusing this impeachment thing. First Clinton, now Bush. Back to back. It is supposed to be a rarely used, very serious action.” And that is exactly why that most crucial national management decision should not be politicized. It is unconscionable to use it to wound or remove an opponent, and furthermore, misusing it leads to reluctance to use it when it might really be necessary.
Also, compared with any other time in American history that I can think of, the U.S. is not really at war. We were attacked by a bunch of loonies in a few airplanes. Those incidents have been used by the current U.S. administration to justify many things that it wanted to do, to prevent or discourage dissent, and to divert billions of dollars of funds away from more important matters at home. I think people are getting increasingly tired of hearing that X or Y or Z is the only way because “we’re at war”. I know I am.
Free “get out of jail” passes for everyone!
If the guys at the top regard obeying the law as optional, then why should the “little people” be held to a higher standard?
Okay maybe I
Liberal idiots speaking for liberal idiots. :roflmao:
Absolutely seeker4. :bravo:
For several years now the present administration has waved red flags and yellow flags and publicized urgent alerts about war, terrorism and imminent threats in order to frighten the citizens, rally them in support of the government, justify depriving them of civil liberties, silence dissent and distract them from the otherwise crappy job the government is doing in governing the country and tyrannizing the world. It’s an old art form raised to a new level by the present administration and most people are no longer buying it.
In fact it’s shameful and cowardly to suggest that the government should not be criticised, scrutinized or the subject of potential impeachment proceedings because “we are at war.” So long as people believe that malarky the government will keep us engaged in perpetual war in order to sustain the perpetual, patriotic, flag-waving, fearful circling of wagons in support the frauds who pose as brave leaders fighting the dark forces that seek to destroy us.
In that case why do you post the picture you did with the comment added - not for baiting I assume? [/quote]rascal -
You should be able to figure out that one. Look at the time line of the posts. Its called ‘staying on topic’
Not a need for you to make such a comment.
Oh…and a bit of research turns up that the Arcata city council did this in…2003.
Interesting that those who appear to be in support of this activity are also those who would rather not having the fact of the USA being at war mentioned as a substantive reason for criticising this opportunistic action.
Somewhat of a double standard?
You can say what you want - but nobody can offer a rebuttal without your permission?
All debate is only to your standards and tone?
A bit heavy-handed, eh?