If you refuse to impeach bush, aren't you approving of his actions?

[Philosoraptor]

I heard some talking head propose this notion just now, maybe someone sent it to cnn in an email, that the Democrats, by not impeaching bush are actually enabling him and his war, and all his treasonous acts.

Is it this black and white?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Yes

:evilgrin:

[Webster Green]

2. Yes

:patriot:

[leftofthedial]

3. in effect, yes

Democratic failures to hold repukes accountable for their crimes, beginning with Nixon, have led to an escalating cycle of corruption, theft and treason by the repuke party.

Unless they are held accountable, after 30+ years of acquiescence, it will be time to consider the Democrats as accomplices.

[keepCAblue]

4. In the words of Bobby Kennedy...

"Laws can embody standards; governments can enforce laws--but the final task is not a task for government. It is a task for each and every one of us. Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted--when we tolerate what we know to be wrong--when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened--when we fail to speak up and speak out--we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice." June 21, 1961

[mdmc]

5. yes

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Yes.

Yes. A thousand times yes.

[porphyrian]

7. The integrity of our Constitution, our nation, demand it.

If we are a nation of laws, we cannot allow those in power to disregard those laws. Impeachment is the Constitutionally-defined tool for stopping this.

[wtmusic]

8. Fuck Pelosi

and our other "brave" Dems. Let's face it--impeachment really is off the table.

[helderheid]

9. Hold it there - you have to investigate before you impeach.

[wtmusic]

10. Impeachment is an investigation

and there is absolutely no move in that direction.

[helderheid]

11. And you know this how? We've not been on the clock THAT long.

[wtmusic]

12. It should have been the first words out of their mouths

on Jan 7.

What's to investigate? Is there any doubt that Bush broke FISA? Is there any doubt that torturing violates the 1996 War Crimes Act?

I really, really, do not understand the Pelosi/Conyers apologists around here. It's time to kick some ass, and right now.

[helderheid]

14. They have said they will investigate n/t

[Beaverhausen]

18. That's not good enough for some people here

I agree- investigate, then impeach if they think it will work.

I think it's more important to stop Bush for doing any further damage. Impeachment would be great, but lets give them a little time at least.

[wtmusic]

26. Stalling tactic

Investigate what?

[helderheid]

27. Do you hear yourself? Investigate what?? What do you mean investigate what?

:wtf:

[wtmusic]

28. And you continue to refuse to answer my question

It's clear by any standard, by any informed legal opinion, that Bush broke the law. Period.

What are we waiting for?

[helderheid]

33. Oh Jesus man.

Katrina
Iraq pre and post intelligence
9/11
wiretaps
abuse of powers
electronic voting machines

I could continue but I feel like I am in the twilight zone talking to you.

[wtmusic]

37. Welcome to "the zone"

9/11 -- 5 years ago
Downing Street Memo -- 2 years ago
Katrina -- 1-1/2 years ago

How much longer do you need? (whoops! It's time for the 2008 election..don't want to rock the boat!) :eyes:

[helderheid]

38. And we've been in power LESS THAN A WEEK. EDITED TO ADD

I am pretty surprised you've got a Kucinich avatar - all during the 2004 campaign he made it clear we couldn't impeach because we wouldn't have the votes. That was 2 years ago. Why does HE get a pass but none of the other Dems? HE knows how this works.

[wtmusic]

43. Two years ago we didn't have the votes.

Now, we have the votes. "Didn't have", vs. "have".

"Off the table", vs. "on the table".

Impeachment is off the table. It will stay off the table--it will not happen. Deals have been struck, Conyer's indiscretions have been sidelined. Impeachment is dead in the water.

[helderheid]

44. You don't get it. I'm sorry.

[wtmusic]

45. Maybe

and I'll be endlessly amused in two years when no one here remembers their naive faith.

[helderheid]

46. Here's hoping you are wrong.

[wtmusic]

47. Cheers to that.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

72. He is saying nothing

after reading McKinney's eloquent speech again she speaks more for me (note new avatar). Bless her.

Her and Feingold, putting their careers on the line by merely stating the truth, and not one in the so-called "opposition" party -- not Kucinich, not Dean, not Pelosi, not Boxer--step up and lend support, let alone acknowledge what they have to say. They are left swinging in the breeze.

[ellisonz]

94. Maybe there's a reason your avatar is out of office?

She couldn't even win her primary in 2006, at least Kucinich did that.

Fuck Pelosi?:eyes:

A boat's gotta float before it can sail...

[wtmusic]

104. Telling the truth has consequences

(temporary ones) and Cynthia will be back. She's been through this before.

Conyers has sold out. He was confronted with a House Ethics committee censure and he backed down. Pelosi, I have no clue what the reasoning is behind her failure to uphold federal law.

BTW, your boat is resting quietly on the sea floor. Don't hold your breath.

[Freddie Stubbs]

114. Hitting a police officer has consequences too

[wtmusic]

120. and WTF does that have to do with anything?

Freddie, you're showing your true colors... :eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. The voters in her district seemed to think it meant something

JOHNSON 41,281 58.8%

MCKINNEY 28,915 41.2%

http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/election_results/2006_0808/0001410.htm

[wtmusic]

137. Sure Freddie

You made a real good point there. Getting arrested sure didn't help her reelection chances, now did it?

Excuse me, but Ima make my way back to the impeachment discussion, 'kay?

[wtmusic]

119. delete

[ellisonz]

130. Egomania? That's pretty much what her district seemed to think.

I look forward to seeing Hank Johnson on the floor of the house for many years to come!

Conyers has not sold out, Pelosi has not sold out, give me a frickin' break. Your argument is hollow and anti-Democratic.

Not really...100 Hours.

:eyes:

[Beaverhausen]

29. You can't really be that uninformed.

can you?

[wtmusic]

32. I'm afraid I am

undoubtedly a Pelosi avatar would endow me with mystical powers to understand why my reps are a bunch of freaking wimps.

[Beaverhausen]

34. I have two words for you - Subpoena power

the Dems only just acquired it last week. Is it getting clearer?

[helderheid]

35. THANK YOU.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. It should be the first words out of the mouths of every single Congressman who

who was elected campaigning on a pro-impeachment platform.

How many of such Congressmen did the voters elect?

[Beaverhausen]

24. Who was running on that platform?

Names?

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. None that were elected, as far as I am aware

Shouldn't Conress advance an agenda based on what members ran on, rather than what some people withed that they had run on?

[wtmusic]

99. Congress should advance an agenda based on law and order

which they seem fairly incapable of doing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

116. Perhaps they are waiting until the last day of the legislative session

to introduce articles of impeachment. That's what a reasonable person would do, right?

[Imagevision]

19. I agree, investigations have to produce hard eveidence, then even the GOPers will climb on board

or risk having their asses handed to them in the 2008 elections. When hard proof is uncovered and brought forward, the votes necessary for impeachment will more easily be available from both the Dems & Repugs.

[porphyrian]

17. This isn't over yet. Many investigations have only just begun.

The public outcry should get loud enough that our representatives won't be able to say no, regardless of their political affiliation.

[wtmusic]

23. Tail wagging dog

Or: representatives stand up for what's right and lead the people (instead of vice versa).

[porphyrian]

30. Whatever does the job. - n/t

[puebloknot]

73. What have you been smoking, you silly girl?

Nice to meet you! Nice to meet your excellent mind!

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. 2002: If you oppose war with Iraq, aren't you approving Saddam's actions?

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

16. straw man

US had no jurisdiction over Saddam.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. That lack of jurisdiction didn't protect Saddam very much,

did it?

[wtmusic]

98. And it won't protect the war criminals who attacked his country either nt

[Philosoraptor]

20. If you say his hanging was barbaric, does it mean you supported his deeds?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. If you don't approve of impeaching Bush...

How many more US troops do you want to die?

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. You are assuming that impeaching Bush would stop troops from dying

That is a big assumption.

[mmonk]

88. You're assuming that by not impeaching, you remain free.

[mdmc]

31. yes

By opposing the war, I was supporting Saddam's continued domination of Iraq. True. There was a better way.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. So, maybe there is a better way than impeachment to stop Bush

[mdmc]

58. I don't support capital punishment

I don't want to 'stop' bush - I want accountability.

[mmonk]

103. None available.

[mdmc]

140. one available

but I oppose capital punishment

[BuyingThyme]

39. Only if war is the only available remedy. It's not.

Impeachment is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. What will an impeachment without a conviction remedy?

[BuyingThyme]

63. Dereliction

[ellisonz]

93. Good luck selling that one in 2008.

:rofl:

[earth mom]

15. Hell Yes! There is blood on all of their hands!

They must Impeach! Black and White. Simple as that! :grr:

[leftchick]

25. just like my sig line

I am a firm believer ....

[BuyingThyme]

36. Yes.

[Reterr]

40. .....

:popcorn:

[RiverStone]

41. Refusing to try....

...to impeach would be a huge mistake.

I'll reserve judgment till we see if investigations are forthcoming. I believe a comprehensive evaluation of BushCo's lies which led us into this immoral war of aggression - will indeed result in impeachment or he will pull a Nixon - resign before getting spanked.

[helderheid]

42. I'm with you. n/t

[Philosoraptor]

48. joe freakin' scarborough even thinks the Dems should stand up to w!

[Philosoraptor]

50. pat buchanan on bush: "This war won't be lost on MY watch"

[sendero]

49. If only life were that damn simple..

... Impeach Bush? Perhaps, when the time is right, when MOST Americans believe he deserves impeachment.

Do it today? Prepare to be out of power come 2008.

[Senator]

76. It is that simple

Because "most Americans" (albeit a mere 51% majority) already believe it.



And want it as "a priority."

And that's in the face of a total Euphemedia blackout on the subject (until very recently). And in the face of not merely the unexplained refusal of the DC Dems to even discuss it publicly, but their direct opposition to even the mention of it.

Is the prospect of "power in 2008" really more important than the duty to reporting and punishing the ongoing torture?

Even if one thinks so, that's not how the war crimes laws work. They demand action by government officials. Failure to act is complicity.

--

[sendero]

79. When it gets to about...

.... 67%, it can be done without a media shit-fest successfully convincing a clear majority that it was "payback for Clinton" or "an abuse of power". Your number (although I have to admit I can't really see where you got it looking at that graph) is not even close to being within the MOE.

The last thing we need it to make a political martyr out of George Loser Bush.

[Senator]

109. I see, follow the polls

Unless they seem to indicate you should do something. Then demand a higher number. And at all costs, fear the smear.

It's the Russell Ziskey theory of conflict: "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it."

Leadership in the 21st Century.

--

[wtmusic]

122. Imagine what MLK could have accomplished with the New Leadership

why, he could have been SURE people supported him before he went out and risked his life like that :silly:

[sendero]

127. He did not have..

... to worry about being elected.

Anyone ELECTED OFFICIAL who thinks they can do whatever suits them regardless of what their contituents thinks won't be in office long.

Perhaps you'd like the Democratic control of Congress to be a one term thing, I would not.

There is a clear path to impeachment. Prove to the vast majority's satisfaction that Bush lied and abused his power. You know he did, and I know he did, but most Americans still need an education.

[wtmusic]

133. So instead of sacrificing his job, he only sacrificed his life?

Schweet. :rofl:

[sendero]

135. Har har har..

.. you can if you want to but I'm not expecting another man of the likes of MLK to come along in my lifetime, we'll be lucky if such a leader comes along ever again.

but, if you think you are such a person be my guest. But you aren't going to accomplish much sniping on a message board.

[sendero]

125. If you want to wind up right where the..

.. Republicans are today, just indulge your whims like they did.

[GOTV]

143. THat's ONE poll. Most 2006 polls show only minority support for impeachment. n/t

[onenote]

144. you read the poll one way, I read it another

You say 51 percent (a bare majority) support making impeachment a "priority."

I read the poll as saying that only 47 percent of Democrats would make it a "top" priority and that only 27 percent of independents (a key electoral group for Democrats to gain ground with) view it that way.

In other words, there's a reasonable chance that if you start talking about impeachment before you deal with other issues that the electorate views as a "top" priority, you will alienate more than half the Democrats and nearly 3/4 of the independents.

[sn102291]

53. It's not that simple

If you impeach Bush, then Cheney becomes president, and I don't think ANYONE wants that.

[cool user name]

56. YES.

[StrictlyRockers]

59. Yes

K&R

[philosophie_en_rose]

60. Um. No one can impeach alone.

:eyes:

And impeachment isn't the only way to curtail Bush's actions.

[pat_k]

71. Anyone can open a mouth

And impeachment is the only way to curtail the regime's actions.

Anything else is just words on a page to them. Laws, court rulings, hearings, polls, public condemnation ... anything else.

Or did you have some mechanism I haven't considered? One that circumvents "rule by signing statement?"

--

[eallen]

61. Yes, when the impeachment vote is taken. But there's a long row 'till that.

[AZBlue]

62. No!

Nothing in politics is this black and white. Nothing.

[mmonk]

83. Then throw out the constitution.

If you do not see the constitution and the laws provided to protect the people as sacrosanct, then throw it out. It means nothing. There is no other logical alternative on the matter.

[AZBlue]

113. Huh? The constitution and the law are not political issues.

We were talking political strategy and issues, not law. They are related but not the same.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Nope, just accepting the fact that we can't get a fair trial

And that attempts at justice come with a cost.

[mmonk]

85. impeachment is not a trial. This basic understanding is derailing

many of you. Impeaching is investigating and charging with wrongdoing. The Senate trial is the verdict of the senate on the charges put forth by the House. Look at it as investigating crimes and indicting. Then look at the senate trial as the jury. Articles of impeachment are the indictments. In the case of Bill Clinton, he was impeached but the senate's verdict was acquittal (he was not removed from office).

[wtmusic]

105. Exactly. It IS an investigation.

The only piece missing is someone with the leadership and political fortitude to get the ball rolling.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. Please don't treat us as though we are ignorant, I'm aware of what impeachment is

My point was that we can't get a fair trial in the Senate. When a prosecutor pushes for an indictment he or she does so on the premise that they have a reasonable chance at getting a conviction. Otherwise they end up looking like complete asses, Mike Nifong being a great example.

We can't get a conviction in the Senate because you need 67 votes and there are 49 Republicans. The midterm elections haven't changed the fact that the GOP are still loyal to their own. Trying to get Bush convicted in a 51-49 Senate would be like trying to get Emmett Till's murderers convicted by a white jury in the segregated south. It's just not possible.

The difference is that impeaching and then attempting a conviction will cost us far more than a standard trial in that we will have two years of legislative gridlock and lose an opportunity to pass some good legislation.

[ellisonz]

65. No.

For some reason members here have issues with making constructive criticism and all too many refuse to acknowledge that these are public political figures and they have reasons for what they do.

Investigate, Inform the Public and Congress, Impeach, Convict...In exactly that order.

:nopity: :dem: :popcorn:

[loyalsister]

66. No

Only if you believe that it's all about the president.
There is more to the power structure of this country than Bush and there are more players than him. Where we are now is a confluence of actions and players. Republicans have had a lot of powerduring this presidency, but they did not take it by force during the first four years.
That power was sacrificed the day the IWR was voted on. And, a lot of people used bad judgement. This government is in a lot of this crap together. The people who voted on the war all share responsibility for the votes they cast. It is an inescapable fact that political opportunism played a role in some of those votes. They could have questioned more they could have thought more about unintended consequences, etc but they didn't. I don't approve but it's not impeachable.
As for Bush it is still not really clear if he was really a part of the inner PNAC circle. It is interesting that his of all names is absent from the original document. I have long speculated that they set this presidency up so that he would know as little as necessary and his lack of access would serve to help insulate him from criticism and especially "wrong doing."

[Az_lefty]

67. Investigate first. Corner the rat-bastards and then kick'em in the nuts

:grr:

[catzies]

69. Apologists. If you voted for Bush there's blood on your hands.

Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to evade responsibility for their actions.

[grytpype]

70. NO

[depakid]

74. That and beaching the oath you undertook

to uphold and defend the constitution. Politics aside, it's as simple as that.

That people won't stand up and adhere to their oaths- well, I guess that's the state America has found itself in today-

[bluewave]

75. If you impeach him immediately, investigation will be meaningless.

Legislation to restrict him first, investigation to impeach him second, finally impeach and remove.

[calimary]

77. Yes.

We cannot do less.

If he gets away with no punishment, with no blemished record for his many crimes and incompetent policies, it will be tantamount to a tacit approval. It will give future generations of power-grabbers license to steal, kill, lie, and everything else he did with a cherry on top. They'll say - "well, HE did it and nobody did squat. Guess it must not really have been all that wrong then, huh?" THAT is what the message will be if bush is not IMPEACHED. That will render all his crimes not that big a deal.

We have no choice. It's simply something we MUST do.

[Philosoraptor]

78. Investigations will take two years at least.

And by that time, w will have escaped justice and ridden off into the Texas sunset.

[mmonk]

86. See post 85

[mmonk]

80. It's acquiescence through inaction.

It must not be allowed to carry the day.

[mmonk]

81. this should be added in order to see the potential problem:

"Impeachment is off the table".
impeach-vt to accuse or charge with misconduct in office; to attempt to discredit.

[PVnRT]

82. If you're not with us, you're against us

Sad to see many people here with that mentality, but there it is.

[donheld]

84. he who keeps silent is assumed to consent" — and the silence has been deafening.

Can't find who the quote is from.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

87. If you support impeachment procedings you're enabling Bush and the Republicans.

If you refuse to pray for Bush to be struck by lightning, are you enabling him?

Impeachment procedings would be exactly as effective.

For a Republican to betray his own party and endorse them would be political suicide. It would be lovely to believe that the Republicans are suddenly all going to experience road-to-Damascus conversions, but the odds of the relevant number - sixteen in the senate, and more in the Congress, IIRC - doing so are absolutely negligable. And it really would take a change of heart of that magnitude - waking up one morning as a completely different person - for one to do so. Both their "principles" - most of them believe that the Iraq war was a good idea, and all of them believe that Bush hasn't done anything impeachworthy - and, crucially, expediency - "traitor" is a label that will make reelction virtually impossible - militate against it incredibly strongly.

Impeachment *procedings* - *not* "impeachment, which is not an option - would harm the Democratic party and America, and benefit only the Republicans.

[mmonk]

89. To not impeach is a betrayal of the constitution

and of you and me. To understand impeachment, read post 85. My vote WILL NEVER BE taken advantage of again. I will vote for democrats that support the constitution only (and no republicans ever). When a democrat that agrees with an outlaw republican regime runs for a particular office for which I vote, I just won't vote in that particular race. I will not be fooled more than once.

[ellisonz]

96. 67 is the magic number...

and if the last 12 years are any indication, GOPers can be exposed and bought off. We just might do it...but I want to investigate first and get the hard evidence that makes not impeaching political suicide.

[mmonk]

102. see post 85

[ellisonz]

132. Do I seem like I don't know that?

My point is that we will not move forward until we have the votes in the Senate, because if anything a divisive debate in the House will loose us votes. Nancy and Harry aren't stupid.

[wtmusic]

100. Run and hide from the truth

under the guise of pragmatism.

No important social change has ever been advanced in that manner. Rosa Parks should have politely moved to the back, then gone home and written her Senator, maybe? :shrug:

[NotGivingUp]

90. I have said this even before the dems took over...

if they don't do anything to impeach bush, I know we have nothing. They are one and the same. We're just playing a little game here...a game called "Let's Pretend". Let's pretend we have a democracy so that the masses don't get unruly.

[genie_weenie]

91. If you pay Federal Taxes do you approve of his actions?

[mmonk]

92. What has that got to do with it?

[genie_weenie]

97. Taxes are one of the pillars of the war machine.

If people are fed up with the War Machine and the massacre occurring in Iraq, they could do more to stop it. If enough got together and stopped giving the government money it would force the government to re-evaluate their position or spend time going after the "law breakers".

But, by paying taxes people are agreeing with what the government does.

[mmonk]

101. impeachment is a choice without consequences

to one's liberty (it's even a remedy to protect that liberty). Choosing not to pay one's taxes puts one's liberty in immediate jeopardy.

[mmonk]

95. Why doing nothing may backfire.

Many millions voted for dems thinking they would do something about the administration (not just be a legislative check). Don't expect all those millions to vote in 08. The dems will probably lose enough of a percentage to enable even a despised party such as the republicans remain competitive in a race too close to call.

[Swede]

106. Are you sure you want Cheney for president?

nt

[wtmusic]

107. He already is nt

[Philosoraptor]

108. That's a ridiculous, worn out argument.

[Senator]

110. Yes, Only Impeachment is an Act of Objection

Anything else is just hot air. And everybody knows it.

Only Impeachment ... Works.

--

[Madspirit]

111. If you refuse to impeach bush, aren't you approving of his actions?

No. You're being pragmatic. It's NEVER going to happen and we have many issues on the table that need dealing with. Why get mired in this roiling muck again?

How about this question:

If you want to get mired in the roiling muck of impeachment, does it mean your lust for vengeance and hatred for Bush is so great you put it above all other concerns?

Or this one:

Are you so white and well fed that you really don't care if doing this fucks up our chance to win the presidency in 2008?
Madspirit

[Philosoraptor]

115. lust for vengeance & hatred for Bush isn't my concern, our nation is.

[Madspirit]

117. Bull

...because concern for our nation includes concern for all the other IMPORTANT life-dependant issues. ...and nothing else will happen if this does and it will ruin our chances to win the presidency in 2008.
No Republican will go for it regardless of how much people want to PRETEND they will. Go to some of the Republican Talking Head sites. It's a myth that they do not still love Bush. Some are disappointed in him but no one hates him in that camp. ...and right-leaning Democrats won't go for it because it is such a disruptive process and people like Liebercrap won't go for it because they wuv Bushy.
It's simply disruptive when we have other issues to deal with.
Madspirit

[Madspirit]

118. Clarification

I should clarify my position. I would love for Bush to be impeached. I hate the man to the depths of my being. I hate the man with a fiery passion. He was my governor...Texan here...before you guys were having to put up with him. He and his hand-picked predecessor have screwed my state worse than it already was. ..because of him I am an un-medicated bipolar...unemployed...and there is no help for mental illness in Texas. We are last in funds for mental health. We always were but he made it even worse. He almost single-handedly dismantled our mental health system. ...and The University of Texas...my lover's employer...has no domestic partner benefits so I can't even be on the insurance of the woman I have been with for 15 years. I lay a lot of this right at his feet. I, PERSONALLY, have suffered because of George Bush. I can't even name all the horrible things I would like to see happen to this man. I truly hate him.

That said, I can think of NOTHING more chilling than another Republican president in 2008. Nothing. ...and I think if we go the impeachment route it will be so divisive it will guarantee another Republican president. I just couldn't take that AND...there we would be again...with another Bush-like person in office.

That's why I am not supporting this impeachment thing and why I just wish we would get on with the business of rebuilding our country.
Madspirit

[GOTV]

142. I agree except...

... I think impeachment is possible if investigations turn up enough dirt that large majorities of Americans start to demand it. Then it can be undertaken successfully and safely.

[wtmusic]

121. Oh jeepers, we wouldn't want to disrupt a president in the middle

of his felonies, now would we?

Gimme a break.

[Madspirit]

129. yeah...that's really what I said. NOT.

[Phillycat]

112. As my sigline says, ITMFA!

[Zhade]

123. If cops refuse to jail a criminal, are they condoning his actions?

You tell me.

[GOTV]

141. Of course not n/t

[warrens]

124. Investigate-indict-try-jail

Why waste time on an impeachment that will result in nothing? Throw the traitor in jail. For life.

[Dr Fate]

126. It means that our leaders dont really agree that he is a liar and a criminal.

At least that is what the average voter thinks it means.

[MzNov]

128. Approving of his actions, no. Enabling him, most definitely. nt

[wtmusic]

131. There really is no difference. nt

[Madspirit]

134. I'm not a liar.

I 100% do not support his actions. 100%. I also don't think we should get mired down in an impeachment. This is called a "shade of gray".

You sound EXACTLY like...Bush. if a person doesn't 100% agree with you...the person is treasonous. ...oh so tired of that.
Madspirit

[wtmusic]

138. So your shade of gray means you support his actions, like, 22%?

Is it light gray, or dark?

[Madspirit]

139. Read My Lips

No...I don't support his actions at all. None. JUST AS I SAID.

I just think there are a lot more pressing issues than miring us down in this mess just so the obviously well fed ideologues of the Left can go..."nananananana" to Bush. I have different priorities...OBVIOUSLY...than armchair well-fed leftists do.

Tell me...after the entire country is preoccupied with this "impeach" mess....for months and months and months and months...who will it have fed?

...and you are JUST like him every time you say..."if you're not with us you're against us."

Going to call me a traitor next?
Madspirit

[Philosoraptor]

145. traitor!

:sarcasm:

[Madspirit]

146. aaaaaahhhh!

Your avatar scares me. : P
Madspirit