Yes, very interesting . . .
Posted on 03/13/2003 11:23:41 AM PST by mandingo republican
SUPPORT THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF UPDATE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DRAFTED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT!
CRITICAL ACTION ITEMS BELOW!
3/13/03
We have just learned that House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) assembled more than two-dozen prominent liberal attorneys and legal scholars on Tuesday to consider articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush by activists seeking to block military action against Saddam Hussein.
Conyers was the only Member of Congress to attend the meeting, however Ramsey Clark--former attorney general was also there.
"We had a pretty frank discussion about putting in a bill of impeachment against President Bush," said Francis Boyle, an Illinois law professor who is working with Clark on the impeachment language.
WE URGES A SWIFT RESPONSE! call Rep. Conyers office to voice their displeasure with him for even considering such an action against a President who has vowed to protect our nation from terror.
Please call as soon as you receive this message!
Below is the contact information you need to make an IMMEDIATE, and DIRECT IMPACT ON THIS ISSUE!
Rep. John Conyers: 202/225-5126 (Washington Office) 313/961-5670 (Main District Office)
And please, after calling Rep. Conyers, pass this message on to your friends and family, urging them to follow your lead by phoning as well.
TOGETHER, WE MUST COMBAT THESE DESPICABLE ACTS AGAINST OUR PRESIDENT!
Thank you, and God Bless America,
I still haven't checked to find out where Conyers' local office is. But, it would have to be in Detroit. Due to redistricting, I live in a strip of three suburbs that was added to Conyers' district (before that his entire district was in Detroit). I'd be pretty surprised if Conyers moved his office to the suburbs recently.
My suburb is safely Democratic, so as far as I know Conyers has no interest at all in it. (Although, I'd like to defend my neighborhood a bit - my street, which was awash with Gore signs before the 2000 election, was also covered with American flags after 9-11.)
Yes, very interesting . . .
Gee, why am I not surprised?
So does I.
All Your Urges Are Belong to Us.
--Boris
If found guilty, they should be trucked from city to city in America, to be tarred and feathered and then hung upside down while naked with a sign dangling from their necks stating, "I'm a traitor! I took money from the Axis of Evil!"
These commie thugs aren't getting a free ride like they did in the sixties and seventies.
Either this is an attempt at comedy on your part, or you've suddenly made an abrupt about face on the issue of President Bush.
While our paths haven't crossed lately, on several past occasions you've displayed not only strong opposition, but even a level of contempt for PresBushes leadership abilities. Choosing to deny these belligerent occurances (example:immigration) at this point, certainly doesn't help your credibility.
...and Senate, especially the Senate.
>>>Based on what?
Either this is an attempt at comedy on your part, or you've suddenly made an abrupt about face on the issue of President Bush.
While our paths haven't crossed lately, on several past occasions you've displayed not only strong opposition, but even a level of contempt for PresBushes
leadership abilities. Choosing to deny these belligerent occurances (example:immigration) at this point, certainly doesn't help your credibility.
174 posted on 03/14/2003 9:34 AM PST by Reagan Man
It's a bit rich to watch someone with so little grip on reality, attempt to cast me as being farsical. I have neither made an about face, or signed on to Bush's every whim. As always I evaluate each issue on it's own, complimenting or taking the Bush administration to task.
Repeatedly I have stated that I think Bush is a good man and that I both agree and disagree with him. At the present time we are preparing for war, so I emphasize support for Bush and the military campaign, while I still make an occasional comment regarding his unsupportable immigration stance. Most recently he made an appointment to oversee immigration. The man he appointed has no experience with the Immigration department. He has never been employed in an immigration related field, or ever dealt with immigration law or management. The only aspect of this individual that related to immigration in the slightest, was that he is a foreign born naturalized citizen, who's personal experience may give him more cause to be in tune with immigrant's rights, than national security issues. Why would I refrain from commenting on an area of national security in the midst of a wartime setting and active terrorist threats? I will always reserve the right to disagree with the people that I support overall.
The sad thing is, you and a number of other people who profess to support Bush on this forum, damn anyone who doesn't live inside Bush's mind, never allowing even one brain cell to differ from his. This is not only illogical, it's been honed to a level approaching mental illness. There isn't a person on this planet that you or I agree with 100%. I don't agree with my wife 100%. I don't agree with my Pastor, civic leaders or friends 100%. Does this mean that I hate any of them? Does it mean that I do not like them? Does it even mean that I don't love them? No it doesn't, but with regard to Bush, that's precisely the claim. Is that rational? Is that the sign of a healthy thought process?
You state that my credibility is now in question. Well, I think I can bear up under that. In light of the demonstrable thought processes that saw this mindset develop, I'm glad to have the person adopting such an opinion disagree with me. It would worry me more to agree with them in lock-step.
You have mentioned that I have objected to some of Bush's policies on the forum. I am glad that you visit the forum enough to know that. It does however puzzle me that you have not been there enough to see my supportive comments as well. You are the third person in under a week to damn me without cause for not supporting Bush, "..because everyone knows I hate him and have slandered him on every issue." You have chosen to refer to my disagreements with Bush as Belligerent Occurances. When asked to provide instances of such comments, each of you have offered up some vague notion of my beliefs, but nothing tangible. It's almost as if you were opperating off a list of "bad people" hoping to drive as many of them from the forum as possible.
Get this straight. I supported Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election. I knew that illegal immigration and other problems with immigration were sooner or later going to damn this nation to severe problems. For me that was the single most important issue facing this nation. If you still think that's debatable, then you have the problem, not I. We are now in a wartime setting due exclusively to the failure of our federal government to vet foreign nationals entering our nation. Was that Bush's doing? No, and I never attempted to make that claim. The fact still remains, that the leadership of this nation devised what I consider to be criminally negligent guidelines in the oversight of our borders. When Bush was elected to office, he inherited them. To this time, he still has not made a decision to unilaterally put an end to the problems. Even as late as three months ago, several hundred people known to be on terrorist lists, were allowed to enter our nation unimpeded. Was anyone fired for this? You tell me. Has the million man plus per year march across our borders been stopped, even though we know that some are from the middle-east? You tell me.
Once Buchanan lost, I immediately organized rallys on Presidential Canidate Bush's behalf. Those rallies saw upwards of 300 people protest in Los Angeles for four straight weekends. We were covered on local television to one degree or another on each of those weekends. I developed a Sign Bank at that time which helped network signs in his support. I've provided a link. You can check it out. There are a number of signs on that forum dedicated to the support of George Bush. You won't find a single one that is negative there.
Over the last two years I have consistantly praised Bush for certain actions. I have never said that he wasn't a good man. At worst I characterized him as a good man with a good heart, who none the less made poor decisions on some issues.
Over a period of time, evidenced by the Sign Bank I developed two and a half years ago, I have developed a number of graphics positive to or supportive of Bush. Here are links to some of the latest.
http://www.knfo.net/graphics/goodheart.jpg
http://www.knfo.net/graphics/signssh.jpg
http://www.knfo.net/graphics/hailwillie.jpg
http://www.knfo.net/graphics/indianajoke.jpg
Some of these graphics take hours to develop. Perhaps you can explain why a guy who "hated President Bush" would do that. Here is a link to our Los Angeles Chapter meeting on 05/18/2002. I happen to be the Free Republic Network's Los Angeles Chapter President. Take a look at the after meeting action report. Tell me whose nice big 11x14 color picture was placed on the wall right next to President Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. I took the trouble to print that out and place it there.
For the record, I have heavily criticized Pat Buchanan for his latest comments regarding Bush and the War on Terrorism, with specific reference to Iraq and the middle-east. When I think a person is wrong, I'm going to speak out about it. And guess what, you're on the list.
Now, you tell me who's attempting comedy here. By rights you owe me an appology, but I have yet to see a rabid Bush supporter admit that there's even the slightest chance they may have overstated their case. Here's a bulletin for you. I don't enjoy being slandered on this forum unfairly. If you wish to object to my comments regarding Bush policy on the thread where I do it, and debate the issue with me, I'm all for it. I'm not in support of your right to dart around the forum and insult people at will, when their only infraction was to post something favorable to the man you claim to support.
This is the third time in a week I have had a person attack me for not supporting Bush, when I was making a statement unrelated to Bush or one of his policies, or even a statement supportive of him. It's uncalled for and and unacceptable.
I submit that you and other Bush supporters offend more people, drive more people off this forum than any other group. Once again, you have demonstrated how and why. If you folks are willing to attack chapter leaders in such a manner, what must you be doing to others on this forum?
Knock it off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
