h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

in case you didn't notice it, I started this thread. I am doing all I can think of, what have you done? Never mind, just go and be part of the solution, okay!

sorry, wasn't talking about anyone in particular, it just does my head in, the amount of people who went to these marches, for most of them thats it, done and dusted, they showed their support and now they can go on doing what they do, feeling good about themselves.

You got something against frybread, alec?

And you don't let the air out of the tires, you pound roofing nails into them so he loses it on the way back to the 35 acre ranchette. Then you can steal his horsetrailer and give your cousins someplace to live.

I can't emphasize enough that now everybody should know there's enough others out there who want this madness stopped to convince you you ain't crazy, Bush is.

So definitely start your own bombing runs with emails, faxes, phone calls, telegrams, paper airplanes, notes tied to bricks or anything else you can think of to harass all those people who claim they represent YOU. Make them prove it!

And remember, that's what finally got Nixon and that's what him and Bush are going to share on their resumes if we're persistant.

I want you all to consider the weight of what you're throwing around.

President Johnson's attempted impeachment was nothing more that a political manuver, had it gone through it would have destroyed American democracy as we know it.

President Nixon's Impeachment was impeached because of gross and public violations of the law regarding Watergate.

President Clinton's attempted impeachment was brought about by acusations of sexual advances toward several interns, later charges of perjury were also brought, the impeachment was mirred down in the politics of D.C and Clinton was not convicted.

What charges would you have brought against Bush, that he's an idiot, I fully agree with that one but last I checked being an idiot is not a crime. The constitution reads that a president may only be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

You can't just impeach a president simply because you don't agree with his policies, that's why there is such an insanly long process of checks and balances to go through. Now I'm sure that Mr. Ashcroft would love to put cameras in every house but so far he hasn't moved on any of those sorts of actions, if he does, impeach him, not Bush.

Bottom line, if you don't like the president, find someone who you think'd be a better one, then VOTE for him or her, and encourage everybody else to vote for that person too. That is how democracy works and that is why we get to do it every 4 years.

Blizita

I think....if you would read the webpage referenced at the beginning, you might have a better idea...



Of course, then again, our nation's administrations have a long history of human rights abuses. It would be fun entertainment for a century or two, to go back and categorically impeach elected officials after the fact just based on that criterion.

...this is absolutely _not a joke and this is _not another circus per populi, nor is it another media entertainment. It is most assuredly serious.

Bush does not belong where he is.

He was, emphatically, _not elected and he is, without a doubt, _not the people's choice. It was a coup d'etat no less that made him resident in the White House.

If you do care for democracy, the time to act is now.

Please do go to the website and read it for yourself and then do what you think is correct.

By the logic posted on this site you could impeach every single president.

Truman sought change the government of Japan and also ordered an attack that caused horrific casulties in Japan.

Roosevelt ordered carpet bombings of Axis factories all across Europe.

Kennedy ordered uncountable assination attempts of Castro, and tried to change regimes.

What makes Bush unique?

Blizita

Oh, so because all those idiots were badasses, let's continue the perfidy, right?

Maybe you have some bright suggestions about reforming the electoral process then, unless you're okay with that too. We wouldn't want to make the same egegious error again now would we?

This isn't destroying democracy. It might even be re-establishing it or even establishing it for the first time.

Maybe you can pretend Bush is just awkward or something, but I think every drunk in country knows or should know what his problem really is. I think there's something in the Constitution about incompetence which should apply. And he's not going to get better just because people pretend there's nothing wrong.

And if the process doesn't provide for removal under the circumstances, then you amend it so it does. Don't worry, like I said, he won't get better so it'll apply to him when he screws up again, and he will.

I want to apologize, I was getting slightly hotheaded and irrational in my previous posts and had to take a break.

I still stand by my position and it is this:

First, I want to say that I believe that the war against Iraq is wronge, however I understand where Bush is comming from, We elected him (that's a compleatly different argument) and for better or worse he is our leader, till 2004, until then he has to lead the country in the best way that he can and he believes that Iraq is a threat to our country.

An impeachment of the sort proposed is against the spirit that the very constitution was founded on. The democratic process commands that the public vote either for or against our leaders as they see fit. The constitution is not a document that can be changed at a whim. That's the kind of government that the founding fathers ran from oh so long ago.

I plan to vote aganist Bush in the 2004 election and I plan to orginize as many people to help me.

Instead of trying to impeach lets do something more constitutional (and quicker) lets orginize the 60%+ nonvoters in the country and really give the administration a message, with our ballots.

Thank You
Good Night

Blizita

One very important thing makes him different:

Bush was not elected to the place he occupies. He was selected.

Two of the five 'justices' doing the selecting had clear confilicts of interest. One had a son working in the firm and on the case put to the Court and the other had a wife who spearheaded part of the Bush election efforts.

He has defeated and demolished just the about every major plank even of his own Republican Party platform - just one example: the size of government and its power over the lives of people it is supposed to serve.

In any event the possiblity of this Congress doing anything is slim indeed. An Orrin Hatch Court - something very possible - doing anything? The chances of that are three: slim, fat and none.

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/notes_4.htm

Nearly every president has had impeachment papers started by someone.That is not unusual here. There have been fewer serious attempts.

At the site linked they give the history of impeachments and the standards/law used to judge. It IS very American thing to use as political leverage, whether it goes farther or not.

I think maybe you have some good ideas, Blizita.

One thing I think you need to understand though. The kind of government the founders ran from was American, the Articles of Confederation. What they ended up founding was the government of the Constitution which shares more in common with Rome than America. So they weren't running from European government. They were reconstituting it.

Instead of a government by consensus, they chose a government by majority, the majority taking the place of king and parliament. There were safeguards attached though, in the Bill of Rights and the provisions for articles of impeachment among others. No less a founder than John Adams recognized the dangers of the tyranny of the majority and said so.

Now, Kyaa is correct to say Bush was selected under this system. It's a fact. So in effect, he was not elected by a majority and has failed to gain a consensus as well. This happened before when Rutherford B. Hayes was made president by the House of Representatives. It's a serious flaw that is probably going to become more frequently experienced in the future. So something needs to be done about it and soon.

In the meantime, whatever can be done to derail Bush's agenda needs to be done. It is backed up by the coercive power of the American government, but it is not legitimate because his election is questionable at best.

If Congress can be pursuaded to do their Constitutional duty which is to check and balance him, then we don't have a problem, but they won't even provide a declaration of war or prevent him from acting without one. So the system is failing catastrophically.

Under these circumstances I hope you can and will organize against him in 2004. I also hope you have that option in 2004. It took Hitler only 18 months to undermine the Weimar Republic. Bush will have had a good deal longer than that by 2004.

The fact that he was not elected by a majority or even a credible plurality should have given him pause and convinced him that he needed consensus before doing anything if he was to unite the nation as he promised. It's clear from the intervening events that he has already broken that promise. Perhaps that isn't treason, but by the same token, it doesn't merit our unquestioning loyalty.

If referring articles of impeachment will do nothing more than paralyze the government or curtail some of its more egegious activities until the election, that would be a good thing all by itself. And I think we might be surprised about how it might also reduce the attacks on America, both real and imaginary.

Because America is being attacked because America is being an intrusive and arrogant bully. When the people doing the bullying are disabled, the attacks should be disabled as well.

If it isn't visible to anyone why it is urgent to act to remove the abomination that infests this nation's highest levels of governments - and that of many European nations, notably the UK - then I suppose it will be a long time before their hearts and minds clear.

From the responses of Bush, and the coterie that he fronts for, it is crystal clear why it is urgent to restore or even maybe deliver true democracy to us, the people.

American government learned the lessons of what it practiced on this continent's own people - most particularly, the long term inhabitatants and in tandem with that experiment on those who were forcibly brought here - and applies these lessons in the outlands - as opposed to the homeland - today and on many days in the name of making the world free.

Well, it is time to tell such a government, not in my name, not any more.

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

Thank you for your consideration.

I suppose it does make sense to send coal to Newcastle sometimes, what?