Is the United States a Republic or a Busharchy? »
Posted By populist 1 year ago in NewsThe Founders, in their wisdom, wouldn't let Washington become king. Today, in a nation with 4x the area and 70x the population there appear to be no wise leaders willing to step forward and challenge the stubborn, arrogant Bush from conducting himself as a king; no true patriots calling for the citizenry to reclaim their participative democracy.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 302
-
0%
ETproductions1 year ago
There are a growing number ready to impeach this lawless lot for their trashing of the US Constitution. Not enough yet, but a growing number. Keep posting the truth. Keep writing to editors, to the MSM, and to your elected leaders in Washington.
Especially now as they are ramping up the drumbeat for war with Iran, it is critical we move ahead to stop them.
Reply-
0%
jk54891 year ago
this is just more tired propaganda from the real enemy within - the anti-American liberal minority whose only real barrier to one-party socialist rule is the Constitution.
.."this lawless lot for their trashing of the US Constitution" Name even one way the Executive Branch has trashed the Constitution. Name any grounds for impeachment. If there were any real evidence it would happen.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions1 year ago
Wow! Talk about spin. 64% of the American public is a minority.
You are against the constitution if you object to the death of habeas corpus, warrant-less wiretapping, torture, secret prisons, signing statements creating new laws without Congress, extraordinary rendition, turning the Department of Justice into a political weapon.
Grounds for impeachment? The Iraq war is an illegal war per the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Protocols. The Nuremberg Protocols say that illegal wars of aggression are the highest of war crimes, since all other war crimes tend to flow out of such actions. These International Laws are all treaties the US has signed and ratified. Article VI of the US Constitution says that all treaties we sign and ratify become part of US Law. Bush and his senior administration are war criminals and should be tried as such.
http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm
Reply-
0%
Teagen1 year ago
ET, you're actually wrong. If you're going spew the UN crap, in actually fact, Saddam violated every single part of the UN peace treaty of 1990. During Clinton's time in the WH, had he not been busy playing Cigar Box with the intern, he was talking of hitting Saddam with everything we had.
Most of the wire tappings were approved of by congress when the Patriot Act. As to torture, when it's a uniformed combat soldier, it should never be used. When it's some dressed as a civilian but trained for and coducting military actions, they should be treated as a spy. Carter gave that away in the 70's by signing the UN agreement protecting covert troops dressed as civilians acting as a spy.
Nurenberg? Did we finally start building camps in the USA to house all of you liberals? Give me a break, name one real world leader who feels having Saddam in power was a good thing. We should have taken him out in 1990.
Reply-
0%
toph19731 year ago
You have zero credibility. You support a traitor whoch makes you one as well. Bush has violated the constitution many times which is treason. Not to mention the Family ties to the Nazis. You lose any kind of credibility with support of this criminal. And your only pathetic retort is about clinton. Do you realise how stupid one looks bringing up something that happened over a decade ago.
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year ago
"Do you realise how stupid one looks bringing up something that happened over a decade ago"
LOL...and yet you feel free to recycle the calumny about Prescott Bush and the Nazis...from circa 1942? LOL, that is interesting logic.
Reply-
0%
jaspersneed1 year ago
From Prescott to Dumbya is a straight, uninterrupted line of dictatorial, new-world-order aspiration, right there within ONE diabolical family lineage. Dragging out Clinton, on the other hand, every time you bushtards want to deflect blame for the current administration's failures and crimes, is at this point blatantly pathetic. Everybody sees through it
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year ago
LOL...I'll just let that comment stand on its own as the perfect example of Loony Left insanity that it is...
For all of you intelligent liberals, who outnumber these Loony Leftists by 10 to 1, it's time for a Sister Souljah moment. Do you want these kinds of thoughts to be representative of liberals as a whole? Or am I wrong in thinking that these folks are only fringe elements?
Reply-
-
-
0%
jaspersneed1 year ago
It's easy to keep straight: We "paleocons" are not EVER rabid authoritarians, not EVER worshippers of the Central State, not EVER warmongers, and not EVER supporters of those who are any of those things. Beyond that, the rest is nice dinner talk, like it's been for over 200 years in this country.
Reply-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Daja vu all over again!???
It seems some are not really up on their history. Especially the author of this nonsensical piece of diatribe. Could this be a result of the Public Education system that based on this piece of fiction is failing to educate.
The truth is and history will confirm this George Washington had no desire to be a King. In fact he barely wanted to be the President. When the 08 elections are over & Bush proclaims he is now the King of Nazi America I will capitulate to the majority of Libscape. The Majority who turn a blind eye to the massive corruption of the Clintons. "Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic "hillraiser" in custody after jumping his $2 million bail in San Mateo County last week, will be spending an additional week in a Colorado jail -- unless he comes up with another $5 million. See this on Libscape? Of Course not. But they will post "Bush is a Nazi" nonsense all day long everyday.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
toph19731 year ago
Probelm with your illogic though is that Bush is still a Nazi. Him and his daddy are always talking about the new world order. It's not hard to see that Bush really does want to set up the 4th reich.
Reply-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year ago
Endoscopy wrote: "What are you going to say after he steps down when his term of office ends?"
If that happens, I'm going to say, "Thank God."
But I am still deeply concerned by the damage he's wrought to the constitution (often with Congress' willing compliance). If he doesn't use all the new unitary executive powers to press for a dictatorship, someone will. We must remove the tools he's created before someone uses them.
Reply -
0%
joey-evans1 year ago
I'll say,"Thank GOD! Now let's try that bastard and throw him and the rest of his band of criminals in prison and throw away the key!!"
JOEY EVANS
Reply
-
0%
Teagen1 year ago
First off, before you start talking like the dumba-s you appear to be, Bush fought in WW2 against Japan who was a mamber of the Axis forces than. He certainly didn't support them.
Secondly, huh? 4th Reich? Do you know who stupid you morons sound. Perhaps rather than spending time in the student union, coffee shop or most likely your mommy's basement, you get a job and see the world. Better yet, come over here where I am and see what real dictatorships are like. You whine about freedoms that people like me make possible. Am I happy to be here, no, but we have a job to do.
Again, if Bush really was the force of evil you dream he is, you would already be dead. Lenin, Stalin, and Moa did it that way, Castro and Chavez do, if Bush was a dictator, you would be already dead. He's not. Get a life.
Reply-
0%
researchanalyst1 year ago
Look you right wing ignorant clown (ok, so its redundant, but you're so slow you have to be told things 3 times for it to sink in). Read political theory. Look up fascism. What Bush is doing is fascism. There are a few good books on it.
I know, the GOP had to get the comic book vote to get Reagan elected. Its hard NOT reading something with pictures, but hey maybe you can learn something.
May keep you out of trouble in the airport men's room....
Reply-
0%
repealthe22ndbush20081 year ago
"I know, the GOP had to get the comic book vote to get Reagan elected."
Reagan won 44 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984. He won Massachusetts TWICE. If you wish to continue with your imbecilic delusions that is your choice.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
repealthe22ndbush20081 year ago
Uh, yeah, and Bill Clinton was going to declare martial law in order to keep power in 2000. Looks like Falwellian delusionism is not confined to the ultra-right.
Reply -
0%
greekdish1 year ago
Wow, nothing like comparing Bush to Hitler, instead of Osama Bin Laden or Ahmedingdong to Hitler, to prove how worthless the liberals are in this country. They refuse to see the real threat. They really believe its the US Soldiers doing the suicide bombings in Iraq, and not the Islamo Fascists. Too comical.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Do you realize how foolish you sound. If he violated the constitution the Democrats would have started impeachment proceedings this past year at the drop of a hat.
Since the Democrats in congress only spout rhetoric then that is all they have.
Reply -
-
0%
Lurch1 year ago
As an aside, don`t you think that a moral, ethical, and patriotic leader would have let the weapons inspectors actually find the WMD first, before sending in the troops?
If Bush still actually believed (against all odds) that Saddam actually still had WMD at the time of the invasion, it just goes to show how Bush did not mind putting our troops at exponentially more risk for his own political agenda.
Sick.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
JoseMadre1 year ago
"The Dems have counted the votes."
230 Democrats in the House is sufficient to impeach, if there is a valid reason. They just need to convince their own party.
Reply -
-
0%
repealthe22ndbush20081 year ago
For once he's right. 218 House votes are enough to impeach.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez31 year ago
had he not been busy playing Cigar Box with the intern
Trying the old Clinton card I C.
The real story is Clinton Attack Saddam and Iraq many times.
1996
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoniraqfiasc...
1998
"..unleashing more than 200 cruise missiles onto military installations and suspected weapons sites as punishment for Baghdad's refusal to allow the destruction of its chemical and biological weapons. "
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/iraq/1217iraq017.asp
As far as the UN goes Iraq is not the only country to ignore UN agreements. The US under GWB surely doesn't act as if it is bound to any UN aggreement or resolution that the his administration doesn't accept.
Ask the Iraqi people, (you know the ones that were going to shower their liberators with flowers) if they are better off with the US in charge of civil order.
Reply-
0%
engineer1 year ago
I personally know a Christian family with immediate family in Baghdad and wish Saddam had not been toppled!!
Reply -
-
0%
nonparted1 year ago
protoham: very good find its a shame that most americans cant accept some good from this war always on the negative aspect. if the american people wants to pull out of iraqi the US should at least support the kurds in any way (thats up to the kurds to decide what kind of help they want)and not abandon them like before and like we did to the montagnards of vietnam which alot were slaughtered after the US pulled out.
if kurdistan can live peacefully within their created border with the ethinic diversity is swell.
maybe the iraqi government (sunni & shiites) should take some pointers from these people instead of fighting amongst themselves and also kick out the insurgents causing trouble since these are outsiders any way
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
jasmine50001 year ago
i respect you but i still feel bush has violated his constitutional limits. war is very strict, only a congressional declaration. we should move back to that
and arresting people with little cause or none at all keeping them imprisoned without end. thats a injustice and not everyone locked up is a spy or compatant. there are some people just in the wrong place. theres one guy in jail in america, he was just fleeing. he lived in america for like 20 years.
http://www.injusticeline.com/mohd.html
Reply-
-
0%
djn3nunez31 year ago
Except they didn't.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
There was no immenant, immediate, dire, or significant threat from Iraq. Also SCR 1441, which the USA agreed to, called for and was procceeding with a final round of weapon inspections to located the fabled Iraqi WMD.
He jumped the gun, disregarded the UN and the world.
But you're right, they never should have given him that much power.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Look at number 2. Congress knew when they voted for that that our army would invade if Saddam didn't comply with the UN orders he had been thumbing his nose at. Saddam was given a choice and he again chose to ignore it. Busch warned the world and had the help of many nations in this effort.
Why do you people try to rewrite history???
Reply-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Try again. Saddam didn't let the inspectors have unfettered access that was required. Don't rewrite history. He had to have the itinerary days in advance and then the trucks would roll. Of course this meant nothing I guess. Near the end he would get the itinerary that morning and the inspector would be given be driven a roundabout route to get there. Again the trucks would roll.
Reply
-
-
0%
djn3nunez31 year ago
It weas clearly stated in 1441 what action the SC would take if the inpector reported that they were obstructed in anyway. That action was not a military strike either.
The only folks re-writing history is the Bushites.
He did not follow the law passed by Congress and signed by himself.
He is a disgrace to America. A noble man would have resigned.
Reply
-
-
0%
repealthe22ndbush20081 year ago
Apparently you are too stupid to understand the plain meaning of "AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY." It means that Bush gets to decide. Case closed.
Reply
-
-
0%
jasmine50001 year ago
it isnt like that. congress signed a bill giving the president the power to decide on war. but they arent allowed to give there power away. the constitution is set up the way it is so the power is spread. giving the president dictatorial powers is a threat to our government and our freedom. continuous war will erode the government our people and our freedoms.
thats part of the reason our founding fathers made war a big deal. only a official congressional declaration of war can make a war. anything else is totally unconstitutional.
these police actions, wars delcared by the president on his own, needs to end.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
Ummmm I'm curious does the right wing just keyoff of certain words when they respond and once they see one of those words start the same ole drivel and foaming at the mouth they are so well known for?
ET's post had nothing at all to do with Saddam or with ANY of the events you mention, its had a lot to do with the Consititution and the fact that ARTICLE VI of it makes any treaty signed by the US LAW. Violation of that is a violation of the COnstitution which is grounds for impeachment. Very simple. Now if you want to address that instead of whining about Clinton and Monica (which the REPUBLICANS seemed to think was FAR more important then National Security at the time) feel free to post. Otherwise I'm sure there are some rightie forums where you can go and whine about how CLinton did that and Clinton did this and poor ole George got stuck with it all. ROFLMAO.
Reply-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
I forgot to add, invalidate it after a case is presented to SCOTUS not prior. Until that point it is treated as the Law per the Constitution.
Reply -
0%
greekdish1 year ago
It doesnt have to be in the Constitution. I guess you never heard of the Barbary Wars. Go look it up. They too defended US interests with military action without Congressional authorization at first.
"In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
Times are different though. Congress declared war on terrorism, and any country that supports or harbors terrorists are fair game. Hence, why we could possibly go to war with Iran without Congress declaring it, because Congress already declared War on Terrorism.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Lurch1 year ago
>During Clinton's time in the WH, had he not been busy playing Cigar Box with the intern, he was talking of hitting Saddam with everything we had.
And Cheney was begging for the embargo to be ended so Halliburton could sell Saddam more stuff (the fact that Halliburton was already trading illegally with iraq through a French subsidiary is another argument altogether).
The USofA is a Geneva Convention signee, including all of its amendments. The GC states very clearly that all persons captured during a time of war are to be treated as POWs by default until otherwise declared by a tribunal. Torture of any of these people including non-uniformed partisans is illegal. This had nothing to do with any single president.
>name one real world leader who feels having Saddam in power was a good thing.
Bush I, Cheney, and the rest of that admin vociferously defended the decision not to invade claiming it would lead to a quagmire that the US could not win.
Reply-
0%
jasmine50001 year ago
so what if saddam had wmds, thats why we had the principal called mad since the 50s. saddam knew full well the reprisals if he ever used them would cost him too much
Reply
-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year ago
Teagen wrote: "ET, you're actually wrong. If you're going spew the UN crap, in actually fact, Saddam violated every single part of the UN peace treaty of 1990."
Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties duly ratified by the US Government the law of this land. Under the Geneva Conventions, wars of aggression are the highest of war crimes, as all other war crimes flow from such aggression.
The UN Charter, ratified by the US and thereby the law of this land, is quite clear. It permits war only in two instances: either in self-defense, or when authorized by the security council.
The UN Security Council did not authorize the invasion of Iraq and Iraq did not launch a war against the US, so this was an Illegal War of Aggression under International Law and US Law. Bush swore an oath of office to uphold and enforce the laws of this land. Instead, he broke them. Impeach him.
Reply
-
-
0%
Gatsby1 year ago
ETproductions
Keep talking man!!! You're right all the way down the line. Thanks for pointing these things out to the KoolAde drinkers whio insist no harm has been done. It'll take a generation (or more) to regain our standing in the world - not to mention paying off the national debt.
I'm with you all the way.
Reply-
0%
LeftTurn1 year ago
People please...
Is it not all of us that need to wake up and learn even more than we think we know now?
I mean look at what our system of government has become:
Our voting system of electronic voting will be fixed, if it isn't already.
We have candidates that will stop at literally nothing to obtain money for campaigning and "lobbying votes".
More than half, I believe, of congress and the senate can be bought at any one time.
And we have a constitution that our president doesn't follow, and then there's that big question again about "why doesn't someone do something about it?".
Well, indeed some on the oversight comity have tried, and when someone gets close enough to finding actual evidence of crimes, then we see "executive privilege". But you know, I would almost bet those peoples lives are hell for some reason or another, or have backed off oversight because of threat to their families and life in general...
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Where do you get that the electronic machines can be rigged??
The amount of knowledge and the short window of opportunity essentially means they can't be rigged.
These machines are dedicated purpose computers. The person doing this has to:
1. have unfettered access to a programmed machine
2. the physical hardware to access the internal computer
3. the tools to deassemble the machine code for that processor
4. the ability to look at the very long printout of that and understand the very cryptic uncommented code
5. The tools to modify the assembly language code in an undetectable way
6. cross assembly language assembler for that processor
7. time enough in the secured area where the machines are kept to modify them
Reply-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Your reply shows your ignorance. There is programming about the current election that has to be put into the machine. Only after the unit is programmed for the current election can the software be rigged.
It is a computer. The hardware does what the software tells it to. The next layer up is the BIOS if these machines have that. The next layer is the operating system. The next layer up is the application. The next layer up is the data entered into the application by the user. Possibly these machines have the BIOS, operating system, and application as one piece of code. The data entry for the current election would tell the application layer how to display information on the screen and where to put data the voter enters.
Only after this is set up can the machine be rigged. Would you want to be the one taking a unit into the secured areas where the programmed machines are stored and reprogram them all?? Being caught gets you notoriety and free room and board.
Reply
-
-
0%
miklkit1 year ago
What do you mean they can't be rigged?????
http://nightweed.com/angrygirl.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334...
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocra...
http://www.globalcomplexity.org/Deathbyassociat...
http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/1046...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/du...
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Thompso...
That's enough for now.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
These sites are rants by people who do not understand how a computer works. Any machine can be hacked but three man problems I pointed out have to be overcome.
1. A programmed machine needs to be taken.
2. A computer professional that is an expert in the particular processor has to get the machine code out and modify it so nobody can tell. Strange results will have the machine looked at under a microscope.
3. Someone has to take the machine back into the secured area where the voting machines are kept and reprogram enough of them to make a difference. Police take a dim view of anybody going into those places. Are you willing to chance it???
Reply -
-
0%
Lurch1 year ago
Oops, this was meant for Endoscopy.
California and other states have rejected these machines because they have experts who have shown how these machines can be tweaked to change the outcome.
If Diebold wanted to make a full-proof machine, they would have made a printout for verification. For an ATM manufacturer/gas station credit card machine manufacturer that routinely creates paper trails for users, claiming they cannot make a paper trail for electronic voting machines is akin to pleading guilty to vote fraud.
Reply -
0%
Lurch1 year ago
sorry Klarissa, I know you actually would have neg`ed me had you known who this was actually for.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
LeftTurn1 year ago
So, why do we see the signs but never make the connection? Even when the answers present themselves in plain view of interpretation, like this article, I'll cut to the chase.
There is one element to me that brings this all together, to make sense and to answer the questions of why the heck would a president act like a shrub does, and the only element missing from this and other articles, is the power that exists beyond government, call them illuminati, free masons, whatever, they're bankers plain and simple, and they've owned you and I since they started the Fed. Two men caused the the stock market crash of 29', and the resulting great depression, all to obtain more Real Estate, at a lower price of course. So why wouldn't they do it now? Or something else?
This form of power beyond government now controls almost our very existence, which means they can take it away, and it is the only answer that actually makes this stink pile make some form of logical sense...
Reply-
0%
LeftTurn1 year ago
Until we all except these things as a whole and realize where this evil is bred, then we may show them one day we are not mere sheep.
Ask yourself what you would be willing to lose to take down a tyrant, your freedom and liberty? your life as you know it? your job? career? is anyone with you? are you a sitting duck for the wolves to feed on?
The last man(president), I believe, who said yes to all the above and challenged these "pit vipers" head on in order to restore our liberties, freedom and our pursuit of happiness, was shot in the streets of Dallas for it.
So don't ask yourself why anyone won't do anything about this. Save your pen and paper to write your congressmen and senators, because if we can't even figure what REALLY needs to change, then it would be fruitless to even write.
What are you really willing to give is the question.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
injest1 year ago
Wow! Talk about spin. 64% of the American public is a minority.
ET, here's some facts not spin.
Fact: It takes 50% 1 of The United States House of Representatives (or simply the House) to Impeach a President.
Fact: There are 435 members of the House.
Fact: 50% of 435 = 217.5
Fact: 217.5 1 = 218.5 I'm not trying to confuse you with complicated math so lets round this number up to 219, okay.
Fact: 219 is the number of House members needed to impeach.
Fact: Current members by party 233 Dems 202 Repubs
Fact: 233 is more than 219 by 14 members
Fact is ET the dems could have impeached Bush from day 1 that the took office after the 06 election and still can today.
They haven't, why? What do these Facts tell us about the oh so tired "impeach Bush" fools?
At what point ET go you realize you've been played?
Reply-
-
0%
injest1 year ago
djn3nunez3
"Impeachment without a conviction or removal from office is useless and senseless."
Lame, gutless. You can't get to the Senate till you get the impeachment in the House. If your not willing to try then your just another pathetic gutter snipe.
"They don't have enough votes in the Senate to convict anyone."
For years the left has been telling everyone that they have the majority of the people with them. "Wow! Talk about spin. 64% of the American public is a minority" do you suspect these claims are lies? That could be the only valid reason not to try. Well not the only one, the other are much worst.
Its your call are you going to SHINE or WHINE.
That's what I thought. Think JFK would be proud of the Lefts new version of "Profile in Courage", being a low life scum sucking whining little gutter snips.
Lurch take note, this is you!
Reply
-
-
0%
StarLord1 year ago
Mostly good logic, however there are a few problems with it:
#1 - Most, not all of the Democrats are willing to impeach. Some (let's all be honest, a majority of the dissenters) are unwilling due to crass political opportunism, while others would rather avoid the three-ring circus that would surely result from a serious impeachment bid, preferring to govern the nation. Still others are seeking to gather more evidence one way or another. A majority of a majority is not necessarily an overall majority itself.
#2 - You left out the Senate. A 2/3 majority is required in the Senate to sustain an impeachment vote, and there's no way in hell that the Democrats can get that - they only have 49 Senators ( 2 on "Caucus issues", which an impeachment attempt won't be) out of 100. That leaves them 17 Senators short by my count. This is the same reason that the Dems have done little in Congress. They don't have a veto-proof majority in either House.
Reply -
0%
Lurch1 year ago
Fact: The `tyranny of the minority` Republicans will filibuster any attempt to impeach, and the Dems do not have enough votes to break the filibuster.
It is getting so you cannot tell which the Republicans hate more, gays or filibusterers. If you know what I mean... ;)
Reply
-
-
0%
CrazyRay1 year ago
That doesn't mean that 64% of the US are liberals
...and how nice to see more anti-Bush propaganda posted by Populist to get hits on his website...again...I can't wait to see the 4-5 he posts tomorrow...that was sarcasm if you couldn't tell
...Busharchy? Elect Hillary and we'll have a Clintonarchy...
Reply -
0%
AwesQuity1 year ago
Great Comment Et.
In regards to what people are responding to your initial comment, all you must do is look at their rating. You're pushing 22 while everyone responding to you, in aggressive tones, are cruising at a steady negative rating.
Reply
-
-
0%
white-pawn1 year ago
I don't recall reading about "Free Speech Zones" in the Constitution. Also, last I heard, wiretaps required a warrant and torture was an international crime against humanity. Then there's the removal of habeus corpus and posse comantatus.
The list goes on and on. It's time to impeach this treasonous cabal.
Reply -
-
0%
injest1 year ago
Habeas Corpus, illegal search and seizure, wiretapping, POW abuse, the list goes on!
And list of charges is blank, accusations without filing charges is just more gutless gossip.
You (your party) could redeem your self by simply filing charges but that would take someone with a backbone. In other words it isn't gonna happen.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
The sad part about all of this, "Is the United States a Republic or a Busharchy?" BS is that in about a year you can vote the man out. This is Democracy and a Republic in action and it works. We managed to get the white trash out of the white house before he arrived. Sadly enough they want to put one of them back in.
This talk about trashing the Constition is pure rubbish and I'm tired of hearing it. The Anti-American propoganda claim by jk5489 just about sums it up. Some of you would proudly watch your own soldiers die fighting these Muslim terrorists to further your goals, not supporting American in the process, stand idly by while Iran and North Korea arm themselves with Nukes and do nothing.
I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat but I think even the liberal Democrats are now seeing what some of these people are: Traitors to their own country and deserve to be treated as such.
Reply
-
-
