A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » 8 Track Tapes
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 8th 08, 09:17 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?

On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by
illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented
by Congress. A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used
when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for
possible veto override. The main reason for a prevention of a bill's
return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years,
the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to
take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills,
and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office.

In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House
clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at
all. Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned
to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even
afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the
time.

Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our
nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!
Ads
  #2  
Old January 9th 08, 01:05 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default while the left-wing fringers still think they are running againstBush in 2008

On Jan 8, 3:17*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by
illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented
by Congress. *A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used
when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for
possible veto override. *The main reason for a prevention of a bill's
return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years,
the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to
take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills,
and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office.

In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House
clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at
all. *Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned
to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even
afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the
time.

Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our
nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. *Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!




And these left wing fringers wonder, why they're getting their ass
KICKED, and will take ANOTHER asspounding in November.

You're not running against BUSH anymore, you DUMB ASS- his term is up-
no one in their right mind would impeach a prez for nothing, when he
only has one year left in office anyway !
  #3  
Old January 9th 08, 02:06 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?

In article , says...
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by
illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented
by Congress. A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used
when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for
possible veto override. The main reason for a prevention of a bill's
return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years,
the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to
take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills,
and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office.

In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House
clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at
all. Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned
to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even
afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the
time.

Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our
nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!

Join the 183,000 of us and sign the petition:

http://wexlerwantshearings.com/


--
Hate Greed Death Bush
  #4  
Old January 9th 08, 02:47 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
spammer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?WAH!! WAH!! WAH!!

On Jan 8, 8:06*pm, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders wrote:

Join the 183,000 of us and sign the petition:




If one person signs 183,000 times, it doesn't count.
  #5  
Old January 9th 08, 03:05 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Epileptic Nascar Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?


"Neocon Oil Cheerleaders" wrote in message
.net...
In article ,
says...
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by
illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented
by Congress. A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used
when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for
possible veto override. The main reason for a prevention of a bill's
return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years,
the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to
take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills,
and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office.

In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House
clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at
all. Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned
to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even
afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the
time.

Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our
nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!

Join the 183,000 of us and sign the petition:

http://wexlerwantshearings.com/


--
Hate Greed Death Bush


I just signed.


  #6  
Old January 9th 08, 03:16 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
spammer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?

On Jan 8, 9:05*pm, "Epileptic Nascar Driver"
wrote:

I just signed.-



If somone signs 183,001 times, it doesn't count.
  #7  
Old January 9th 08, 06:56 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default while the right-wing fringers still think they are running the 2000 vote scam

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:05:53 -0800 (PST),Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA
posing as trippin-2-8-track (last of 29 banned
Google Groups accounts) wrote:

On Jan 8, 3:17*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of Americasnipping rest of article
*Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!




And these left wing fringers wonder, why they're getting their ass
KICKED, and will take ANOTHER asspounding in November. snip


Democratic primary voters are outvoting Republicans by more than two
to one. That's an "ass kicking," Noodles? Looks like YOU'RE the one
getting the ass kicking!

You're not running against BUSH anymore, you DUMB ASS- his term is up-
no one in their right mind would impeach a prez for nothing, when he
only has one year left in office anyway ! snip


Why is Romney sinking so fast? He allied himself with the Bush
Doctrine and other Bush fantasies...he's COOKED.
  #8  
Old January 9th 08, 10:36 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Godzilla vs a can of tuna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?

On Jan 8, 12:17 pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by
illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented
by Congress. A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used
when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for
possible veto override. The main reason for a prevention of a bill's
return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years,
the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to
take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills,
and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office.

In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House
clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at
all. Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned
to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even
afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the
time.

Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our
nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!


Tired of no impeachment or at the least, an congressional
investigation? Then write to John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and Nancy
Pelosi. If you don't live in either Conyers' or Waxman's district,
sending an email is tricky. You can send an email to Pelosi
regardless if you're in her district or not because, as the Speaker of
the House, she answers everyone. Her email is:


Don't hold your breath, though. These three have thrown in the
towel. Waxman has admitted that pursuing impeachment would hurt the
Democrats. If this bothers you, as it should even Republicans, write
to all three. They are suppose to represent us, and to support the
Constitution. Their admission that politics outweighs their duties to
the Constitution is illegal.

Republicans, you should write, too. Isn't it time you point out how
illegal their political machinations are?
  #9  
Old January 9th 08, 06:48 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default while the left-wing fringers still think they are running againstBush in 2008

On Jan 8, 7:05*pm, trippin-2-8-track wrote:
On Jan 8, 3:17*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:





On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by
illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented
by Congress. *A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used
when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for
possible veto override. *The main reason for a prevention of a bill's
return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years,
the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to
take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills,
and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office.


In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House
clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at
all. *Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned
to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even
afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the
time.


Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our
nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. *Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!


And these left wing fringers wonder, why they're getting their ass
KICKED, and will take ANOTHER asspounding in November.

You're not running against BUSH anymore, you DUMB ASS- his term is up-


Ah, but the stench will live on forever, dork. Bush may not be running
but ANY rightard running for office will have that Bush stench to deal
with. Choke on it.


no one in their right mind would impeach a prez for nothing, when he
only has one year left in office anyway !


I'm ALL for waiting until after he leaves office for the charges to be
brought. No problem there, dork.
  #10  
Old January 9th 08, 06:50 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Doug Bashford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?


in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008, DeserTBoB said about:
Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?


On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by
illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented

.........snip

Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our
nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush.


How many does that make anyway? At least six or eight.

Nobody cares. Republicans are so bad, it just gets a yawn.

============

Friday, November 17, 2006

court ruled unconstitutional

Different court rulings:
Supreme Court
June 29, 2006
5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power.
Supreme Court ruled, Rejected, struck down the
Detainee Tribunals (military commissions ) which did not give defendants
a presumption of innocence or guarantee a public trial and violate both
U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.
The Supreme Court struck down the military commissions President
Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically
rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion
of executive power upon which the president had based it. Bush's
commissions were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military
necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.

Supreme Court
Jun 29 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Observing that "a state of war is
not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the
Nation's citizens," the Supreme Court ruled that both foreign prisoners
held at Guantánamo Bay and so-called enemy combatants held in the United
States can use the American legal system to challenge their detention.
The Supreme Court sharply rejected George W. Bush's assertions that he had
unchecked unilateral authority to lock up indefinitely any person he
declared an "enemy combatant" in the global "war on terrorism."


federal judge
September 29, 2004 A federal judge in New York ruled that a key
component of the USA Patriot Act [especially: "national security letters,"
a type of administrative subpoena that allows federal agents to demand
records from businesses and prohibits the companies from revealing that the
demands were made ] is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand
information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or
public review.

federal judge
2005 Mar 30 A federal judge refused to let the Bush Administration,
which opposes torture,
send (render) prisoners from Guantánamo Bay to other prisons abroad without
granting the prisoners access to the courts.[Washington Post]»

federal judge
Aug 17, 2006 CNN.com - NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
-...
A federal judge ruled that the US government's domestic eavesdropping
program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. The judge
ruled that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the
Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the
United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."



==========
(signing statements)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey
more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the
power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with
his interpretation of the Constitution. April 30, 2006

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/



------------unclear:
In the Guantánamo cases, the Court ruled 6-3 that prisoners seized as
potential terrorists and held for more than two years at a U.S. military
prison camp in Cuba may challenge their captivity in American courts.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the inmates'
status in military custody is immaterial. "What is presently at stake is
only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality
of the executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who
claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing," he wrote. The cases are Rasul
v. Bush, 03-334 and Al Odah v. United States, 03-343.

=================
Web Results about 340,000 for
Detainees court ruled unconstitutional . (0.20 seconds)


High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must have courts-martial, the Supreme
Court ruled, or the president can ask for legislation to proceed
differently. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062900928.html
-

High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals
5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power

(Pool Photo) Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must have
courts-martial, the Supreme Court ruled, or the president can ask for
legislation to proceed differently.

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President
Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically
rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion
of executive power upon which the president had based it.

Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in
chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions,
which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were
1) not authorized by federal law
2) nor required by military necessity, and
3) ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.

As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former
aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else,
unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more
than four years:
1) operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial,
or
2) ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently.

"[i]n undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the
Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this
jurisdiction," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

While the decision addressed only military commissions, legal analysts said
its skeptical view of presidential power could be applied to other areas
such as warrantless wiretapping, and that its invocation of the Geneva
Conventions could pave the way for new legal claims by detainees held at
the military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ruling shifts the spotlight to Congress, whose members face reelection
this fall and who have largely avoided the military commission issue since
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of its political uncertainties. The
invitation for the president to turn to Congress was extended in a short
concurring opinion by one of the justices in the majority, Stephen G.
Breyer, who made it clear that the concerns of critics had penetrated
deeply at the court.

"Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial
insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to
deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's
ability to determine -- through democratic means -- how best to do so,"
Breyer wrote.

"The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means," Breyer
concluded. "Our Court today simply does the same."

Joining Stevens and Breyer in the majority were Justices Anthony M.
Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Perhaps the only silver lining for the administration was that the decision
did not affect the government's authority to keep terrorism suspects at
Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, a point Bush emphasized in his reaction. "We
take the findings seriously," he said. "The American people need to know
that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on
the street."

But the court's action was clearly a setback for the White House. At the
high court, its approach to the war on terrorism has suffered the broadest
in a series of defeats, and the administration has been sent back to the
drawing board in dealing with hundreds of suspected members of the Taliban
and al-Qaeda -- at a time when international pressure is mounting to shut
down Guantanamo Bay.

This is not the situation the president envisioned when he unveiled the
military commissions as a tough-minded alternative to the civilian trials
that the Clinton administration had used against terrorists. As first
outlined in 2001, the commissions did not give defendants a presumption of
innocence or guarantee a public trial.


===============
Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional (washingtonpost.com)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep29.html -
--------------------
unconstitutional because it allows the FBI
to demand information from Internet service providers
without judicial oversight or public review.

--------------------

Correction to This Article
A Sept. 30 article said that a federal judge in New York found a key
component of the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional. At issue in the case was
the Justice Department's use of "national security letters," a type of
administrative subpoena that allows federal agents to demand records from
businesses and prohibits the companies from revealing that the demands were
made. While the Patriot Act loosened restrictions on the use of the
letters, most of U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero's ruling focused on
earlier statutes governing the letters.
Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
Internet Providers' Data at Issue

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 30, 2004; Page A16

A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday [September 29, 2004] that a key
component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the
FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial
oversight or public review.

The ruling is one of several judicial blows to the Bush administration's
anti-terrorism policies in recent months.

In a sharply worded 120-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero
found in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit
on behalf of an unidentified Internet service provider challenging the
FBI's use of a type of administrative subpoena known as a national security
letter. Such letters do not require court approval and prohibit targeted
companies from revealing that the demands were ever made.

Marrero, whose court is in the Southern District of New York, ruled that
the provision in the Patriot Act allowing such letters "effectively bars or
substantially deters any judicial challenge" and violates free-speech
rights by imposing permanent silence on targeted companies. Writing that
"democracy abhors undue secrecy," Marrero ruled that "an unlimited
government warrant to conceal . . . has no place in our open society."

"Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels
our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on
ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction," Marrero wrote. ". . . At that
point, secrecy's protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe
country as simply to save face."

The judge ordered the Justice Department to halt the use of the letters but
delayed the injunction by 90 days to allow for an appeal. The government is
reviewing its options, Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said.

Marrero's ruling is the latest setback in the courts for the Bush
administration's terrorism policies, which civil libertarians and some
lawmakers consider overly broad. The Supreme Court ruled in June that
detainees held as "enemy combatants" may challenge their confinement
through the U.S. courts. Two rulings by federal courts in California have
also struck down portions of statutes making it a crime to provide
"material support" to terrorists.

The ultimate impact of Marrero's order is unclear. In addition to having
time to pursue an appeal, the government will view the ruling as applying
only to New York's Southern District in Manhattan, legal experts said. I.
Michael Greenberger, a Clinton administration Justice Department official
who teaches law at the University of Maryland, said Marrero's order is
unlikely to have any effect until an appellate court rules.

But the ACLU argues that Marrero's ruling is a warning to the government
about some of its tactics in the war on terrorism.

"This is a wholesale refutation of the administration's use of excessive
secrecy and unbridled power under the Patriot Act," said Ann Beeson, an
ACLU lawyer. "It's a very major ruling, in our opinion."

The secrecy surrounding the use of national security letters has had an
unusual impact on the ACLU's lawsuit, which itself was initially filed in
secret to comply with the Patriot Act, the controversial package of
anti-terrorism measures approved by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks. Documents in the case also revealed that the government had
censored more than a dozen seemingly innocuous passages from court filings,
including a direct quote from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling warning that
government has a tendency to abuse its powers in the name of "domestic
security."

Even now, the plaintiffs are barred from revealing which company filed the
lawsuit. Marrero disclosed in his ruling that the FBI has issued hundreds
of national security letters before and since the lawsuit was filed in
April, but no precise figures have been released.

Beeson said Marrero's ruling applies only to national security letters
related to Internet and e-mail service providers. Separate provisions of
the Patriot Act also enhanced the government's ability to use such letters
against financial and credit institutions.

================================
CNN.com - NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional - Aug 17,
2006...
A federal judge ruled that the US government's domestic eavesdropping
program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...pying.lawsuit/ - 46k

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
Administration appeals; attorney general says 'program is lawful'

Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 6:03 p.m. EDT (22:03 GMT)
(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's
domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended
immediately.



Write your
representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!


The important thing is, Bush seemingly didn't lie about sex.

How do you spell duped ?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ebay Coin Policy violates anti-trust laws Sergeant Newton Coins 22 December 29th 07 01:04 PM
Impeachment on the march! DeserTBoB 8 Track Tapes 0 March 10th 06 08:59 PM
Get yours today! Why wait until the impeachment trials? DeserTBoB 8 Track Tapes 1 November 15th 05 07:56 PM
Downing St. Memos sets Bush up for impeachment DeserTBoB 8 Track Tapes 0 June 18th 05 03:38 AM
Talking Presidents G. W. Bush and Clinton / Top Gun President Bush Dolls for Sale Donna Dolls 0 March 6th 04 01:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.