A call for Bush* ouster

[Nash]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-- Theodore Roosevelt

Yah you GO dude!

Tell these whippersnappers who've got it all screwed up.

[GRUNHERZ]

Carter is probably the worst president ever.

[Nash]

you'll both live long enough for you to eat those words.

[rpm]

I just think these guys are confirming my opinion of Bush*. I don't think Kerry is a godsend by any means, but he looks like the only viable alternative. The Republicans should have offered an alternative candidate. Where is is written that a sitting President can't be challenged by his own party?

[Steve]

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

This is exclusive of wartime.  Traditionally, such criticism was curtailed during wartime.   Of course, the dems are now such slime, the kind you find under a pile of dog crap that has been in the yard for a long time, that nothing is out of bounds for them.

[Steve]

The Republicans should have offered an alternative candidate. Where is is written that a sitting President can't be challenged by his own party?

Bush is a good President, why should the repub challenge him.  You're just too stupid to realize it.  Thankfully, history will bear this out, even as you deny it.

[Holden McGroin]

Hey xrtoronto*

(or strk* or anybody else* for that matter)

If it has been explained*, I missed the posting* explaining the significance of the asterisk* after bush*es name*

Can someone* enlighten me*?

If it is to seperate* GW* from GHW* then it is not needed in this* thread as GHW* is not in need of being ousted*, as he is retired*, so that must not be it*

Thanks* in advance

[rpm]

Originally posted by Steve
This is exclusive of wartime.  Traditionally, such criticism was curtailed during wartime.   Of course, the dems are now such slime, the kind you find under a pile of dog crap that has been in the yard for a long time, that nothing is out of bounds for them.

Sorry to burst your NeoCon bubble Steve. Seems there are some FACTS you must be ignorant of.

The unpopular truth right now is that dissenters are in pretty good historical company. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) was re-elected on a platform that basically consisted of one promise: He would not send American troops to fight in World War I. About three months after the election, he did exactly that, and when the public expressed its outrage, he did everything he could to stifle it.

Never one to be silenced, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt stood up and said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

We were at war with Mexico in 1848 when then-Congressman Abraham Lincoln voted to censure President James Polk, saying Mr. Polk's justification for the war was "from beginning to end the sheerest deception."

"Let him answer fully, fairly and candidly," Mr. Lincoln said, demanding answers from Mr. Polk. "Let him answer with facts and not with arguments. Let him attempt no evasion, no equivocation."

I offer the following deal to those who think my opposition to this war is unpatriotic, treasonous and deadly: I'll sit down and shut up when you can reasonably explain to me why the following quote was acceptable in its time:

"We can support the troops without supporting the president." -- Trent Lott, one of many Republican leaders and conservative pundits who railed against President Clinton in 1999 when he sent U.S. troops to stop the systematic slaughter of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Democracy or hypocrisy?

You be the judge.

[Eagler]

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Carter is probably the worst president ever.

If you had lived back then, you would have disliked him even more. My hatred towards him has subsided over the years. I mean, he is a good hearted man who means well, and in the eyes of God(if you believe), will have a place in heaven before me. But when he stood and did nothing as Iran held American hostages, my blood boiled with disdain towards him.

[rpm]

Sorry Eagler.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.


 =

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Eagler

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/powell_terror_report

[Eagler]

yeah, i believe/trust bush hating clark - LOL

Bush 2004, get used to it

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by rpm371
Sorry Eagler.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Eagler made no mention of Saddam.

[Rolex]

What does the photo of the World Trade Center terrorist attack have to do with any part of this topic? Is there some connection to the Iraq invasion that you have secret information about that the rest of the human race on this planet does not?

The 'war against terrorism' (which I support 100%) has been a failure.

Instead of focusing on curtailing terrorism through cooperative efforts world-wide, this administration has so far misspent over $1200 per American family invading a country that had nothing to do with the WTC tragedy; created more terrorists with a rallying call and a cause; caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people; the deaths of hundreds of U.S. servicemembers; brought horrible injuries to almost ten thousand people; tortured hundreds who were held without cause or reason; alienated and disillusioned most of the world and their image of America and what it is was supposed to stand for and allowed a zealot Attorney General with a religeous agenda (The "Rapture") to sneak away with your basic, constitution-based freedoms like a thief in the night.

Other than that, they've done a pretty good job.