Smartest state in the Union? They get my vote!!

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
952
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/1172344;_ylt=A0SOwlURwe5FfpkAPyYDW7oF
John Nichols Wed Mar 7, 7:36 AM ET

The Nation -- When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to
President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President
Dick Cheney.

The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from
Iraq -- could not be voted on.

But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.

So Douglas backed down.

"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."

By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.

So it has gone this week at town meetings across Vermont, most of which were held Tuesday.

Late Tuesday night, there were confirmed reports that 36 towns had backed impeachment resolutions, and the number was expected to rise.

In one town, Putney, the vote for impeachment was unanimous.

In addition to Governor Douglas's Middlebury, the town of Hartland, which is home to Congressman Peter Welch (news, bio, voting record), backed impeachment. So, too, did Jericho, the home of Gaye Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives.

Organizers of the grassroots drive to get town meetings to back impeachment resolutions hope that the overwhelming support the initiative has received will convince Welch to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. That's something the Democratic congressman is resisting, even though his predecessor, Bernie Sanders, signed on last year to a proposal by Michigan Congressman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) to set up a House committee to look into impeachment.

Vermont activists also want their legislature to approve articles of impeachment and forward them to Congress. But Symington, also a Democrat, has discouraged the initiative, despite the fact that more than 20 representatives have cosponsored an impeachment resolution.

"It's going to be hard for Peter Welch and Gaye Symington to say there's no sentiment for impeachment, now that their own towns have voted for it," says Dan DeWalt, a Newfane, Vermont, town selectman who started the impeachment initiative last year in his town, and who now plans to launch a campaign to pressure Welch and Symington to respect and reflect the will of the people.

It is going to be even harder for Governor Douglas, who just this month spent two nights at the Bush White House, to face his president.

After all, Douglas now lives in a town that is on record in support of Bush's impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.

For the record, Middlebury says:

We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.

The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.

George Bush
has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.
 
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

What is so "unjust" or "immoral"? It's fvcking WAR! What do you want, a pillowfight in the desert?

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

Domestic spying? On foreigners in our borders? It's an oxymoron.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

So George Bush and Dick Cheney called up the soldiers at Gitmo, or Abu Grhaib, or whatever, and instructed their inferiors to engage in silly fratboy antics to embarrass a bunch of enemy combatants? Nah. I find such charges to be ridiculous. If you think that's bad, see what the CO's in Castro, Kim Jong Il, Libyan, or Iranian jails are doing to their inmates. Anyway...do you really give a sh!t about silly jailhouse antics? It may "look" bad, but did anyone in those jails suffer in pain? No. Case closed, let's go to lunch.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

Produce names, dates, locations, or STFU. Show me the paperwork with Bush or Cheney's signatures on them. Then prove to me that the release of these "things" would not cause harm to American citizens after their release...


Great job, Vermont. Now Ben & Jerry can name a flavor after the gayness of their state. They can call it "Moonbat Marshmallow" or "Impeaches and Cream" :lol:
 
:bowrofl:

I vote Post #2 as the SMARTEST, FUNNIEST post in this thread.

*owned*
 
"Moonbat Marshmallow" or "Impeaches and Cream" :lol:

LMAO.

Great post!

F'em all.

I'd like to see everything east of the Hudson river (NY,CT,RI,MA,VT,NH,ME) be turned over to the French in Quebec.

Lib-wack nut jobs. And they can have Phil too.

Left vs right. Let the civil war rage!
 
Hey, New Hampshire is awesome. Believe it or not, their democrats are relatively conservative compared to many republicans. VT would be cool if it weren't for the all the moonbats and hippies.
 
Hey, New Hampshire is awesome. Believe it or not, their democrats are relatively conservative compared to many republicans. VT would be cool if it weren't for the all the moonbats and hippies.

Yeah, and I was just praising Vermont the other day for its conceal and carry law, which is the best law in the Union. You don't have to apply for a permit to carry concealed, and even if you're just visiting, you can carry while you're in Vermont.

I guess that law must have been passed by a smarter legislature in the distant past.
 
What is so "unjust" or "immoral"? It's fvcking WAR! What do you want, a pillowfight in the desert?



Let me pose a question for debate.

If the Iraq war was justifiable as pre-emptive.... Would Iran be justified in conducting a pre-emptive war against Isreal?

Dont attack me - Im just asking the question to see what people think.
 
Let me pose a question for debate.

If the Iraq war was justifiable as pre-emptive.... Would Iran be justified in conducting a pre-emptive war against Isreal?

Dont attack me - Im just asking the question to see what people think.

No, Israel has no intention or desire for war with Iran or any of it's neighbors. It does not desire an adversarial relation with any country in that region.

So now. On what basis could you say Iran would be "justified?" To preempt a preemptive strike on their illegal nuclear weapons program, which they have said will be used to strike Israel and the West?
 
So now. On what basis could you say Iran would be "justified?" To preempt a preemptive strike on their illegal nuclear weapons program, which they have said will be used to strike Israel and the West?


Yes - Lets run off that assumption.... Mind you - I am only highlighting an issue for debate, not advocating a point of view.
 
Yes - Lets run off that assumption.... Mind you - I am only highlighting an issue for debate, not advocating a point of view.

Obviously, the answer is the same.
It's not morally justifiable for Iran to launch unprovoked strikes on Israel.

Israel does have a right to strike Iran though, since they are in violation of international law, and they are quite vocal about their intention to destroy Israel.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top