Comments on: Vendor Arrested For "Impeach Him" Buttons

Maryland Retiree's Anti-Bush Buttons Attract Supporters ... And Police

[randalds]

"This administration has weakened America in a way that is frightful." said Feingold.

Amen Senator, amen! In spite of their stated goals the only thing this criminal enterprise of an administration has done is to make the world more dangerous by spreading terrorism around the world and giving those terrorists the best recruiting tool of all time, the arrogance and incredible stupidity of George W. Bush. he's more responsible for the increase in terrorism in the past 6 years then bin Laden, all of his agents and the rest of al-Qaeda put together! PLUS the chimp has made the nation weaker by using a pre-911 solution, massive military invasion, to in a post 911 world. He's worn our military out and stretched it past the breaking point by invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism, strictly for profit.

Bush has been the single worst thing that has ever happened to America. Worse then any war, natural disaster, man-made disaster or terrorist attack. He has damaged this country in ways bin Laden could only dream of. One begins to wonder with each scr*ew up he makes, just whose side is he on anyway? Al-Qaeda's?

[red164]

Bin Laden is on the FBI TEN MOST WANTED LIST but not for 9/11

BIN LADEN IS PROBABLY DEAD THAT%u2019S WHY THE SPECIAL UNIT LOOKING FOR BIN LADEN IS NOW DEFUNCT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
But so far, the U.S. Justice Department has not sought formal criminal charges against bin Laden (or anyone but Zacarias Moussaoui) for the 9/11 attacks.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

There have been several accusations[94] of _ _ _ complicity in Al Qaeda attacks, but the Western agents are usually not labeled as Al Qaeda members[not in citation given].
The number of individuals belonging to the organization is also unknown. According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. Therefore the extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute.[95]

[red164]

Look at it this way. Would you rather the US military continue to fight Al Queda in Iraq, or would you rather than Al Queda came over here to fight US civilians?

Posted by clgl_fubar at 08:02 PM : Jul 23, 2007

You mean AL Quaker


Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11!
"The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on America" - FBI spokesman Rex Tomb

On June 5, 2006, reporter Ed Hass contacted the FBI Headquarters to learn why Bin Laden%u2019s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. He spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Ladens Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, %u201CThe reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.%u201D (Source: Teamliberty.net)

[randalds]

Look at it this way. Would you rather the US military continue to fight Al Queda in Iraq, or would you rather than Al Queda came over here to fight US civilians?

Posted by clgl_fubar at 08:02 PM : Jul 23, 2007

ROTFLMFAO!!!

WE created al-Qaeda in IRAQ! WE did! They didn't exist there before we invaded. NO terrorists were in Iraq before we invaded. All this ******** of a president has done is to spread terrorism all over the world by his ham-handed approach of pre-emptive war on a country that HAD NO TERRORISTS!!

As for do the Iraqi's deserve freedom, that's a completely separate issue and NO the American people would NOT have supported the chimp if he had said that's why he wanted to invade! Yes they deserve any kind of government they want, but guess what? They DON'T want our kind!! They want a religious theocracy, not a western style democracy. Hell even we don't have one of those anymore ever since the chimp started gutting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

[red164]

Posted by singinrick at 12:27 AM : Jul 24, 2007

Gosh I%u2019ve never seen no Republican walk on water but I%u2019ve read some of your comments and you%u2019re just as nasty towards others as anyone else on these boards so why don%u2019t you cast a stone at your foot.

[lastdance2]

Treason - Does Not Merit : Impeachment

Treason Demands : "The Gallows"

Lastdance

[kansas1946]

Although, it wouldn't hurt my feeling if Bush was impeached, I am not sure how to feel about this story. I am not fond of law-breaking to make a point, and then screaming about the first amendment if you get busted. If he needed some sort of permit to sell goods and didn't get it, then he is in the wrong. If he was refused the permit for political reasons, then the city is in the wrong. If there was a prohibition against political advertising, etc., in the farmers market, then he is in the wrong. If he was arrested because the community didn't like his politics, then the city is in the wrong. If fights were breaking out because of his buttons, then it is a city's duty to intervene for public safety. I would really like all of the facts before I get too riled up about civil liberties.

[yamuttya]

Republicans have poisoned an already sick america

[lastdance2]

SlipSter01

Federal Employee ! ! ! !


Lastdance

[michellem99-2009]

The first Bush TALKED of a one world order and frankly it scares me and this govt will fall to it. I felt very uncomtable hearding that. It is not right. I don't like it. Years ago I read the book 1984 on talking book. I could not understand it, So it is wrong of a few to control and be so powerful. And the baby Bush is on that kick. The fathers would surely be pissed and turn over in the grave. They laboured over the constution and Bush has no right what so ever to do as he *** well please or spend the peoples money as he sees fit.

[katia327]

Kicking him out had EVERYTHING to do with politics...who are they trying to kid...??

As for impeachment...wow...this country SURE does move slow. He should have been impeached, as soon as he stepped foot into office. After he FORCED his way in.....

[racam_us]

Let us not stop with talk. We need to follow through with calling our representatives and letting them know that the majority of Americans are seriously talking IMPEACHMENT. If our forefathers would have stopped with only talk we would be talking with a British accent today.

[sshard]

ress...

The Insurrection Act, amended in 2006, is based on conditions which hinder or obstruct the execution of US laws. Or deprive people of a Constitutional right, privilege, immunity or protection. Original conditions were: insurrection (armed revolt in this sense), domestic violence, unlawful combination, and conspiracy. 2006 the conditions included: natural disaster, epidemic or serous health emergency, terrorists attack or incident and %u201Cother condition%u201D. Now the Insurrection Act covers far more than armed revolt or domestic violence.

When the US laws are obstructed or hindered, or rights of a part or a class of individuals is deprived by any of these conditions, it can be a matter of the Insurrection Act. There is a to tie with the idea of domestic violence making it impossible for authorities to maintain public order or enforce the laws of the US. But also there is the phrase %u201Crefuse to%u201D in connection with the enforcement of rights, privilege, immunity, and protection. The phrase %u201Crefuse to%u201D implies any state or part of a state which does not execute US laws or safeguard constitutional guarantees for all citizens, shall be considered as in a state of insurrection. No armed revolt or domestic violence needed.

This administration is only part of the government. By willful conduct, not enforcing, refusing or overturning constitutional guarantees, and obstructing or hindering US laws, this administration fits the definition.

[nyckate]

SlipSter01 - you are so full of BS -- if you were all for free speech you wouldn't be spamming these sites to prevent discussion.

Who's pays you? Does the check come from Faux or from GOP or maybe Rove's mail order company??`

[slipster01]

"The New World Order is mandated by those few who control all things, and they won't be tolerating any of that pesky dissent.
Welcome to 1984 for real.
Posted by veteran71 at 08:39 PM : Jul 23, 2007"

Sounds exactly like the Democrat's play book to me. Shut down talk radio, shut down dissenters, shut down any voice that doesn't spew their hate and ideology.

[slipster01]

"The New World Order is mandated by those few who control all things, and they won't be tolerating any of that pesky dissent.
Welcome to 1984 for real.
Posted by veteran71 at 08:39 PM : Jul 23, 2007"

Sounds exactly like the Democrat's play book to me. Shut down talk radio, shut down dissenters, shut down any voice that doesn't spew their hate and ideology.

[slipster01]

"The New World Order is mandated by those few who control all things, and they won't be tolerating any of that pesky dissent.
Welcome to 1984 for real.
Posted by veteran71 at 08:39 PM : Jul 23, 2007"

Sounds exactly like the Democrat's play book to me. Shut down talk radio, shut down dissenters, shut down any voice that doesn't spew their hate and ideology.

[slipster01]

Guy gets warned because vendors are complaining, he's overtly aggressive, and has no permit. Then, when he gets arrested, it's all about 'freedom of speech'.

Bull. He was told to stop, and flaunted his wares anyways. He deserves what ever he gets as punishment.

I'm all for free speech, but not at the expense of breaking rules and laws to do it. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't be breaking the law to force it down my throat.

[slipster01]

Guy gets warned because vendors are complaining, he's overtly aggressive, and has no permit. Then, when he gets arrested, it's all about 'freedom of speech'.

Bull. He was told to stop, and flaunted his wares anyways. He deserves what ever he gets as punishment.

I'm all for free speech, but not at the expense of breaking rules and laws to do it. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't be breaking the law to force it down my throat.

[slipster01]

Guy gets warned because vendors are complaining, he's overtly aggressive, and has no permit. Then, when he gets arrested, it's all about 'freedom of speech'.

Bull. He was told to stop, and flaunted his wares anyways. He deserves what ever he gets as punishment.

I'm all for free speech, but not at the expense of breaking rules and laws to do it. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't be breaking the law to force it down my throat.