do you guys think bush should be impeached or not?
i think he should so that the war spending bill can get passed
Why bother? Within a year and a half, Bush will finish his final term. It takes a good year to have a trial. If we are held up with impeachment issues, the War on Iraq will slide to the back burner. Thus, our men and women will be left in harms way until the next president. I know. I know. They are going to be in harms way until the next president anyway, but I prefer him to just stay focued on what he is doing. Do I agree with the war? Yes & No. Do I think we are doing a hellish job? Yep.

I do not think that the Democrats have any real issues. I think they are going to keep having their votes until the upcoming election. Truefully, I think they are wasting their time now. They do not have enough votes, so they are running out of confidence. Eventualy the issue will just drop, and the Democrats will cave in to send our troops money. Its all a show.

Obama <--- I keep hearing about this guy, but he has absolutely no experience in anything. He doesn't take firm stances on any issue except for Iraq. I like his positive attitude, but he has nothing to stand on.

Edwards <--- Out of all the Republican and Democratic possibilities, I think Edwards is the most humble. Unfortunately, I do not think he has enough people on his side. Too bad. I would have voted for him.

I am actually Republican by votes, but I have no problem voting on the oposite side. Personally, I do not put my self into any category.

The situation is that the Democrats are hurting our troops while doing this, it is emboldening the terrorists in Iraq and I believe the Democrats are well aware of this and are doing it to undermine the President and pull the rug out from under our troops.

The situation is that the Democrats are hurting our troops while doing this, it is emboldening the terrorists in Iraq and I believe the Democrats are well aware of this and are doing it to undermine the President and pull the rug out from under our troops.

The Democrats are hurting the troops while doing what? They are not impeaching the President. They are not even holding up the spending bill they sent it to the President and he vetoed it. If anything his hard headedness is the problem. If he would set down and listen to others. He has the final word, but he is only 1/3 of our government and congress controls the money.

Everyone needs to do what is in the best interest of our troops, the Iraqi people and our country. They need to leave their personal feelings and their party affliction at the door and set down then work it out. Pulling out is breaking our promises to the Iraqi people, while staying the course is not working. It is time for new ideas.

Demanding a time table to withdraw with dates, handing over Iraq to the terrorists.

Saying that the war in Iraq is lost. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that)

Going to Syria despite the objections of the White House. (Nancy Pelosi Democrat)

You want me to continue pointing out how they are undermining the President and our troops.

Demanding a time table to withdraw with dates, handing over Iraq to the terrorists.

Saying that the war in Iraq is lost. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that)

Going to Syria despite the objections of the White House. (Nancy Pelosi Democrat)

You want me to continue pointing out how they are undermining the President and our troops.

Pelosi wasn't the only one that went to Syria. People from both parties went, but Pelosi was the only one Bush objected to going publicly. I see this as a slap on the face to Bush not the troops.

As a citizen of the United States Harry Reid is allow to say how he feels. A majority of the people feel the same way. Personally I feel it lost unless the two parties work together. Staying the course and not listen to others views is a problem that will and has cost the troops, the Iraqi people and the US taxpayer.

Saying they are not involved in a civil war to me undermines the troops and America’s confidence in the President more than anything you've pointed out here.

Not having proper armor for vehicles and personal also show me a lack of respect and support of the troops. They’ve had 4 years to get our troops the proper equipment, but I guess it is not cost feasible.

I’m against a time table, but if the government of Iraq isn’t going to meet its requirements to its own people then why should we? I see nothing wrong with setting dates for them to achieve certain goals or we do leave. You can’t help someone that does not want to help themselves.

Bush had a rubber stamp on his policies for 4 years. The war wasn’t going especially well with that rubber stamp. Now he needs to work the other side to get things done. That was his strength as the Texas Governor, but his weakness so far as our President.

People just don't question authority like they use to do in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s. Somehow we in the United States started to protest in silence. I think the internet has replaced onlocation protesting. It is a shame.

It is time for new ideas.

I doubt it. My idea (brand new, of course) isn't exactly going to fly with the american public, and for really good reason. We are going to have to stick with the 2 ideas within the box, because they are the only good ones that the American people will accept.

People just don't question authority like they use to do in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s. Somehow we in the United States started to protest in silence. I think the internet has replaced onlocation protesting. It is a shame.

Well, not exactly. While it may be harder on the surface to organize protests movements, Astroturfing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) seems quite effective at providing the illusion of support, which, when combined with actual support, can make you quite powerful. Making websites, creating false accounts, and all that jazz. You can also find like-minded people online, then organize protest movements on the "cyberspace", carrying them out into the "real world".

Not to mention that you can raise money on the Internet from your allies, and radicalize your own members on the Internet to make them more resistant to your enemies. There are advantages and disadvantages with social trends, so use them to the best of your ability.

Edit:
Alright. Democrats, eat your heart out because I finally got a crime that can easily convict George W. Bush.

On July 6th, 2004...George W. Bush welcomes Iceland Prime Minister to White House, releasing a
press release (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040706-2.html). This also happened to be Bush's birthday as well. At the end of the press conference...

(Everyone sings "Happy Birthday" to the President.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thanks. You actually call that singing? (Laughter.) It was beautiful.

However, this is actually illegal. According to the Unhappy Birthday (http://www.unhappybirthday.com/) website:

Did you know Happy Birthday is copyrighted and the copyright is currently owned and actively enforced by Time Warner?

Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song:
...at a place open to the public
...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends
You are involved in a public performance of that work?

Did you know an unauthorized public performance is a form of copyright infringement?

A quick link on wikipedia also talks about the history of "Happy Birthday To You" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_To_You) shows that this is indeed the case and that Bush has illegally pirated the song Happy Birthday without paying royalites.

Do you realize that Bush has just advocated piracy, and publically? By not paying Time Warner, they lost a lot of money, and I believe that violating copyright laws is grounds for impeachment. I realize that this is indeed a very strange case, but you take what you have. It seems like a very solid case. Bush violated copyright law. Impeachment applies to presidents who commited a crime. Therefore, now is the time to kick out Bush.

EDIT: Bush also was witnessed to a Happy Birthday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/images/20050704_y2q0783ajasjpg-515h.html) song in his honor on July 4th, 2005, another instance of Copyright infrignment. Not only that, but he also was witnessed to another group of people who sung Happy Birthday to him on July 6th, 2006 (http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/68640.htm). All these cases are publicilzed, and seem to be prompted by Bush himself, meaning that Bush secretly encouraged these people to violate Copyright Law. The crimes of Bush seems to have no bounds.

You're allowed to sing a song and it wasn't for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the legality of copyrighting "Happy Birthday" is questionable. Not to mention this is more of splitting hairs.

You're allowed to sing a song and it wasn't for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the legality of copyrighting "Happy Birthday" is questionable.

Maybe, but as long as Time Warner continues to collect royalites (and where movies replace Happy Birthday with another songs to avoid paying these royalites), Time Warner is beahving as if the song is theres, even creating that "Unhappy Birthday" group, prehaps as being "astroturfing". Might as well help them out in the effort to help protect their claim, because it seems somewhat legit, if...strange.

Isn't the happy birthday song from before Warner Bros. even existed? If so and they aren't the original author, their copyright doesn't stand up in court. Also Warner Brothers had to back down from things before. One involved them being counter sued for the name Brothers in their corporate name.

I'm sure Bush's legal team would have been made aware of any copyright issues and paid appropriate royalties if so required.

Let's move back on topic.... :)

EDIT: Bush also was witnessed to a Happy Birthday song in his honor on July 4th, 2005, another instance of Copyright infrignment.

The day we impeach a president because someone sang Happy Birthday in his presence is the day I renounce all ties to America.

That is what it would take?

We're all very much teetering on the edge since the California elections were between a film star and the king and queen of the adult entertainment indistry.

We're all very much teetering on the edge since the California elections were between a film star and the king and queen of the adult entertainment indistry. You mean electing idiots in office, Nancy? :)

But Arnold Swarzenager seem to be a intelligent official who cares about Global Warming and Stem Cell research, not like some other republicans who still are continued residents of la la land saying that "Global Warming is a liberal hoax".

What nonsense, is this ! :disaprove
Just another lazy excuse to do nothing about the planet warming up.

Last I checked, the debate was NOT about whether the globe was getting any warmer, but WHY. That is where all the controversy is. Also, stem cell research is restricted, for federal funding purposes, to a small group of fetal stem cell lines and to adult lines in general (ie not embryonic). I'm not aware of private enterprise being so restricted.

You want to go about stem cells, I have no problem with using Stem Cells from an umbilical cord or adult stem cells, I have a problem with going in and destroying human lives to harvest cells. The reason why I'm against abortion is because there is no way of knowing when the embryo/fetus/etc. has a soul. That's my issue, with abortions and subsequently why I'm against harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses, because it devalues human life.

Please continue the stem cell debate in its own thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=176640) Thanks!

Now back to the topic of whether or not Bush should be impeached....