no, i still feel confident saying that Al Jazeera can only stand to fuel anti-American feelings in the middle east.

Well whats your ground for being there? Bringing democracy? That's the question al-Jazeera poses to its viewers.


It's showing Arabs that what America is doing to Iraq is bringing democracy by using the point of soldiers bayonets...and thats not justifiable in any way. Bringing a country that was held by the mongols, the british among many other empires throughout history is hopeless. Do you really think that everyone wants a democracy in Iraq?

I beleive the majority does.

Western media = Fear and lies
Eastern media = Courage and truth

Who woulda thunk it?! eek:

imwithstupid:



stupid:

what? and you think there's no proof that shows otherwise? I've heard/read dozens of accounts of iraqi's thankingn americans for being there and for what they did.

I really hope your kidding

of course i am tonnes of fun so stfu.

I'm sure there are many who are happy they are there...but there are also many that aren't happy their there.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... tstory.jsp

I actually had a vermont House Rep in my Poli sci class yesterday. From what I understand about what he said, there is a small movement in the government right now to try and impeach bush and cheney. I doubt it will happen but who knows.

Clinton didnt lie under oath. He answered the question in truth but in a bent way. Politics and law need to be worded in such a way as to not allow a way out, however when he was asked if he was involved with Monica the Attourney that asked him asked in such a way that he could say no and he would in fact have been telling the truth if you cared to actually listen.

As for impeaching bush
" Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
According to Dictionary.com
griev·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grvns)
n.
1.
1. An actual or supposed circumstance regarded as just cause for complaint.
2. A complaint or protestation based on such a circumstance. See Synonyms at injustice.
2. Indignation or resentment stemming from a feeling of having been wronged.
3. Obsolete.
1. The act of inflicting hardship or harm.
2. The cause of hardship or harm.

Looks to me that Bush and his buddies fit into just about every Definition of Grievance.

Who gives a fuck, it aint happening

[quote="Unknown_Sniper":312f1]I actually had a vermont House Rep in my Poli sci class yesterday. From what I understand about what he said, there is a small movement in the government right now to try and impeach bush and cheney. I doubt it will happen but who knows.

Clinton didnt lie under oath. He answered the question in truth but in a bent way. Politics and law need to be worded in such a way as to not allow a way out, however when he was asked if he was involved with Monica the Attourney that asked him asked in such a way that he could say no and he would in fact have been telling the truth if you cared to actually listen.

As for impeaching bush
" Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
According to Dictionary.com
griev·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grvns)
n.
1.
1. An actual or supposed circumstance regarded as just cause for complaint.
2. A complaint or protestation based on such a circumstance. See Synonyms at injustice.
2. Indignation or resentment stemming from a feeling of having been wronged.
3. Obsolete.
1. The act of inflicting hardship or harm.
2. The cause of hardship or harm.

Looks to me that Bush and his buddies fit into just about every Definition of Grievance.[/quote:312f1]

Republican majority. OWNT

[quote=c312]Republican majority. OWNT[/quote:7b5cc]

Doesn't that just make the Republican Mob Bosses? They don't actually care about the people they just care about themselves and the success of the party.

No, really the reason why it would never happen is because it is debatable whether they have been doing wrong.

I was just joking about the Republican majority thing because that is a logistical way that it would be blocked.

We spell it "tons" you fucktard.

To the topic at hand, impeaching Bush wouldn't happen, because like c312 said, there is a Republican majority. Besides, I'd rather have a Republican in office than an American Democrat.

actually you pea brained fool "tonnes" is english measurement of weight so stfu you fucktard.

'A tonne (symbol t), sometimes referred to as a metric tonne, is a measurement of weight. It is not an SI unit but is accepted for use with the SI. Though the spelling tonne predates the introduction of the SI system in 1960 it is now used as the standard spelling for the metric weight measurement in English.'


sleeping:

[img]http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/3158/spsy9ad.jpg[/img]

Before you call someone a pea brained fool, think to yourself, what person in their right mind would smear nutela on their face and then post a picture on the internet...

Arguging with the right is an endless and useless task.

I think George Washington had the best idea. You take a right winger and take a left winger, put them into office, and they will eventually work out an issue that will please both sides.

It's the same for all cases in which you are arguing against someone with different values and opinions.

does this really have anything to do with right/left? Clinton/Bush is one in the same. Kerry/Bush is one in the same. Kerry supported the war in Iraq. Hard to argue the supposed left is any better than the right when they come to the same conclusions. Same goes for conservatives/liberals in canada. Their the same.

I agree with that too a point Ninty. I think there are lots of things that make both parties very similar, but I think that there are some definitive ways in which each party differs from the other.

maybe on some things, but on others they will get stuck and nothing will get done. Washington couldn't have seen the party system as it is now, he was staunchly anti-political parties so he would have preferred if there weren't any.

Didn't Lincoln do that?

[quote:d7314]Main Entry: 1im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness>
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct[/quote:d7314]