Boulder: Impeach Bush?

By Ryan Morgan, Daily Camera

Published February 12, 2008 at 6:16 a.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

February 12, 2008

6:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

tunaman65 writes:

One more reason not to send my kids to CU.
February 12, 2008

6:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

rattlesnake writes:

The smart the stupid and then Boulder Council. To bad!!!!
February 12, 2008

6:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

kevin3 writes:

Too little too late, why waste the time, energy and money.
February 12, 2008

6:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

kevin3 writes:

It would be more feasible to bring charges to the dynamic duo of war crimes and extortion.
February 12, 2008

6:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

coloradoan writes:

Rising crime, growing traffic congestion, and overall, a diminishing quality of life in Boulder. Crimes of rape and assault go unsolved. High paying jobs are going away. And Instead of focusing on Boulder issues, the council wastes time and money on meaningless gestures. To what point? So they can encourage even more companies to leave Boulder?
February 12, 2008

6:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Firefox writes:

The Republic of Boulder what will be next seceding from the union?
February 12, 2008

7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"Hours spent discussing national issues will reduce the amount of time we can spend on city issues." - Boulder City Councilman Ken Wilson
It would appear that there is at least one sane and rational person in Boulder that actually knows what the role of a City Council is. He must have the patience of a saint to be able to withstand the onslaught of left-wing zealots that he has to deal with.
February 12, 2008

7:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Classof80 writes:

Only in the Republic of Boulder would a bunch of over educated people waste time and Government money for stupid sh*t. And we can only hope that they suceed from the union. Maybe a petition drive should be started to recall the council ????
February 12, 2008

7:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenstew writes:

If there were enough evidence to impeach Bush, the democrats would have already done it. You people have been drinkin the cool aid too long. The old Democrat saying is " If we say it long enough, they will believe it" How stupid people can be amazes me.
February 12, 2008

7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

DougfromOklahoma writes:

It is unacceptable that people are fixating on irrelevant topics when the Chinese are taking over our country and devistating our economy. George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush all extended Most Favoured Nation Tading status to China. It is time to elect a president that will not.

http://www.freedomsringmall.com
February 12, 2008

7:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Getaclue writes:

This is what liberal inbreeding does to society.
February 12, 2008

7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

rkwilson777 writes:

Interestingly, the article never explains WHY they think the impeachment should take place. Not to mention the fact that the entire episode is a total waste of time and money. Liberals are almost funny. So shallow and transparent. Here they are, wasting time and energy on crap like this, all the while complaining that Republicans don't do enough to help the underprivileged...Uhhhh, how 'bout channeling all that energy and money into actually doinG something to HELP?
February 12, 2008

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Scooter writes:

When you geniuses are done with this I think it would be appropriate to focus your energies on wiping out organized crime in Southeast Asia.

Keep up the great work!
February 12, 2008

7:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

God, lcdrjjxant is a broken record or a parrot. Every post he makes is the same BS.
February 12, 2008

7:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

LazyR writes:

I'm so sorry the council has nothing to do. I agree with Coloradoan. These people are ridiculous and need to focus on what they can change.
February 12, 2008

7:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Scooter writes:

The more I think about this the more it seems like this matter might be more appropriately handled by the Boulder school board.

Keep up the great work!
February 12, 2008

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gump69 writes:

I assume the voters of Boulder plan to support Hussein Obama as well.
February 12, 2008

7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

deverill writes:

Forget organized crime in Southeast Asia, Scooter. Let the Boulder city council concentrate on crime, organized and otherwise, in Boulder instead of trying to be bigshots in national events.

Everyone has a part, but the city council of Boulder's part is a very small part on the grand scale.
February 12, 2008

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

No fan of Bush, but this is pointless
February 12, 2008

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jacque_Bauer writes:

Bolder Council: Hey everybody!! Look at us - we're brain dead, self-important idiots!!!!
February 12, 2008

7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

angry writes:

2 murders
35 rapes
29 robberies
164 aggravated assaults
487 burglaries
2,300+ larcenies
157 stolen cars
72 cases of arson
453 assaults
76 forgeries
336 cases of fraud
1,088 acts of vandalism
95 sex assaults
1,100+ DUI arrests

And the council is worried about impeaching Bush and Cheney?

If I lived in Boulder, I’d kill myself and then move.
February 12, 2008

7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

eefloyd writes:

Ah, the wacko leftists! Bush and Cheney aren't running again this time. They kicked your butts twice, get over it. And, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Or do you leftists remember that day? If Clinton had done anything except bomb asprin factories, we wouldn't have had to go to war. That's another reason not to put another Clinton in the White House! Have fun with that!
February 12, 2008

7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

navy65 writes:

Bouler's city council should come down fron their
ROCKEY MOUNTAIN HIGH!!!!!!
February 12, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Darrell7887 writes:

The people of Boulder must be real idiots. Why do you think they have not been impeached already??? NO EVIDENCE!!! Only lies that have spewed from the wacko left wing blog sites from Bush haters.

The left is so full of hate, they don't even realize this is a federal matter and they have no juristiction!!! What, the country failed to do it, so Boulder will take over this task!!! PLEASE, you guys have apparently over estimated your level of importance!

Just as I did to Vermont, I will do no business in Boulder. You need to have at least enough brain cells to keep your heart pumping to do business with me!
February 12, 2008

7:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

JimmyBobby writes:

You crack me up lcdrjjxant. I understand your hatred and frustration, but the only person that still believes Bush is a deserter besides you is Dan Rather. Your blind hatred for the POTUS make you say things that show us what a pathetic little existence you live. Please come up with new arguments if you are going to post, so that we don't have to read your drivel in here.
February 12, 2008

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

breasor writes:

Sometimes I think Boulder tries to compete with places like "Beserkeley" California when to being the most despicable cities in the country. I guess this gets them off the hook for not doing what they are suppose to. Namely fixing problems in the city itself. Crime, a floundering economy and a new, lame, poorly designed mall they were the masterminds in constructing that is failing miserably are all issues way too difficult for them to face. So why not do what they do best, deny and deflect. Pretend they are doing something by voting to impeach a President whose term is up in 11 months anyway. By doing nothing, they actually are under the delusion they doing something.
February 12, 2008

7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

bddawg writes:

Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo.

Next they will stop global warming by holding their breath in.

Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo
February 12, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

The Coloradoan says: "Rising crime, growing traffic congestion, and overall, a diminishing quality of life in Boulder. Crimes of rape and assault go unsolved. High paying jobs are going away. And Instead of focusing on Boulder issues, the council wastes time and money on meaningless gestures."

Because as more cities pass this measure, the more meaningful it becomes. Especially cities that are disparate on so many levels.

Coloradoan also said: "To what point? So they can encourage even more companies to leave Boulder?"

Attracting business is not the end all and be all of every city. Some cities would prefer a more localized economy, rather than depend on companies who decide to live there because of the tax advantages - and thus, have no real loyalty to that city and will have no problem picking up stakes and leaving if they get a higher bid one day.
February 12, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

bddawg writes:

Look at the upside. At least Boulder might get some jokes made about them on late night TV. Bad publicity is still publicity.
February 12, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

JYP3500 writes:

Another example in a long list of accomplishments for Boulder; JonBenet Ramsey, Ward Churchhill, Boulder High School, Porcelain Penises, and now impeachment for the President & Vice President. Unbelievable & again highly embarrasing for Colorado!
February 12, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

lcdrjjxant- you are the dumbest Negro that I have ever seen posting online. Get an education and get over your white hate.
February 12, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

NoDonkey writes:

If the council wastes a moment of time on this, THEY should be impeached.

Just because a bunch of geriatric hippies ask the council to do something stupid and pointless, doesn't mean the council needs to act.
February 12, 2008

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

johndoe64 writes:

i gotta tell you, leave it to a local government to RUIN all the hard work a community has done. This is a group of people that has managed to make their town one of the BEST places in the country to live (Mens Journal). Now you have a town council that can't resist passing a non-binding, inconsequential resolution to inject themselves into an already tired argument on a moot point. Congrats Boulder city council....you are the ones that should be impeached.
February 12, 2008

7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

DDS writes:

As a CU grad, and a prior Colorado native, I am totally embarrassed as to what Boulder has become. I can't believe you can further waste tax payer dollar for such frivolous nonsense.
February 12, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

tulsamedic writes:

WOW, I think there is a virus of lunacy spreading in college towns, First The people's republic of Berkeley against the USMC, Now Boulder's dabbeling as the authority to impeech a sittng President and Vice-President.

I bet is was a vast right wing conspiracy to make all college towns starting with the letter "B" to look like ididots?
Get a Life Boulder, and take care of your own town first!
February 12, 2008

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

kathyM writes:

Boulder's trying to keep up with Berkley.
February 12, 2008

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

and if the Troll wants to ask about military service (lcdrjjxant), when are we going to see John Kerry's military records??? He promised to release them to the public but only has to the Boston Globe who buried the info. What is John "wants to be President" Kerry hiding? At least Dubya's record is out there to distort.
February 12, 2008

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

BayouBengal writes:

Boulder Council members are elected to run their city, not to consider national issues. The citizens of Boulder should demand that the local District Attorney indict the member's of the council for malfeasance in office for misusing the public's time and money to consider a resolution that falls outside of their legal authority.
February 12, 2008

7:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverinfidel writes:

Nothing out of Boulder suprises me anymore. Proving once again they sit right between the mountains and reality.

They need to go back to a civics class and learn what a city council is designed to do. National electoral politics is not part of it. They should also go back to the constitution. Because you disagree with someone politically does not equal cause for impeachment.

More rich, white liberals preaching to the world from their little rich, white utopia. This is what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum.
February 12, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

wdgood writes:

What a bunch of idiots. I'm considering running for a school board position where I live, but elected officials in Boulder are giving elected officials a bad name. I don't want to be considered a dumb arse like they are. I truly believe in the 5% rule, where those five percent are so nutty, they don't know what planet they are on. It must be like that with town councils. Boulder and Berkeley, CA councils don't know what planet they are on. I'd be embarrassed to be represented by these morons.
February 12, 2008

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

ham writes:

Boulder, you're a joke.
February 12, 2008

8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

I'm hoping the out of control satellite that is falling to Earth hits Boulder.Then maybe Colorado can stop being the laughingstock of the nation.
February 12, 2008

8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

scmoonpie writes:

Boulder gave us Mork so it is only fitting that aliens run the city council. I am not from Boulder and wonder whether they come to meetings with their suits on backwards. The fact is Bush HAS screwed up the last 4 years and rolled out the carpet for Clinton or Obama to win. Bye bye to the "conservative" Republican party. Bush has grown the government (minus the military) more than any president in the history of our country, including FDR. Criminal behavior? I think not. These opinions only come from the far left nut jobs who hate anything with an R after the name and want the government to be the big nanny. Where is Colin Powell and when you need him!
February 12, 2008

8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

JL writes:

Poor people of Boulder...don't you realize you're supposed to ski on the snow and NOT snort it!
February 12, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

rationalthinker writes:

I totally agree with 'angry.' Look in the mirror, Boulder! You've had serious issues for some time, and they seem to be rooted in the community culture. This is not a healthy environment.
February 12, 2008

8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

jaerbaer1 writes:

The People's Republic of Boulder is at it again! No wonder Boulder is the laughing stock of Colorado. There are important things that should be addressed by the city council, things over which they have control. How about addressing the homeless problem, gangs, teen pregnancy, drugs, trash on the streets, traffic congestion, business development, public safety, or even (oops, that would make sense) anything over which they have control? It would seem that people with high educations would learn to think instead of just "feel". Why not investigate the true facts, then make an informed decision about something, and then and only then take action where you can make a difference, a real difference. Wake up Boulder!
February 12, 2008

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jasin writes:

Good post "angry". Where are the priorities? This sounds more like therapy for the malcontents than anything productive.
February 12, 2008

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

rdamurphy writes:

Wow, talk about Bush Derangement Syndrome! Why doesn't the Boulder City Council pass a law against terrorism, that way we'll all be safe from another 9/11?

Boulder, CO: 28 square miles surrounded by reality!
February 12, 2008

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nette writes:

How embarrassing for the sane people in Boulder. It's painful to watch a few idiots create such a stir. If the loonies would spend this much effort cleaning up their own city's problems, then you might have a newsworthy story.
February 12, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

No wonder Boulder continues to be the laughingstock of the country.
February 12, 2008

8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

gmm777 writes:

I wonder if they have ever impeached anyone else before this? I wonder where these people come from? I suppose that they have all the best interests of Boulder and its population in mind as they move forward. Imagine, elected to local public office and impeaching the President and Vice President of the entire United States. Feel the power!
February 12, 2008

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

zenman writes:

Go For it! It's way overdue and would send a great message to the world. They would finally know that not all American's are idiot's.
February 12, 2008

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

devan95 writes:

Oh wow! - Detroit, Telluride and Boulder. Now there's a real wave! Can't wait til another few years when all these 60's wacko hippies will die off and we can get back to normal. These hypocrits didn't say a word about impeaching the Clinton's when they tortured, gased and burned innocent men, women and children at Waco in 1993. This was the most brutal, heinous violation of civil, human and Constitutional rights in this nation's history. Democrats did this - check it out & be proud of yourselves, Boulder:

http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/waco2...
and Elian too:
http://www.therealcuba.com/elian_gonz...
February 12, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

tulsamedic writes:

excellent point devan95!
February 12, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Firedewd writes:

Boulder is full of Boulderoids. Kind of like hemaroids, but a bigger pain the the a$$.
February 12, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

SCAZMarketing writes:

Isn't this a little too late? And why isn't Boulder in conjuction with the Vermont impeachment proceedings? It would be important for a strong, united campaign to start these proceedings, but really...what good is going to do February, 2008? The White House has already taken action on this lame duck president:

http://www.socoolaz.com/article.cfm?a...
February 12, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Longshanks writes:

In other similarly important news, my family will decide at dinner this evening whether to draft and vote on a resolution to switch from two-ply toilet paper to quilted.

We will keep you posted...
February 12, 2008

8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

texan1953 writes:

Once again the lib-loons show the difference between being educated and having wisdom. These loons' 15 minutes are up. Go blow some weed and get that Rocky Mountain High on.
February 12, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

ShepDog writes:

Boulder is like Colorado's mentally-challenged little brother. Once in a while he emits a strange noise, everyone looks, then goes back to what they were doing.
February 12, 2008

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

nibbles writes:

As a resident of Fort Collins, CO, I'd like to apologize to the nation for our retarded cousin to the south
February 12, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

bddawg writes:

The sad part is that the Boulder Council is listening and following the 5% demands. They are norWhen will the American public go back to majority rule with minority restraint? In the 60's we moved to minority rule with majority passivism and are mainly still there.
February 12, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

EvanRavitz writes:

This shows how powerless we are, in a country where supposedly "the people are sovereign. The huge majority around here want us out of Iraq and the prez/VP impeached, and some have spent months begging "our" representative Udall to do the right thing. No dice. So they beg Council to beg Udall, etc.

When you're totally exhausted begging, you can vote to ratify the National (ballot) Initiative project led by Sen. Mike Gravel at http://Vote.org THEN we can just vote to end torture, wars of aggression, domestic spying, etc.

Until then, you can kiss your country and planet goodbye.
February 12, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Davoh writes:

Perhaps these mentally challenged morons in Boulder should consider why we have 2 candidates running for the Democrat Nomination for President that have absolutely no qualifications to be anywhere near the Oval Office. None. Maybe they could enumerate some of the qualifications that Obama and Mrs. Clinton have and compare those to a lifetime of achievement for McCain, Huckabee(running a state for 10 yrs), or President Bush (who had the tough job of following an occupant of the Oval Office that couldn't keep his hands off of someone's 20 year old daughter while at work in the Oval Office) or for that matter a decent, dedicated public servant like Vice President Cheney.
February 12, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rhett writes:

Typical Boulder
February 12, 2008

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Scott writes:

The drugged out rejects from the 60's, err Boulderites, have a long way to go before they catch up with their big brothers in Beserkley: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3...

Scott
February 12, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

02Z06 writes:

Looking at the above crime statistics I believe they should spend their time on them rather than living in dream land.

Thank god for Roe v. Wade ... at least an additional 60 million liberal have been aborted.
February 12, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

bigjking69 writes:

So the Socialist Republic of Boulder is focusing their attention on something they have no power in enforcing. May I remind them that they are the "CITY COUNCIL" their job is to enact laws concerning the CITY!!! Not federal law. I think they are feeling a little inadequate. If I were a tax payer in Boulder I would be furious!
February 12, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Squatchster writes:

Looks like the town of Boulder has been taken over by a bunch of Californicaters....

SQ
February 12, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

bddawg writes:

We need a website devoted to jokes about Boulder. Anyone want to start one?

The problems with forest fires in Boulder, is everyone sees the smoke and runs up to inhale it.
February 12, 2008

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dinty writes:

Great! Now you have joined the kook ranks of Vermont and Berkeley. The whole nation is laughing at you. (Well, at least the rational folks.) You continue to be an embarrassment to the State of Colorado.
February 12, 2008

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

dbarker2 writes:

Wow, these people are an embarrassment to the state of Colorado. I love my state, but this is ridiculous. I would like to see how any of them would have run the country after being attacked by terrorists. Bush has done the best that he has been able to. Has he made mistakes? Of course! But I would hate to think about where we would be with a democratic president. Give me a break liberal scum
February 12, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rhonda writes:

Now that the Democratic congress is investigating baseball, with NFL investigation to follow, it's appropriate for CO liberals to investigate/impeach President Bush. All I'm watinig for is to see what Madona has to say on the subject. BDS is rampant.
February 12, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

hey nibbles, the Fart wishes it was Boulder
February 12, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

ralph_furley writes:

MODERN LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!

Rational thought can not come about individuals or a group of people when demogoguery of Leftist leaders is present.

Pandering to those whom would rather have handouts and "free" or low cost programs instead of acquire credentials on their own is EVIL in itself. This does not promote individual freedoms.

I wish the Left would quit promoting a socialist/welfare state,
this only leads to a collapse like the U.S.S.R. in the 80's.
I don't want to be standing in lines for bread and milk for 8 hours like they did back then.
February 12, 2008

9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

konev writes:

Another fine example of our public education system.

When a tiny group of people try to exert their influence through a city council when if they ever had civics in high school (did they even graduate?) they would know that what a city council does has absolutely no effect at government at the federal level.

Maybe this group should be offered a free GED course.
February 12, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

DesertStormVet writes:

Sounds like the Rocky's version of the People's Republic of Berkeley. Is it legal for Boulder to secede from the Union and join with their comrades in Berkeley, Venezuela, and Cuba (minus those that do not want anything to do with the leftys)?

As others have posted earlier, there are more important subjects and problems Boulder needs to address. This is simply a moonbatty joke of an idea and a waste of Colorado's taxpayer money.
February 12, 2008

9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverinfidel writes:

Given both dubya's and congress' approval ratings, I'd say the huge majority "around here" hates them all.

The people recently voted in the democrats who swept congress. Then those starry-eyed socialists promptly ran in and did......nothing. Thats right. Absolutely nothing. They have no spine, and they have no dignity. They picked a fight they realized they could not win. Hence, no withdrawl and no impeachment.

EvanRavitz - Don't ever assume that failed genetic waste from the 60's and limousine liberals in boulder, vermont, berkley or any other moonbat center actually speak for the country. Sen. Gravel is the textbook example of a "useful idiot". Impeachment doesn't exist for loonies to win elections they can't win otherwise.

Although it is useful in stopping sexual predators from Arkansas who like to bang little girls in the white house.
February 12, 2008

9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

EXColoradoan writes:

I am convinced that these 1960s hippies are the Western version of the Middle Eastern Imams. The Imams have invaded the mosques in the Middle East and are the ones who are creating the radical elements in the Muslim faith. These 60s hippie freaks are invading the college campuses and are creating a new generation of thoughtless radical liberals.

Glad I got out of Boulder. Sad for Colorado as a whole as it was a great place to grow up and live, but their stupidity is astounding!
February 12, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

WOW! The power of free speech. For some of you people, just because you have doesn't mean you have to use it! Many times it is not the message but who sends it. Obviously the people of Colorado think Boulder is messed up, hence any message they send could be a negative.
Impeachment! The reason libs want Bush impeached is they say he lied about WMD intelligence. Where are your facts! Yes I said facts! Something that has eluded the left for decades, or over a century? Here are some facts:
1. No terrorist act on US soil since 9/11.
2. Al-Qaeda takes responsiblity for 9/11, nope sorry, not a govt
conspiricy.
3. US forces are fighting and defeating Al-Qaeda in Afganistan and
Iraq.
4. Both Shiites and Sunnis have banded together in Iraq to help
defeat Al-Qaeda because they have killed so many in Iraq.

If you would stop being blinded by hate of Republicans you can see some of this truth. Also, check out political parties history.
Start with freeing the slaves, who was that, oh yeah a Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. Many of your liberal papers wanted him impeached as well. And said the Gettysburg Address was a load of horse crap.
February 12, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

janderson writes:

It only goes to prove that liberalism is truly a mental disease.
February 12, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

cwood02 writes:

It just makes sense that this city would waste taxpayers money on things that they can't control. Next lets reopen the vote in Fl.of 04 and Ohio in 2000. But first maybe they can look into the 'roids' in baseball or spend the next few months on spygate like the big boys in Washington are doing.
February 12, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

geogolfx writes:

Good Lord. Hey, Lazy Hippies. How about doing the job you are supposed to do. You Narcissistic 60's Burnouts actually think you are important beyond your little universe.

You Are Not.

Do Your job and make sure the Trash is picked up on time and Roads are paved. Otherwise STFU, freaks.
February 12, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Littledoc writes:

Once again Boulder moves their local entertainment from Pearl Street to the world. Bravo!
February 12, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Davek80501 writes:

Liz Robinson and the other activists in her group should show us all that they truly believe in what they are doing, and the next time President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney come to Colorado they need to grab them and make a citizens arrest and have the local police through them in jail. If she and her group are not willing to do that then they are just blowing smoke and in my opinion are trying to make themselves seem more important than they really are. Liz Robinson and the other activists need to let the Boulder city council deal with the problems they were elected to deal with.
Liz, if you do decide to try and arrest President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, Please let me know I want be there to video tape it. By the way Liz, the guys with the President and Vice President are not going to make it easy for you to arrest them and I'll bet they might have guns.

"Impeachment proceedings would be worth doing even if they only put the last few months of Bush's eight years in office at risk," Robinson said. Come on Liz show us all just how deep your convictions are.
But if you do, I think you'll be the one putting a few months to a few years at risk.
February 12, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Hey Rhonda, the reason the feds are involved in the MLB and NFL is they are given special exemption for non compete rules within business. In order to keep those exemptions professional sports agrees to certain mandates by the government. Please, if your going to post a blog, you have the internet, use it to back up your claims.
February 12, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

How can one man do so much evil? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Adi Amin and now comes Bush: His reign has brought death to thousands of Christians in Iraq who have seen their churches vandalized and stand deserted; 4000 American soldiers have been killed with thousands wounded; tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed; millions of Iraqis have been displaced, and the surge is not working because in excess of 100 Iraqis have been killed, Americans continue to die, and the year has just begun. Richard Grimes, Deicide who deplores the death of Christians though seeks to slay their god. Deicide is the sword of time that slays all gods without exception. http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...
February 12, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Wow, you guys are more combustible than gasoline! One, I repeat, one city councilman spoke in support of having a public debate on this issue and you all go bonkers. Another spoke against it. What the hell? There's not even a resolution being discussed yet and you guys act like Boulder has already voted to impeach Bush.

Back up, turn your brain on, and reread the article. If and when Boulder actually passes a resolution to impeach Bush, then by all means go bonkers. Although don't think it's only in Boulder that this would occur as some stated (and as the article notes other cities have already passed such resolutions).
February 12, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Instead of impeachment, W and Cheney should be waterboarded for all the damage they've done to this country. Anyone who supports these two piles of **** are in no way any kind of true patriot or American.
February 12, 2008

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

ericsmithdc writes:

GO RAMMIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 12, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

janderson writes:

It appears Steph is infected with the same virus that the other wackos have.
February 12, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

mwitteb writes:

Go Boulder Go!
Now go after the Marines!!
Hopefully you hippy, communist, pinko's will lose
your federal funding too! Then you won't be able
to drive around in your flowered hippy bus spreading
your lefty ways. Smoke another bowl!!
February 12, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

johnnybgood862003 writes:

This is what you residents of Boulder deserve, you voted them in office.
February 12, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

lesliemcleod writes:

im so glad i read this. we were going to telluride now were not. i hope the people of co rot you do not deserve to be a part of this great country and for water boarding how the dems in office in congress you peopel make me sick think god we have our 2 amendment to stop people like yall..grrr you make me sick you bunch of piss aints
February 12, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

jconder45 writes:

Right on, Steph.

Funny how the "conservatives" are all for local control and against "big federal government", but when a local community dares to express its opinion against *their* federal government, they go aplopleptic.
February 12, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

homeboy writes:

Have you noticed how so rabidly leftist the big public university towns are? Maybe if we weren't sending them hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, to CU, they couldn't afford such crap.
February 12, 2008

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rhonda writes:

Allseasonfan: It's OK for the Democrats in congress to investigate baseball and NFL? After you and the Democrats in congress finish this monumental issue, crucial to our nation's survival, what next? Humidity or high tide?
February 12, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

janderson writes:

Factoid: Boulder has the highest per-capita education level in the United States.

Education without morals just makes for a more clever devil.
February 12, 2008

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

ysroq writes:

Most of Colorado is fantastic. Just like anywhere, there are pockets of clueless idiots, but you can avoid Boulder and Telluride and still see some of the most incredible landscape; do some world-class skiing, camping and hiking; and meet normal folks who understand that our freedom and way of life are worth fighting for across this great state. Why folks in Boulder choose to support an extreme, symbolic action with their effort and dollars, which will never have any impact on the lives of ANYONE, as opposed to addressing real problems in their own city is beyond me. But I am certain it is beyond 99% of Coloradoans and the general population as well.

Part of what makes this country great is the fact that the crazies can stand up and say what ever they want without being jailed or shot. It is surprising to me that people, like our friends in Boulder, don't see the irony in the fact that if we were to stop defending our country, as they would like, we would quickly find ourselves under a regime that would not let them stand up and challenge our leaders, much less listen to popular music, educate our daughters, etc.

Yeah, it is embarrassing to have a whole city of lunatics just down the road, but it is also pretty entertaining that they think anyone cares if they waste their time on this. Plus, the rest of this state just rocks.
February 12, 2008

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

RandolphKnipp writes:

When the heart is filled with hate, the mind has no room for reason.
February 12, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

DesertStormVet writes:

"Factoid: Boulder has the highest per-capita education level in the United States."

Book-smart doesn't mean street-smart nor presence of any common sense.

Try again.
February 12, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

SteveC7 writes:

Why is it that every time I read a quote from Deputy Mayor Crystal Gray, I can’t help imagining it being said with the voice of Aunt Bee ……………?
February 12, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Why spend money at Comedy Works when you can attend Boulder City Council meetings for free.

(Unless Boulder has banned "laughter", then don't go because you will be arrested, unless you are a Marxist or believe animals and trees are superior to mankind or think global warming is caused by man, if your are one of those then you can run for public office in Boulder or become a college professor at CU.)
February 12, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Charles_B,
Your wading is over. I can explain the problem for you.
Imagine that I accuse Charles_B of a 'capital offense.' The next question you might ask is, "What offense am I accused of?"

That is where we are on the Impeachment of Bush and Chenny. They have not been accused of any crime. Congress has had over 300 investigations of the Bush Administration. Yet they have found no evidence of any crime at all.

Compare that to the Clinton Impeachment where Linda Tripp approached a special prosecutor with tape recorded evidence that the President had committed perjury in a sex abuse trial where he was the defendant.
February 12, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

ChapJim writes:

Back in the 1930s, the Indiana legislature almost passed a law changing the value of pi to 3.2.
February 12, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sean writes:

Insults, misspellings and even misspelled insults. Yep the Drudge Report as linked to this story.
February 12, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Conservative123 writes:

Ward Churchill, an anti-Semitic, anti-American professor is considered a hero in Boulder while a president and vice president who free two nations from dictators and create democratic societies should be impeached?? One word...pathetic!
February 12, 2008

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

The movement to impeachment seems like a waste of time, in that I don't think it will gain any widespread traction, and yes, it distracts from other, arguably more important, issues.

This story will give the pimps of talk radio and their idiot audiences something to talk about though. Guaranteed they are discussing it now. I believe, no, I'm certain, Boulder is on their list of villains.
February 12, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

griebeljohn writes:

E-MAIL THIS CLOWN (cowles.bouldercouncil@gmail.com) and tell what you think
February 12, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Is it possible to impeach Boulder?
February 12, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

DADDYOF4PLUS1 writes:

FOCUS ON YOUR JOB AND DO IT WELL. IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO IMPEACH ANYONE ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND VERY SELF-INVOLVED AND SELFISH TO SPEND LOCAL TAXPAYER TIME AND MONEY ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A LAME POINT. IT'S SHAMEFUL.
February 12, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

ThomasOAnderson writes:

I offer my 2 minute YouTube in support of Boulder's effort, and for all those who have awakened from the seductive trance of a corrupted media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHTyE_...
February 12, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

ralph_furley writes:

rg, c'mon now!

Hitler killed 6 million was for his own version of christianity and admired Muslim military tactics.

Stalin killed reportedly anywhere from 3-60 million, he had no God and was a proprieter of Communism.

Pol Pot, this dictator killed between 1-2 million people he also is of the no God variety.

Idi Amin Dada supposedly killed 500 thousand, what is amazing is this Muslim dictators murder count can't be verified, the numbers may be more.

You forgot Hussein, he killed around 100-200 thousand...OF HIS OWN COUNTRYMEN! Another Muslim dictator.

Please don't forget that our soldiers of our military ARE VOLUNTEERS, they weren't forced to go as in Vietnam.
Dynamics in fighting terrorist cells are different, being that they have no home country and prey randomly on whomever, whenever.

These individuals would strap on a bomb to themselves and kill hundreds, and for what...their God? That is major BS! Quit supporting those type of people.
February 12, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

homeboy: Have you noticed how so rabidly leftist the big public university towns are?

Umm, Detroit is not exactly a big public university town. Many other small cities have passed similar resolutions, including many in Vermont and, of course, California. The only big university towns that have passed resolutions were all in California and Boulder hasn't done a single thing yet if you read the article.

And it's truely ironic that several posts like yours are calling the liberals rabid for wanting to impeach Bush. If there was a room with you guys in it there would be spittle flying everywhere if you act anything like how your posts would indicate.
February 12, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

geogolfx writes:

I, as a U.S. Citizen in a state other than Colorado - Wish to Impeach the Boulder, Co. City Counsel.

If these boobs think they have any business doing this. So do I.

This is a perfect example of America today. The whining sissy Hall Monitors from your high school days are in charge.

Grow up- Do some work without a coffee break.and get something done for YOUR COMMUNITY.

Act like adults, you dolts. Hey a headline from today- Maybe if they pay attention to this- they can help:

Associated Press
Vail, CO Colorado
February 12, 2008

BOULDER, Colorado - Boulder police are warning residents about a series of home burglaries reported over the past few weeks.
February 12, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

pwern writes:

Way to go, Boulder! Join Berkeley in showing the rest of the country just how radical and extremist you Democrats really are! You'll accomplish so much - not by successfully impeaching Bush/Cheney, but rather by convincing mainstream voters that Democrats can't be trusted with power and when they get it they only make a mockery of Patriotism and National defense.

If there is a better way to elect more Republicans, I'm not aware of it. Message to the mainstream media: PLASTER THESE IDIOTS ALL OVER THE EVENING NEWS!! Make everyone in America aware what being a Liberal really means - and they'll be back in the minority (where they belong) in no time.
February 12, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

mgsorens: "Yet they have found no evidence of any crime at all."

Do you honestly believe that, after the trial of Libby (and his conviction)? You must be wearing some of the rosiest colored glasses ever invented. A significant amount of evidence must be found before a trial can occur. Thanks to the convenient deletion of years worth of e-mails from various White House and Republican National Committee servers there just isn't enough evidence to carry out a trial at this time. Also, after Libby was pardoned why bring a trial at this point just for another person to be pardoned? Just wait until a Democrat is elected and then you will see some of Bush's administration tossed into jail without a pardon to get them out this time.
February 12, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

You obviously have not clue what liberal means, other than someone who opposes you.
February 12, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

If any evidence ever turns up that Bush or Chenney committed any crime, I think Congress should take appropriate action, up to an including impeachment.

By evidence I don't mean some preposterous interpretation that "Bush Lied" 935 times when he repeated what it said in the National Intelligence Estimate.
February 12, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

DesertStormVet writes:

Charles_B,

I have dealt with those in academia that want change, not just the change of a president but of our whole economic system to favor those that do not want to work, all at the expense of the taxpayer. Most of those that I've dealt with in Academia would rather have a higher marxist content in our economy. If you've read Karl Marx and are familiar with Communism, anything private ie private property, owning your own business, being part of a party other than the Communist Party, etc, is against the rules of Communism. The US is a country built on Free Enterprise and Private Ownership, which is contrary to the principals of Communism. For example: The People's Republic of China will be in a fix because of the influx of Capitalism and I predict a show-down between the Communist Party and those that want Free Enterprise.

As far as Bush is concerned, the demos were elected to find anything that was an impeachible offense and conduct impeachment proceeding accordingly but nothing has been found nor brought forth for impeachment. Has Bush made mistakes? He most certainly has but the conspiracy theories stating he is responsible for 9/11 are totally out of line and, from my experience, conspiracy theories run wild on college campuses, left or right.

Last: I am NOT against education but am against egg-head professors mixing their personal political views in college courses that nothing to do with politics which is why I will pursue any further college degrees on-line instead of at a brain-washing facility called a college campus. Young kids are impressionable and easily get mixed up with someone elses political view instead of their own.

From someone that votes independent & proudly served their country.
February 12, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

JerryO writes:

Maybe they should impeach themselves for letting sex predators into thier own kids schools to teach and advocate the use of drugs and unhindered sex as if this is educational. All the while they cry boo hoo, why are our kids getting pregnant and addicted to drugs. Oh yeah, its all Bush's fault. These freaks in Boulder are yet another example of socialist tendencies in weak and pathetic parents in Boulder. You, like other cuckoo's nest activists in the Liberal bastions of the country want to find excuses for your own freakish behavior. You waste your time with pointless resolutions that make you all a laughling stock around the world. Words cannot describe how stupid you make yourselves look.
February 12, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

dirkle writes:

You can make all the "moonbat / flake" Boulder jokes you want, and I will enjoy and laugh out loud at most of them, as there is definitely some truth to it. Boulder can sometimes be a joke.

But history will bear out that Bush was the worst president - (not to mention one of the thickest & least articulate - an international embarassment) - in American history.

And though it is unlikely a conviction would be obtained (and if so a "pardon" would be swiftly granted), war criminal (Iraq) and abuse of power charges for both Cheney and Bush are not at all flaky in this case.

The charges simply would make a statement for history:
the Iraq war was based on cherry-picked / trumped-up charges & evidence;
then totally mismanaged;
a moral and financial disaster of epic proportions; resulting in thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed and wounded.

Impeachment and war criminal charges might be just enough to make the next president think twice before committing such a huge foreign policy blunder.
History itself doesn't seem to be enough:
Vietnam certainly didn't teach George W. S#t4brains anything, did it?
February 12, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

ralph_furley writes:

MODERN LIBERALISM: Having such an open mind that all of the individuals common sense falls out.

We as a whole must not fail ourselves by thinking that 100% education is by itself better than common sense and morality accompanied by education.

Failure to recognize our infinite smallness and short time our lives pass in the universe, is pure arrogance.
February 12, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

joggle,
Of course I believe that! How can you believe that the Special Council in the Libby case had evidence of a crime that he refused to pursue?
February 12, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

gumbonazi writes:

Who's running this city council, Mork from Ork?
February 12, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngryWhiteMale writes:

This is what happens when a bunch of burned out, aging hippies become part of the establishment that they rebelled against in their misguided youth. Nothing but a bunch of Berkeley, CA copycats.

I'm by no means an admirer of George Bush, but he's had to deal with the hand that he inherited with regard to terrorism. If Clinton didn't have his head in the sand for 8 years (or up the skirt of a portly intern) and actually did *something* in the fight against terrorism, perhaps we'd be in a different position right now. Instead, he turned a blind eye and look at the mess that resulted...WTC 1993, USS Cole, embassies, etc. Jimmy Carter redux...
February 12, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

johnnybgood862003 writes:

Charles-B In case you didn't notice Bush is not running for president, so you treasonous liberals will lose your whipping-boy.
February 12, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

ChristenMitchell writes:

Bush is a lock on all time worst president. He has now also a clear lead for Worst American Ever. Bravo and Thanks to Boulder's government for considering what must be a responsibility of any caring conscious citizen. Dissent.
February 12, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

rg and lcdrjjxant

Could the two of you please either get an education, or better yet find another country to live in, where your fantasies are met with the punishment you truly deserve? You are two of the stupidest people to every walk the face of the earth. Your idiotic, bigoted ranting and raving is beyond belief. Try to look past your hatred of a particular group long enough to see some truths before you leave this earth as sad pathetic souls with no joy to remember in your last moments!
February 12, 2008

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

mgsorens: So this trial - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...
and subsequent conviction and then following pardon are all figments of my imagination?
February 12, 2008

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheProudDuck writes:

I had thought the relative spheres of authority of the state (and local) governments and the federal government had been determined kinda conclusively in, oh, about 1865.

I think we need to dig up General Sherman and send him over to Boulder to give the City Council a civics lesson.
February 12, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

sonvot writes:

The article was not clear if the petitioners are expecting the Boulder City Counsil to impeach the President. If so, this is a waste of government time.

From Article 1, Section 3 of the United States Consitution (You remember what that is, Ms. Robinson?):
"THE SENATE shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

(emphasis mine)

People, e-mail and fax your Senators. Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't waste your time beating the air.
February 12, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Here's a little cited example of Bush breaking Constitutional law...

Bush's comments about the Social Security Trust Fund, which is backed by T-Bills, also known as the full faith and credit of the United States: "There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand."

14th Amendment, Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
February 12, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

jokesonus writes:

It’s so ridiculous that this city council and other local& state governments around the country have the time to waste on something that they have no control over. This is a complete distraction from the real problems facing this country. From the local government all the way up through the state level right to Congress and the Whitehouse, these people only care about themselves. They are “DO Nothing” for the people of this country. The president seems to feel he’s above the law, congress can only waste time putting the other side down with useless nonsense. Those who believe that the war in Iraq has anything to do with controlling terrorism are just as stupid as those who believe Hillary or Obama will fix the country.
Iraq is a distraction from finding Osama Bin Laden. Ever wonder why a military super power that can put a cruise missile through a picture window can’t find a group of stone aged thinking terrorists?? Because they don’t want to.
Quality jobs are dwindling in this country. Near nothing is made in the USA, we consume products made elsewhere. Once decent paying manufacturing jobs and tech based jobs are replaced with shelf stocking positions at Wal Mart and other places.
These government people are taking care of themselves, they don’t care about the rest of us. It’s a big joke. Get on the government payroll because they’re going to be the only good paying secure jobs left. We’re over-run with illegal’s, fuel prices are out of control… you can go on and on
Can you say Recession,, oh wait they’re giving us back 1,200 dollars , that should fix everything…
But as long as we have our 5 mile to the gallon Hum Vee’s to drive to Starbucks for a latte, and our 52” plasmas to watch the next stupid reality show we are happy in America.
February 12, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngryWhiteMale writes:

Charles_B:

That's a ridiculous argument. Face it...Clinton did nothing against terrorism, and we're reaping what was sown. More people have died due to Clinton not having the nuts to take on terrorists. 9-11 wasn't planned during Bush's watch...it was planned years in advance while Clinton was too busy with the fat chick. If Clinton hadn't purged the CIA of any capability, our intelligence folks just *may* have come up with something beforehand. But no, Clinton and his fellow Dems (mainly Joe Biden), didn't want to get in the mud with, what was the term they used back then?, oh yeah, "unsavory" characters, so our human intelligence gathering became non-existent. And who provided Bush with apparently bogus intelligence on Iraq? That's right, another Clinton appointee, George Tenet (CIA Director). A Clinton crony gives bogus info, yet all you Kool Aid drinkers chant "Bush lied, people died". Jeez, give me a break. How about this for a Clinton legacy...he gave away vital missile launch technology to the Chinese for a few measly campain donations. That should make life interesting for future generations. Maybe you folks in the Republik of Boulder can put up a few "terrorist-free zone" and "missile free zone" signs to make you all feel better.
February 12, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_B

Try getting your facts straight. Congress disarmed the USMC guards at all Marine installations! The guards had side arms but were not permitted to have ammunition in their weapons (locked and loaded). That was a democratic congress! The Commandant of The Marine Corps ordered that all Marine guards world wide discontinue that practice immediately.

President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters.[9] Defense Secretary Weinberger lobbied successfully against the mission, because he was not certain that Iran was to blame for the attacks.[8

But so many leftist have a problem with the US now attacking without provocation, or not attacking the right people. Yet in your example of President Reagan you would have him attack whomever is handy or bad mouth him for not attacking anyone because a definite source could not be found at the time for the bombing! Make up your mind which is it to be.

Until you spend two weeks digging out your fellow Marines, praying to find a survivor, and praying that the snipers don't get you too, begging for the orders to arrive that send you after someone responsible, I would suggest you keep the uneducated remarks to yourself.
February 12, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

"Clinton did nothing against terrorism"

Except for continuing the existing operations in Somalia until public opinion forced him out. Except for sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan. Etc.

Of course, a significant number of Democrats and Republicans resisted him at every step. He would have liked to do more but there was enormous resistance to him sending tactical forces out to the Middle East to do anything about the problem. There was also significant resistance from our allies which made it even more difficult.
February 12, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

angrymom writes:

Several members of Congress are looking to withhold federal funds for Berkely because of their stance on the Marine Corps recruiting office. Perhaps Boulder would like to operate the same way.
February 12, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

I would also like to point out that Bush had no plans for sending forces into Afgahnistan until we were attacked and probably would have had a very up-hill battle against both parties to attempt to do so as well as dealing with resistance from our allies (just as Clinton had).
February 12, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rexxx writes:

AWESOME!!! Do it! Put these old coots behind bars once and for all.

Failure on 9/11, unsolved anthrax from USAMRIID, no WMDs, Katrina, Plame, Gonzales justices, what more do you need???

We cannot allow 20th century old men to attempt to lead (and fail miserably) in the 21st century any longer.

No more dinosaurs!!!!!
February 12, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

duck65 writes:

Oh good god, lets waist the tax payers money on something that means nothing.... What they should really be doing is looking to impeach them selves for waisting time. Glad to know that everything is perfect in Boulder, no crime, no problems that need to be fixed. Then again if there are they wouldn't know becuase their waisting there time on frivolous crap like this. Oh wait I get it they are all planning on running for congress becuase this what they do.
February 12, 2008

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Moronpolitics writes:

They don't even realize how silly they look; imagine being a child of one of these hopeless buffoons. Makes you want to run away from home and become an attorney. At least I have had the chance to register as Male, Female or Other. What happened to None of the Above, A and B, A and C, All of the Above, and NOBODY CARES - which is my actual gender. moronpolitics dot com.
February 12, 2008

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

MrCrush: No, you and your ilk are the poster child of ignorance. By and large people in Boulder are very well educated and know the issues better than most. They are also more politically involved and more civic-minded, with a Democrat voter turnout of over 90% in Boulder County at the last presidential election.
February 12, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Moronpolitics writes:

I wonder if they know that the Denver Mint isn't a breath freshener?
February 12, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

chillycreek writes:

Maybe they can get with the legislators and pass Jessica s law . Protect the kids not the preditors.
February 12, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

mario writes:

I have tears of joy in my eyes, It's so joyous to find out that we in california do not have a monopoly on nuts jobs ( berkeley ), thank you boulder, thank you very much.
February 12, 2008

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

ReichWingersNightMare writes:

You have to hand it to the Reich winger's - they're quite good at following orders. Without questioning. Without thinking. Good little authoritarians that they are. They're not happy unless they've got an "enemy" to demonize. It's a tactic that sounds all too familiar.
February 12, 2008

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

xerxes7997 writes:

Tbone:

You define the essence of liberal ignorance. All your moron friends have gotten their say. Freedom of speech doesn't protect your ideas from being challenged by others (even if done so in an equally moronic way). Most importantly it doesn't dictate that your audience must agree. Disagreement is not a violation of the freedom of speech, it is the essence of it.
February 12, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dinty writes:

So much of this is just mindless rhetoric. This is a simple issue. The impeachment process is not a referendem recall of the President. Just because you think he's made mistakes and exercised bad judgement doesn't meet the test for impeachment. If the good citizens of Boulder were so well-educated, they would understand that. Get over it and move on! It's just wasted symbolism and energy.
February 12, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Alive writes:

Boulder, Berkeley, whatever. All those men laying down there at Ft. Logan cemetary died so these fools could misuse local government to make themselves feel important.

I can only wonder if whatever fills the vacuum that once was the USA will be the hell on earth many of us foresee.
February 12, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

FireBoss writes:

We now have Berkely and Boulder stepping off in to the unknown abbyss without anyone using any common sense. It would better for both city councils to make sure the budgets are ready for when the federal tax dollars disappear and they wonder where they went.
February 12, 2008

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

The people in Boulder can't see the boulders for the rocks. All the rocks are in their heads. Because you obtained a degree doesn't mean you earned it, it means you showed up. Because you had the chance to get an education it doesn't mean you took advantage of said chance. If a bigoted moron like Ward Churchill, or a pass the buck liberal zombie like Betsy Hoffman are your examples of education, you were cheated, lied to and abused. An education is the most important thing one can possess, a bad education is the most dangerous thing in the world. See the radical Muslims, the Nazis, Communist China and Russia... All fine examples of education (indoctrination) gone wrong. Liberal control of our education system has gone on too long for it is now an Indoctrination system instead of an Education system. A true education gives all points of view and all possibilities and the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions for one's self. It does not tell you what to think, it teaches you how to think.
February 12, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

freeman1122 writes:

I'm not a leftist, but a Palio-con and I would like to see more cities and communities do this. I believe this administration are criminals and war criminals. Remember what Bush said, "The Constitution is nothing more than a G** D*** piece of paper"

To bad the elite party Democrats have no concept of what it is to be principled. They too are the problem.
February 12, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

flint50613 writes:

This is a free country, and I guess I'll be free to cancel my plans to visit Colorado this summer. My nephew who resides in Boulder will just have to come visit me if they want to see us. Maybe if more people voted with their pocket books by refusing to financially support cities, publications, or actors who's opinions we don't agree with, they would learn there are consequences to espousing one's opinions publicly. They need to realize that I have the right not to financially support those with whom I disagree with philosophically.
February 12, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

elguapo50 writes:

Anyone in favor of "waterboarding" the Boulder City Council?? It just might wake them out of their 60's acid trip....
February 12, 2008

12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

joggle: ...all figments of my imagination?

My goodness no joggle. The Libby trial really happened. The figments of your imagination are any evidence, you think was discovered at that trial or that existed in deleted emails, that Bush or Chenney committed a crime.

If you had or have any evidence that Bush or Chenney committed any crime you should take it to the proper authorities, because they have been looking hard and as yet they don't have any.
February 12, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

carpenter45 writes:

My sister moved to Boulder, Co years ago. Now I know why her and i don't get along anymore. She would go right along with this crazy crap. Did you notice they don't give the reason why they want to impeach President Bush. Why, because there is no legal reason to impeach him. it's just left wing BS
Mike
February 12, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

ReichWingersNightMare writes:

The Reich wingnuts posting here sure do put the EXTREME in EXTREMISM. Whew! What a hateful bunch.

Nutty Neocons.
February 12, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

For those who don't understand the term "freedom of speech," This term is used in the First Amendment. It says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't mean that any speech will be free from criticism, because that would abridge the critic's (the person doing the criticizing) freedom of speech.

It just means we don't arrest people for saying stuff we don't like.
February 12, 2008

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Juk writes:

I am pleased as well. One of the things in reading about other people is the satisfaction that I'm not one of the stupidest people in the world. Dumb, Boulder, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb
February 12, 2008

1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

RedRaider40 writes:

What the hell are you going to impeach them for? Boulder's elected officials are a bunch of idiots! I hope they all go to hell
February 12, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_B

Try to read you don't even know who you were attacking I was not the one you were claiming overlooked Reagan, that was another post.

And repeating something someone says is so very intelligent. Yet you ignored the essence of what I said to try and hide behind statements taken out of context. THE LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MARINE GUARDS NOT BEING ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY DEFEND THEMSELVES! The sour grapes seem to come from the liberals a CU opposing their new leader because of his politics.
February 12, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

flint50613: So, let me get this straight. You're letting a single city councilman making a statement that he supports putting a resolution talking about impeaching Bush to a vote to change your mind about visiting Boulder to see your nephew? I hope that you don't refuse to stay indoors when you see someone sneeze outside for fear of getting sick.
February 12, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Juk writes:

I believe we have grounds for a treason trial. But would Boulder nitwits vote for it?
February 12, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Freedom_From_Tyranny writes:

The elevation of Boulder, CO is 5344ft. Therefore the cause must be oxygen deprivation.
February 12, 2008

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

PaulC writes:

Frankly this is an example of why I wish the people of the Southeast would secede. No common values with the people in Berkley and Boulder, as well as their cousins in the Far Northwest and Northeast. This is just more Socialist(Communist) nonsense from the Peoples Republic of Boulder.

MrCrush: No, you and your ilk are the poster child of ignorance. By and large people in Boulder are very well educated and know the issues better than most. They are also more politically involved and more civic-minded, with a Democrat voter turnout of over 90% in Boulder County at the last presidential election.

Simply having a college degree does not make people well educated or informed, I have personally witnessed the bias in the college classroom towards traditional Constitutional values, If it were not for myself, my Political Science class would have thought the US Constitution was The Marxist Papers. I wonder how many educated folks in Boulder went through a biased class like this, my guess would be most. Since they have been taught a fallacious political and historical viewpoint of our governmental system I have to question the well educated remark. People seem to think that government is the solution to our problems. If you people have a problem with the Presidents power blame yourself for supporting a "Do All,Provide all government" that gave the Federal Government control over our lives. The Federal Government was a still controllable entity until FDR used The Great Depression as an excuse to institute an extra constitutional government. Also, being informed about an issue and having the proper reasoning skills to make a proper conclusion from that information are two totally separate traits.
February 12, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

mgsorens: So you think Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, acted on his own without orders? A crime was committed at the direction of either Cheney and/or Karl Rove. But like the criminal heads of the mafia who surround themselves with loyalists and almost never communicate orders in writing, evidence is difficult to come by but there is no doubt of who is in charge. Did you know that Bush never sends e-mail? I wonder why.
February 12, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_B

And no, you misread again, try reading my statement correctly. I am stating that attacking without provocation or knowledge of the correct target is wrong. But by your assertion that President Reagan did nothing and that that was wrong you are clearly saying he should've attacked without clear knowledge of his target.

You seem unable to understand the most simple of statements, but I do not believe you are that ignorant. I believe you are a selective misinterpreter as are most politicals who are too far to one side or the other.
February 12, 2008

1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

kennythepig writes:

I was a paperboy in 1969 at the Boulder Daily Camera.Had the largest route in town, and was kicking ass for an 11 year old.
I went back in 2001 to visit, and was interested to see that the town was still a hippie town, full of slacker druggies, who apparently have permeated the council.
Get on with the town's business, and leave national politics alone, it is a waste of resources, time, and tax dollars.
You have a beautiful town, what a shame to be in the spotlight nationally for such a quixotic effort.
February 12, 2008

1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

shume51 writes:

If only they could use there energy for something actually worthwhile and good.
February 12, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

kennythepig writes:

like spell check
February 12, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

PaulC: But it isn't ignorant, n'est pas? You can be informed and wrong of course but MrCrush was saying how Boulder (of all places) is a poster child of ignorance which is ridiculous and you're not exactly disagreeing with me on that point.

I happen to be a CU graduate and took a major with more conservative/libertarian students than most (aerospace engineering). The liberal arts college is completely different than the engineering one. Heck, probably 10-15% of my class were ROTC airforce guys with military crew cuts all the time and another 20-30% (at least) were libertarians. CU is a big place with room for both conservatives and liberals.

Also, all of this discussion is really due to a bad headline. The city council hasn't done a single thing yet about impeaching Bush and yet everyone is ready to lynch them anyway. That is ignorance.
February 12, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

RBR17611 writes:

I'm not from Boulder so let me know if I don't understand, but it appears to me that your city is not beset with those pesky problems like crime, taxes, poverty, infrastructure improvement, etc. Because if they did, I'm sure they would want to take care of those aforementioned items rather than wasting taxpayer time and money with a symbolic and meaningless resolution to impeach the president and VP. If that's the case, then this is one Texan who is moving to Boulder. Good job.
February 12, 2008

1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

basenji writes:

I used to live in Boulder -- thought it was paradise. Glad I had the sense to move before the idiots took over. I think every rational person should leave Boulder and turn it into a country club for crazies.
February 12, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

tolerford writes:

One more to count in favor. Go, Boulder.
February 12, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

joggle,
You seem to be confused about the subject of Libby's trial.
Libby was convicted of lying when he told the Grand Jury that on a specific day in 2003 he didn't remember that he already knew who Valerie Plame was.
Special Council Patrick Fitzgerald determined that there was no crime committed by the release of Plames identity. Incidentally, that act was committed by Richard Armitage.
February 12, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

charlie writes:

Finally someone is going to try and do something about this treasonous pair. Hopefully someone will be successful in getting war crimes conviction. Whatever it takes to bring them down must be done !!
February 12, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

pennacowboy writes:

Wow, you Conservatives in Colorado are still serving up those "leftover" scare tactics like, "we haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11"?? It was a bogus, lame justification then, and it still is today. Who the heck was in Iraq enforce first....Al Qaida or the U.S.?? (C'mon, that's not a trick question....you can do it.)

Al Qaida is in Afghanistan and Pakistan....what happened to Bush's threat of "whoever harbors terrorists..." I'll tell you what happened...this never was really about terrorists. Ohhh the "war on terror". You break it, you bought it, you own it...that's Iraq. If we had actually sent the military after Al Qaida, and spent the trillions of dollars on security....well, you figure it out, it's not hard.

And using phrases like "Hussein Obama" ...only makes you look even MORE ignorant. I hope you Democrats in Colorado can get the trailer park trash cleaned up.
February 12, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jes2 writes:

Basenji,

You had the right idea! Boulder and Colorado in general is being overrun with California commies. There are a bunch of sick liberal puppies running that pit. Suggestion: the best thing to do with Boulder? Watch "Jericho" on CBS tonight at 10pm EST. If you're familiar with the series, well.....
February 12, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jes2 writes:

Pennacowboy....

Aside from being a leftist lying moron - what do you REALLY ride?
February 12, 2008

1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

91201man writes:

Just like their fellow travelers, the "Berserkley" city council, whom the Boulder council no doubt largely worships, we see yet another radically liberal, college-town city council acting out its 60s generational angst, BDS-induced obsession and seething hatred ... which warrants a response consisting of little more than a "YOU ALL CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!"
February 12, 2008

1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

mgsorens: And I think you are confused about how trials work. The prosecuter usually aims for the highest fruit but almost always settles for the lower fruit when it is easier and has sufficient penalties associated with it. The only reason Armitage wasn't prosecuted is because he was given immunity in hopes that higher-level people would get convicted (same strategy as used by prosecuters of mafia trials). What good would it do to convict the lowest level guy of the crime when the guy who told him to do it gets off? The gamble doesn't always work (and didn't in this case) but is the best strategy they have.
February 12, 2008

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

karlpkoenig writes:

I am a democrat, a full-time artist, and I live in New Mexico. I wish, most sincerely, that Boulderites would stop making fools of themselves with silly things like threatening impeachment. They should concentrate on running their town and university with some degree of competence, instead.

All the impeachment nonsense can possibly get them (as it getstheir soul mates in Berkeley) is publicity, some sort of weird ego gratification. I am reminded of the little girl next door who pulls up her dress to show her panties--in the hope of getting a reaction. As a neighbor I implore you (the council, the citizens) to stop embarrassing yourselves and the states contiguous to yours.

Karl P. Koenig, Albuquerque
February 12, 2008

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Iraq's association or lack of association with al Qaeda are not listed in the Use of Force Resolution as reasons for using force in Iraq.

So, it seems silly for people to say we should not have attacked Iraq because there was not a large contingent of al Qaeda there. We never thought there was a large contingent of al Qaeda there. That was not even one of the 20+ reasons we went to war in Iraq.
February 12, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

srpatterso writes:

Hmmm...Denver sends armed representatives of the government to remove people's pets because Democrats are mis-informed and afraid of them...now Boulder wants to impeach Bush and Cheney.

Seems Colorado is becoming the "Berkeley" of the Mid West. I love Denver and the Colorado Springs area, but truly don't want to live where folks have succumbed to party ideology; no longer recognize the real world; continually enact rules and laws and vote for "statements" that are really only about their own fears and pet peeves...and then claim to be "intellectually curious."

Curious indeed.

Bush Derangement Syndrome would appear to be clinically valid. Worthy of some grad student's thesis.
February 12, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

"Activist showing up at City Council meetings" is code for
"I don't have a... job, family, life, goals, God, clue, copy of the Constitution, brain..."
February 12, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Are you people for real? War crimes? Impeachment? For what? Do you remember the people of Iraq destroying the statues of Saddam? Do you know your own liberal led congress has approval ratings 18 points lower then Bush?
pennacowboy, we have driven Al-Qaeda out of Afganistan and are attacking Taliban and Al-Qaeda stongeholds in Pakistan with or without their approval. You have valid points about strategy, but is disagreeing on strategy grounds for impeachment.
Now lets get back to the original blog, read up on impeachment, then come back with facts on why the man should be impeached. Cold, hard facts, not theroric mumbo jumbo like he blew up the WTC.
February 12, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

NikFromNYC writes:

RESPONSE TYPE A: Reasoned or witty arguments from the political left supporters of such a situation (such as that the USA damaged Iraq via sanctions, or is too selective in declaring war, without official declaration of it, in oil producing regions, even though Afghanistan would not count much there) -or- the political right protester of such a situation (that it's good that women can now learn to read in Afghanistan due to the war or that the death count of Iraqis is now less under US occupation than before Saddam was sanctioned and then "impeached" or that an city that elects such representatives is worthy of avoiding).

RESPONSE TYPE B: Statements, unsupported, that DEMONIZE the other side of the political equation for being crazy. The hurling of insults, basically.

Most elections lately have come out about even, and that 50% of political affiliation is heritable as shown by separated identical twin studies, means demonization of the "other side" is a sticky issue, "Right" and "Left" being derived from which side English politicians sat in the room, which in days old, was also about an even match.

Which side is cooler (as in "cool man!")though? My own Libertarian bias means I like greater liberty in the Middle East, but don't like police state tendancies here. On the war, I am positive, because Sharia Law (and terrorism due to polygamy and frustratedly envious strip club patrons) does not include Common Law, meaning the rights of all men (now including women, blacks and non-land-owners) to be free to pursue their own desires, period.

TYPE A = emotional or conspiratorial looniness = USELESSLY BAD:
The "anti-impeachment-resolution" ("Right") scores only 8! (including myself for wasting my time today).
The "pro-impeachment-resolution" ("Left") scores 38 (many of which were those who considered the grammatically Joycian post by 'ldrjjxant' to be that a a lunatic worthy of being insulted).

TYPE B = rational albeit often emotional debating points = INTERESTINGLY GOOD:
The "anti-impeachment-resolution" ("Right") scores 90!
The "pro-impeachment-resolution" ("Left") scores 28 (with 2 lamenting the damage it will do to their cause)

There were also rare gold star comments that stood out on both sides.

But which side is better behaved? Of course this topic and how it was spun is outrage to the "Right" and either nirvana or mild embarassment to the "Left", so the results are topic-specific:

"Right": 31% angry nutjobs who demonize the other side.
"Left": 18% angry nutjobs who demonize the other side.

Congradulations, Left. But you also lose the debate by 38% to 62%, with much more % outrage against you as well, than outrage for you.

Conclusion?: local government resolutions against federal issues harm the party that suggests or makes them.
February 12, 2008

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

timtan writes:

Just what kind of drugs are you people taking?????? My god..stop wasting taxpayer money on something that means nothing. You have NO POWER to do such a thing, and dont ya think its a bit too late????

My god.....grow a brain folks!!!!
February 12, 2008

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

jokesonus writes:

Impeachment is a pipe dream. Following 9-11 everyone in America was looking to punish someone. Bush picked Iraq , probably as retaliation for Sadam’s attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. Once Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9-11 our military should have concentrated in Afghanistan. Iraq was a good war to make Bush and Cheney’s buddies richer.
The federal government and local governments are doing nothing for the people of this country. They all doing for themselves. Getting FAT on our tax dollars. They’re all a joke. International relations are at an all time low, Russia’s stating the cold war arm’s race is back on..
It’s not America’s job to shove democracy down the throats of the world when we can’t get our own house in order.
February 12, 2008

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Attilla writes:

Impeach Bush? What bunch of lamebrains thought this up? Even subscribing to this blog, they asked the question as to gender: Male? Female? Other?
What is other? Have you people lost your minds?
I live in Estes Park, and once I get down into Boulder I notice a distinct change of IQ, and the academic folks in Boulder are just a little below room temperature.
February 12, 2008

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

MrCrush: As I said before you can be informed and wrong. That does not make you ignorant. I never had a professor anything like Ward Churchill and would not have taken a class with such a professor. I don't know what major your son has, but if it's an engineering one there usually is very little room for politics in the classroom. We only needed 6 lower-level humanity credits and 6 higher-level humanity credits to graduate, everything else was strictly within the school of engineering. The primary courses focus on math and science (surprise surprise) which doesn't usually bring up the subject of national policy.

As for a bad education, you're the one who's wrong. Virtually everyone in my class got a high-paying job as soon as they graduated, even in a relatively weak year for my profession (right at the time of the dotcom bust).

I'm sure there are weak classes and weak majors (it is a large college after all) but you can certainly get an excellent education there. In my major we even built our own small satellites, flying them with the help of NASA. Two physics professors received the Nobel Prize a few years ago for crying out loud! CU is among the top 5 universities in numbers of astronauts alumni. You, sir, need to get a clue.
February 12, 2008

2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

HD4life writes:

Charles b..So then you agree that perjury is a crime, right???? So then why isn't CLINTON in jail?! And Plame wasn't too concerned with her secret, seeing how she appeared on Vogue magazine, gave inteviews, was intoduced at Wasington events, repeatedly, by her husband as MY wife who is in the CIA.....REEEAAALLL covert there buddy. AND since when does "PROBABLY was a crime committed", constitute a crime WAS committed? If that is your rule, then for how many crimes should Hillary Clinton be prosecuted?! I can think of about ten off the top of my head.
If Bush lied about Iraq, then so did..Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Clintons(both), pelosi, reid, Gore, ...Jesus, they all said the same damn things! If The current administratuion is guilty, then so is EVERY other memeber. If they did not directly lie, but did nothing to stop the "evil" pair in the white house, then they are guilty by association and should be thrown out for deriliction of duty.
February 12, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

The last time I saw the Boulder City Council they were opening up for Larry the Cable Guy. They are great. I highly recommend their act.
February 12, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Phantom2 writes:

Posted by basenji

"...I think every rational person should leave Boulder and turn it into a country club for crazies."

Basenji, they did. It is.
February 12, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

SurroundedByIdiots writes:

"Here's a little cited example of Bush breaking Constitutional law...

Bush's comments about the Social Security Trust Fund, which is backed by T-Bills, also known as the full faith and credit of the United States: "There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand."

14th Amendment, Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

mytwosense...mygodyouareanidiot.

A) You can't violate "Constitutional Law", it is a field of study.
B) ...Shall not be questioned; does not mean you can't ask questions. It means Congress has to honor its debts. But then again, if you'd ever studied "Constitutional Law" you would know that. Now go back to the basement and roll up another fat one.. Mom will bring you your TV dinner soon.

And to all the sufferers of BDS, quoting a newspaper article or your favorite socialist conspiracy website, Mike Gravel, Michael Moore, or anyone at all who makes a living from peddling conspiracy theories in any form whatsoever, does not constitute evidence of a broken law or crime of any kind.

The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, get over it already.
February 12, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

joggle,
Ari Fliesher was granted immunity. Armitage was not granted immunity though there was an internet rumor to that effect. Neither Fliesher, Armitage, nor any other witness at that trial gave any evidence that Bush or Chenney committed any crime. That evidence exists only in your mind.

If you think there might have been evidence of a crime in some deleted emails you may be right. If you think there definitely was evidence of some crime (though you don't claim to know what crime) in those emails , and you want to impeach Bush and Chenney based on that, you should run for City Council.
February 12, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

I believe in the Boulder City Council. I also believe in the tooth fairy.
February 12, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

nonayerbsns writes:

DID YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTE FOR THIS IDIOT???? Shame on you and thankfully, you DON'T live in Boulder.
February 12, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

I would rather go hunting with Chenney then go on a drive with Kennedy.
February 12, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

NikFromNYC boy you take the term "no fact free discussions" to heart. And you do it with style.
February 12, 2008

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

ericsmithdc writes:

Let's Go Rammies!!!!!!!!
February 12, 2008

2:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Attilla writes:

Actually my wife and I travel to Boulder for the sole purpose of watching the lunatic fringe parade up and down Pearl Street. If Boulder was smart they'd charge admission to see this Freak Show.I've also come to the conclusion that CU's liberal arts program will grant degrees to anyone who comes up with the tuition. Grades are certainly not important; just show up with a check book,well worn jeans, and a bag of pot, and you've passed the admissions requirements. By the way, what ever happened to the Ramsey case;evidently you folks have a killer at large in your community!
February 12, 2008

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Charles_B,
I do disagree with you that invading Iraq was the wrong decision. I agreed with 75% of Congress, 75% of the American people, and the leaders of 43 Coalition Countries that it was the right thing to do in March, 2003. Since I'm not running for office and I haven't been tremendously surprised by the outcome, I see no reason to change my mind.

I do understand that approximately 25% of the population has changed their minds, but don't respect their reasons.
February 12, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Professor writes:

A city named for the contents of the city council's heads. Who knew?
February 12, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Monadnocker writes:

Shouldn't the LIBERAL IDIOTS in Boulder find Jon Bonet Ramsey killer first? Morons!!!!
February 12, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

anona_persona writes:

some caveats: I don't live in boulder but I work there, I am an independent male inbetween gen x and gen y.

Sure, the city council should not be focusing on measures that are 1) out of their jurisdiction and 2) bery likely not going to change anything. It certainly makes THEM look silly. But that is perhaps 20 people out of 70k people. Some of the things said here about liberal, hippies and alternative points of view are appalling. As an independent, why should I give any more credence to conservative view points that are articulated in a mean spirited manner with the intent to demean and belittle others beliefs? Didn't our founding fathers say in the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Is someone less of an American if they wish to pursue un-attainable ideals ... just because they don't share your point of view? How does cracking jokes and making snide remarks make the opposite side of the coin (the conservative point of view) any more legitimate?

What scares me is that more and more, I see and hear both conservative and liberal say things like "if you don't believe as I do, then you are: dumb, stupid, going to hell, un American, a terrorist, a religious freak etc etc etc." These attitudes get us and our country no where in terms of solving some very tough issues: internally (the economy, net neutrality issues, current credit crisis) as well as international ones (the growing climate crisis, Iraq, global trade/economy issues).

To all the commenter's above who can't disagree in a respectful, articulate manner I say grow the hell up and stop playing the finger pointing/blame game that five year old siblings play.
February 12, 2008

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

JACKFISH writes:

Boulder has joined those bastions of prograssivism , Berkeley, Detroit, Vermont as tourism meccas.... Darwin is now backing creationism as these inhabitants would have to evolve into being brain damaged. Liberalism is truly a mental disease. Gotta think the IslamoFascist terrorists are licking their chops in anticipation of November.
February 12, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

I Kuckoo for coco puffs!
February 12, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

pennacowboy writes:

mgsorens, if you agree there was no large contingent of Al Qaida in Iraq, and we were attacked by Al Qaida, why even draw up a list of 20+ reasons to go to Iraq...weren't there more immediate pressing issues, like our security and safety?

That's why people are so p.o'd! I think ALL of us are for protecting ourselves, but invading Iraq didn't accomplish much of that. Sure, there have been no new attacks on our soil since 9/11...but how much did invading Iraq really play a part of that?

All that aside, impeachment is a wasted effort. If the world sees fit to try Bush and Cheney for crimes against humanity, let them do so.

jes2...since you are interested, whatever it is I ride, I don't sit on my brain to do it. That oughta keep you busy thinking for a while, but don't hurt yourself.
February 12, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_B

The 100s of Thousands of Iraq citizens that Sadam murdered wouldn't agree.
February 12, 2008

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

NikFromNYC writes:

Left/Right were jumbled and mis-edited in my summary of the first few hundred posts here (my ex-hippie background is showing). May history forgive me, and thank god this is a resolution instead of a revolution.

USELESSLY BAD (A) LOONINESS :
The "Anti-Resolution Leftists" score only 8 (including myself for wasting my time).
The "Anti-Resolution Right Wing" scores 38 (many who considered the grammatically Joycian post by 'ldrjjxant' to be that a lunatic worthy of being insulted, so he acted as a "troll").

INTERESTINGLY GOOD (B) RATIONAL, BUT OFTEN EMOTIONAL AS WELL, DEBATING POINTS:
"Anti-Resolution Right Wing" scores 90! (with many gloating about how it will help their cause while avoiding use of words like 'retards' or 'moonbats').
"Pro-resolution Leftists" score 28 (with 2 lamenting the damage it will do to their cause).

Second conclusion?: civil debate is not happening. Most are entrenched, and most cherry pick and nitpick about which side is worse.
February 12, 2008

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Does the city council meet in a room painted with lead-based paint? Has anyone tested for this?
February 12, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

MrCrush: I don't know much about the liberal arts side of campus, other than never to take the 'woman studies' class. I know one guy who did who said it was the most one-sided, idiotic class he ever took. If your son decides to take that then you wouldn't even need to tell him to listen with a grain of salt--it's kinda obvious then. There are separate dorms for engineers and nearly all of our classes are within the engineering buildings so I never associated with the arts and science side much. I know there's a good physics program though. I also know that getting a degree in any of the foreign languages is no small task and they'll be more than happy to fail you if you don't do the coursework (which was substantial) and don't pass the tests. But out of the dozens (hundreds?) of arts and science majors, that's all I have first-hand knowledge of.

If your son is open-option, the easiest engineering major is probably mechanical and I heard nothing but good things about it. A lot of aerospace majors switched to it because they were getting overwhelmed but wanted to stick with engineering.
February 12, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

koolaiddrinker writes:

not from boulder. picked this up on drudge. couldn't agree more with anona_persona's comment about the tone of the board.
February 12, 2008

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

flint50613 writes:

joggle, I simply issued my declared course of action. If the city changes it's mind and doesn't pass the resolution to impeach the President and Vice President, then I'll rethink my position. But for now, I'm planning my summer vacation in Wyoming instead of Colorado.

Everyone has the right to free speech, the freedom to say whatever they want, with very few caveats, one being you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. However, that free speech caries consequences. I can choose to disagree with the opinions expressed and I have the freedom to not financially contribute to anyone, or any place who's comments/opinions I disagree with. And as stated above, I'm exercising that right.
February 12, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Keno33 writes:

This is why I will never even drive through Boulder, not going to give them one cent. What a waste of time and a gross abuse of local power. meaning less and should be ignored.
February 12, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Pippy writes:

The sad thing is with Vermont, its so easy to let them leave the union...just a cut off between them and Canada now, it would be simple to re-draw the map. But with Boulder, wow, smack dab in the middle of the country. Not so easy. I have to think its the mountain air that turns all those brain cells into mush. What a bunch of idiots.
February 12, 2008

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ed10640 writes:

This town needs to have a wall put up around to keep these lunatics contained. The wacky tobaccie they smoke is doing something to them.
February 12, 2008

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

freedomrules writes:

The Boulder city council is fulfilling what everyone has come to expect from the extreme left. They are not socialists, they are fascists and believe that as a deranged backwater liberal governing body they have the right to dictate the policies of the entire US Government and they are so deluded that they feel they speak for the entire country. This is elitism, this is hatred of the rule of law, this is disdain for American style democracy. It is the left that hates you, not the right. When will people wake up and see that the extreme left wants you to live in a highly oppressive state in which their ideas are enforced using draconian, punitive measures. The left is not full of love, they are full of hate. They are the most anti-free speech you will find, If you don't believe me, look at what happens to party line dissenters at University Campuses. These people want to be Mother Russia and Nazi Germany all rolled up into one neat and tidy Weltanshaung. The left is evil.
February 12, 2008

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Attilla writes:

I find it interesting that the "liberals" have now changed their name to "progressives". Yeah, if going back to Marx and Lenin is "progressive" they've got it right... finally.
February 12, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

flint50613: Of course. But as of now nothing has happened yet. There's not even a resolution at this point. Some people petitioned for one and one councilman said he'll write one up and put it on the floor. I don't think one city councilman should have the ability to affect your travel plans. It sounds like they have a busy schedule so even if the guy wrote it up it probably won't be voted on for quite a while.

For a similar example of how little this matters until it passes, Conan O'Brian once got a city councilman to ask that there be a Conan O'Brian day in New York City. The councilman went to the floor, made the proposal and it was summarily defeated. No matter how ridiculous it is, it doesn't matter until it actually passes.
February 12, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Monadnocker writes:

Meanwhile, Clinton Not Ready to Release Tax Returns! She needs more time to fix the numbers.
February 12, 2008

3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Keno33: You're right, what a gross abuse of power of a councilman to write a resolution. It hasn't even been scheduled for a vote yet so, as of now, only one councilman is using any time on this issue and it's possible it will never even be voted on.
February 12, 2008

3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

I love driving my Ford Excursion through that town. (5 miles per gallon, baby). At red lights I put it in park and gun it. Listen to that engine roar! Then I throw in some Ted Nugent and crank it up. My carbon footprints are left all over the place.
February 12, 2008

3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_B

Did you know?

Everything you read is not the truth. Nothing YOU write is either.

Probably not.

Once again I am forced to say until you have actually been there please refrain from the ignorant comments. I have personally talked to many of the people you claim to know so much about, I was there for the bombing in Lebanon I will take the word of the people I have personally talked with over that of a biased media or politician every day! If you want to really know what is going on someplace try going there and talking with those who live there. Stop listening to those who have a stake in what you believe, either a political stake or a monetary one.
February 12, 2008

3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

2ndamendmentrights writes:

This is what is wrong with Boulder. Nuke em or send em to Iraq so they can cry on Sadam's grave. Damn hippies anyway.
February 12, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

anona_persona writes:

joggle: glad I am not the only one here who thinks many of the commenter's are just as bad as the city councilman who is going to write this up. I can't believe the lengths people will go to propagate ideology and separatism. It doesn't lend much hope for working out solutions to our country's problems.

I am all for being passionate about your beliefs but A lot of what I am reading here seems more like fascism. Fascism in the authoritarian - do as I say, not as I do frame of mind.
February 12, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

thinkbig writes:

why don't the council members pass a resolution calling for all muslims to stop the killing of innocent people and while their at it they can call on the muslim nations to offer women simple human rights.
February 12, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Hey man, is that Freedom Rock?
February 12, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

SurroundedByIdiots writes:

Devil_Dog:

"The 100s of Thousands of Iraq citizens that Sadam murdered wouldn't agree."

Charles_B:

Who armed Saddam?

Answer:

Mostly the former Soviet Union. Followed (in order) by France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark Libya, then...with less than 1% the evil USA.

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/200...

In fact, Iraq accounted for 40% of French arms sales in 1984, according to those crazy Swedish at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Chemical weapons? Germany.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_E...
February 12, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

As I expected, you say that Iraq was not a threat because they had no 'stockpiles' of WMD. This is the most naive argument against the war, because Saddam retained the capacity to produce more WMDs.

According to the Duelfer report, although Iraq did not have substantial stockpiles of WMDs, they were "in some ways more dangerous" than had been supposed before the war.

The fact is that Saddam refused to let the first Gulf War to end. Not only in words but actions, Saddam continued firing missiles at our aircraft which were patrolling to prevent Saddam from massacring more of his citizens, he continued to torture, rape, and gas the people of Iraq, and to provide support to several terrorist groups.

Someone with your immense intellect out to be able to tell us what would have happened in the Middle East if we had not deposed Saddam?
February 12, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

R8R_H8R writes:

CLinton lied about a bLow job. Cocaine snortin' Dubbya Bush LIED TO AMERICAN CITIZENS AND CONGRESS and fabricated b.s. reasons to invade Iraq.

http://denver.yourhub.com/~BriansBLog
February 12, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

aeb1barfo writes:

The Peoples Republic of BERZERKELEY is running neck and neck with the Peoples Republic of BOULDER ( AKA BERZERKELEY EAST )on the latest bits of insanity. I don't know which makes me laugh harder ( check the sfgate to see what I mean ).

The WAR CRIMES commission meets in THE HAGUE..
February 12, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Boulder City Council Members:

Cheech
Chong
Neil Young
Sean Penn
A Tree
Pot plant
some cute fuzzy animal

It's a quorum.
February 12, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Hey Boulder libs...Go to the middle east and hug a terrorist. See how compasionate they are. Be careful, they haven't had diversity training yet and if you hug them too hard they blow up.
February 12, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

jrn612 writes:

I think the impeachment vote should be tabled until Jon Benoit's killer is found. OK, that was pretty sarcastic, but these loons couldn't organize a two car funeral much less run a city.
February 12, 2008

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

karpIA writes:

No surprise this is a priority in the People's Republic of Large Rocks.

Important things like rape, assault, and child murder are simply aspects of alternative lifestyle choices to these people, aren't they?
February 12, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

-Dr. Michael Savage
February 12, 2008

3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

ham writes:

You may email the Boulder City Council at this address.........

Council@bouldercolorado.gov
February 12, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

HD4life writes:

Libby did NOT "out" a covert agent. A) She had "outed" herself on countless occasions(as did her loving husband). B)She was NOT a COVERT agent. Hadn't been for years. C)Clinton did FAR FAR more than lie about a sexual affair. That is what all you lefties want everyone to think, but the facts are, and always have been, that he lied under oath in key points in his testimony and abstructed justice. Let me say this once and for all for all you lefties that just cannot get it.....WE DON'T CARE BOUT A CONSENTUAL AFFAIR!!! WE CARE ABOUT RAPE, WITNESS INTIMIDATION, HABITUAL SEXUAL ABUSE, PERJURY, DOCTORING FILES, ETC ETC ETC...... The list is endless when you are speaking of the Clintons.
February 12, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Charles_B: "Our country would be safer because we would put more resources into actual threats instead of "potential" ones."

How do you tell which is an actual threat and which is a potential threat? Do you use ESP or just wait for something to explode?
February 12, 2008

3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

You can also email the Boulder City Council at this address....

wearemoroncommunist.gov

or check out their website:

www.hugatreeandeatgranola.com
February 12, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

duane writes:

City Councils are supposed to fix potholes. Also, don't they still have a murder to solve?
February 12, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zinnia79 writes:

Wow. Nothing like the topic of politics to bring the beast out of people.

Stop blaming it on pot, that has nothing to do with it. Ignorant people just want to blame it on anything. I would much rather work with a bunch of hippies than evil and violent people. All these comments reminds me of a loud, bickering and disorganized third grade classroom.
February 12, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

At their meetings do they string balloons everywhere, put on realy big shoes and wear fake red nose that honks?
February 12, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

yournamehere writes:

You should save your energy for Hillary. No matter what the popular vote is, she'll probably use the "Super Delegates" to insure her victory. After that, well, she's a Clinton. Need I say more ?
February 12, 2008

3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

bamacharm writes:

October 11, 2002: CONGRESS passes joint resolution authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote was 77/100 in the Senate and 296/435 in the House. Look it up.

I anticipate that the anti-Bush crowd will come back with "yeah, but he lied to them". Doesn't the House and Senate have their own intelligence committees, access to the CIA, access to DOD, and access to foreign intelligence INFO? Yes they do! Yet they voted for the unilateral action, including one Hillary Clinton and other Democrat and GOP leaders now crawfishing and trying to lay the blame exclusively on the president. Are they inept or did they just fail to do their job? Which is it? Regardless, it still doesn't relieve them of personal responsibility no matter how you spin it.

It's your right to call for a petition to impeach, if you choose, but at least be consistent and call for everyone who voted for the war to be impeached as well. Otherwise, you're just a partisan hypocrit.
February 12, 2008

3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

wbassett writes:

The press continues to distract Americans from the most urgent and necessary political issue of our time.

The political parties both continue to avoid this issue as they focus on their struggle for power.

All the Presidential candidates, save one, seem fearful of making a clear statement in compliance with their oath of office to support the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Do not be distracted by the corporate media’s coverage of the ‘Race for the Whitehouse 2008’ or what goes on in airport bathrooms!

We must not pass on a Presidency whose powers have been illegally expanded to include the right to defy the laws enacted by Congress with ‘signing statements’, the right to abrogate international treaties, to authorize or condone torture and ‘extraordinary rendition’, to spy on citizens without warrant, to hold citizens in solitary confinement for years without access to council, and to take the nation to war on the basis of lies and disinformation.

The Presidency must be stripped of powers illegally assumed – powers not granted by the Constitution – and the only effective way to accomplish this is to apply the remedy provided by the Constitution –

IMPEACHMENT!

We must not let stand these violations of the bedrock of democracy, the rule of law and the Constitution!
February 12, 2008

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

OutofAfrica writes:

My word, doesn't this just rub blisters on the bottom of your feet?
I feel so bad for you fine folks of this beautiful city. Sounds like the council needs to reach around back and pull their panties out of their crack before they choke.
Let's all pray for common sense.
February 12, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

HD4life writes:

R8R H8R...If you really believe that all that Clinton impeachment was about him lying about a b.j., you need to crack a book once in a while. Thats what we call "rewriting history". I'm always amazed at how many decent American people never did understand what was really going on there. Thats what happens when you have a media that is willing to bend any story for you to keep a legacy alive. It was about FELONIES! Crimes that you or I would have been imprisoned for! I'm not going to explaine the whole thing to you. If you don't get it by now, you never will.
February 12, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Civility writes:

What concerns me is the hate that is posted on here. That confirms my suspicion that Bush has three 6's on the back of his head. Whenever anyone criticizes his performance, they are attacked with vile comments like those posted here. It's amazing that there is so much support for the destruction and turbulance that he and Cheney have caused. The Boulder City Council is doing what a lot of Americans would like to do, but are afraid of the satanic retribution that will follow.
February 12, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dryden01 writes:

Sounds like too many California whackos moved into Boulder and the city council needs to pander to their twisted minds. If only they attacked the people who attacked us in the Middle East as much as they do our own president, the war would be over by now. These people are little more than an auxilliary for the Mujahedin and the fact that they encourage them to resist costs lives. People are dieing because of these idiots.
February 12, 2008

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

BigAlaskaGuy writes:

Impeachment? For what? You leftists just chant, "Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush", but you never specify charges. Now I'm all for impeaching Bush if he has committed crimes, but it seems to me that he has done a pretty good job of doing what the Constitution says our president should do: Keep us safe. So, PLEASE, what is the crime?

Is it that you just don't like how he has snookered the democrats at almost every turn during his presidency? Is it because you think of him as a buffoon and you just can't accept the fact that he has turned out to be smarter than the lot of you?

Contrast your call for Bush's impeachment to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. There wasn't an "Impeach Clinton" mob. It was a growing groundswell of Republican congressmen who had just had enough of Clinton's blatant abuse of power. They impeached Clinton because there was overwhelming evidence that he perjured himself before a grand jury (a felony); that he attempted to influence the witnesses of a grand jury hearing (a felony); that he attempted to impede the discovery of evidence in a grand-jury proceeding (a felony); and that he suborned the perjury of others (for those of you who went to law school in Colorado, that means he tried to coerce others into lying to the grand jury by using threats and other means; yes, a felony).

Knowing that you have been taught by your liberal college professors that the sky is green and that you believe it because they told you so, I respectfully call upon you to conjure up whatever courage it takes to look to the sky yourself... and determine ON YOUR OWN what color the sky really is. If you can achieve that breakthrough, then the next step is to apply the technique to politics.

BigAlaskaGuy
February 12, 2008

4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Liberals: Tolerant and caring...unless you disagree.
February 12, 2008

4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

HD4life writes:

Sorry Civility. Lets all hold hands and sing now. Are you kidding me?! After the ungodly things that are posted everyday about our president, and anyone who DARES be conservative?! I love how liberals all point out the hatred of others but always justify their own venom spewers. I agree with you to a point but to blame only people who support the pres is just a ridiculous statement. I don't even like the guy but I have long ago gotten sick and tired of the parranoid conspiracy theorists that are calling for impeachment, prosecution for war crimes (by the way, WHAT WAR CRIMES?!), corruption accusations, as long as you are on the left, you don't ever need real evidence. The accusation is enough.
February 12, 2008

4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Civility,
Even if Bush has "Son of Satan" tattooed on his but, that's still not grounds for impeachment. Even if somebody some day finds some evidence of a crime that would be grounds for impeachment, the City of Boulder can't participate.

The saddest thing is that the Citizens of Boulder are probably benefiting from the fact that their city council is not carrying out business as usual.
February 12, 2008

4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

fortheloveof writes:

Now Now. Lets all try to be diverse and multicultural.
February 12, 2008

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

ReichWingersNightMare writes:

The only wackos here are the 27% who still support the cheerleader in chief.
February 12, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

fortheloveof: "Liberals: Tolerant and caring...unless you disagree."

No, that's not the joke. This is the joke:

Conservatives: Tolerant and caring...unless you disagree.

Seriously, read the above comments. How much 'tolerance and caring' do you see above by people who surely view themselves as conservatives? I agree with MileHighGirl, you guys are too quick to anger and I'd hate to work at a place where I'd have to be dodging spittle left and right and listening to your nonstop ranting.
February 12, 2008

4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

HD4life writes:

Or the 11% that still support congress? Right, reich???
February 12, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

BigAlaskaGuy: "There wasn't an "Impeach Clinton" mob. It was a growing groundswell of Republican congressmen who had just had enough of Clinton's blatant abuse of power."

That is absolutely laughable. It sure didn't take Republicans that long to "have enough" of Clinton. The witchhunt began as soon as he became President. From the day he took office, the Republicans started investigating...and investigating...and investigating...

First, they began with a $200,000 investment he made and lost money on years before he became president. Never could find anything impeachable about that, but that didn't stop them from continuing to waste taxpayers' money until they found something: an affair with an intern.

Ultimately, they spent almost a hundred million taxpayer dollars to end up with two things: Clinton's acquittal and the pornographic Starr Report.
February 12, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Of course in this case, insisting on the rule of law, the rules of evidence, and following the Constitution does seem to favor President Bush and rule out impeachment. Nevertheless I would insist on those things even if they didn't.
February 12, 2008

4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

HD4life writes:

If Clinton had cooperated and just come clean rather than eluding, lying, etc...It wouldn't have cost so much, it would have been over in a hurry. Why would he go to that much effort if it was all about sex with an intern? AND, even if that is it....Isn't that enough?! Jesus, the girl was 21 and a subordinate! I would lose my job at leats for that. Should not the president opf the country be held to some scrutiny? Or, does that only apply to Republicans?
February 12, 2008

4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Civility has a point though. You have to look long and hard to find a public forum where such naked hatred by liberals would be on display. You can find it on extremist sites, but I have yet to find it on anything like the New York Times or any other 'liberal' newspaper website. Even on sites like slashdot.org (about 80% liberal posters) you will never, ever find a series of such awful, nasty posts as the ones displayed above.

Do you know why? Because we don't hate our neighbors. I wonder where that concept came from?

You guys seriously, seriously need to take your medication. And no, it's not listening to Rush. It's called prozac.

Either that or stop going to a church that seems to be filling you with as much hate as the ones terrorists go to. I know there are good churches out there that teach tolerance and aparently you aren't going to them.
February 12, 2008

4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

mnotr2 writes:

I can't believe the council has time for this foolishness
when they have done nothing about the influx of underpants gnomes!
February 12, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

carlos writes:

Another day, another city that will never get any of my tourist dollars, ever again.
February 12, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Moronpolitics writes:

Libby didn't "out" anybody at all. It was a liberal in the State Dept., Richard Armitage. Novak was afraid of the special prosecutor. Armitage went and confessed THE FIRST DAY of the investigation. He and Novak were both warned not to tell anybody. The special prosecutor decided his mission was to convict some member of the administration at all costs of something, no matter what. It is an insane misunderstanding of his office. He is independent IN CASE the guilty parties are members of the executive. He decided that his mission was to convict some member of the administration of something whether they were the guilty party or not. Libby was convicted of remembering a conversation with Tim Russert differently than ONE of the two different ways Russert testified he remembered it. That is truly bizarre, but the truth nonetheless. As for the other poster who claims President Bush called the constitution a G** D*** piece of paper somebody needs to get a butterfly net and bring that whacko back to his City Council office before he wanders into traffic again.
February 12, 2008

4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

mytwosense,
After 4 people were already indicted, President Clinton decided that he was close enough to the Whitewater crimes that his Attorney General should be recused. President Clinton made the decision to appoint a Special Prosecutor (Judge Starr). During Judge Starr's tenure Linda Tripp brought evidence to him that the President had committed perjury. Starr took the evidence to a Federal District Court who decided that the crime came under Judge Starr's purview. As a federal officer he couldn't refuse to investigate the case. Congress had a choice, but it was between impeachment and a lessor punishment.
February 12, 2008

4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Moronpolitics writes:

By the way, President George W. Bush is the greatest President of my lifetime. I distincly remember every president since Eisenhower. He will rightly go down in history as a great man. Perhaps the most hated and villified man ever to hold the office was Abraham Lincoln and I have no doubt that the Boulder Council would have impeached him if they could and probably would pass a endorsement of his assasination. The people of Boulder should be ashamed they allow these morons to serve their city.
February 12, 2008

4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

mamasoldier writes:

I suggest all those whining communists get a real life. Should this even be put to a vote, I suggest the federal and state government pull ALL funding. We are ONE nation - governed by ONE body and until that BODY is no longer in office then we must support that ONE NATION and ONE BODY - the reason the democrats have made no official move to impeach Bush is because their actions are no better than his - moving to impeach Bush would put them all in the same boat. Thank GOD I do not live in that area of the country. What a bunch of crybabies - I'll bet they all drive Volvos, go to Starbucks, play tennis together, play golf together, buy foreign products, take vacations overseas but still whine about the AMERICAN economy. What a bunch of losers.
February 12, 2008

4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

marcboyd writes:

I am ashamed to admit that I was born there. My mom and dad graduated from CU. It was pretty communist back in 1944. Things never change, do they.
February 12, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

offshoot writes:

pathetic losers in boulder..
February 12, 2008

5:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

AARACH writes:

HEY COUNCIL MEMBERS-WHILE YOUR AT IT--

WHY NOT KICK OUT THE MARINE RECRUITERS OUT LIKE YOUR SISTER LIBERAL CITY-THE ONE AND ONLY BERKLEY.

GET A LIFE AND IMPEACH YOURSELVES FOR NOT DOING THE JOB YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO.
February 12, 2008

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

boontaboonta writes:

LMAO at the libs.
February 12, 2008

5:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

notfromboulder writes:

This from the town who's greatest achievement was as the backdrop to the Mork and Mindy Show. Na noo, na noo. Get a life. Bush will be gone in less than a year, and you can direct your visceral hatred toward someone else.
February 12, 2008

5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Civility writes:

President Bush,

How do I love thee?
Let me count the ways.

Lying about the ties of Iraq to Al Qaida.
Lying about information that Iraq had weapons of mass desruction.
Using weapons of mass destruction, excude me, Schock and Awe, to invade a country and kill their citizens.
No immediate relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Invading our rights.
Using Torture.
Putting the country into a recession.

Though I walk in the Boulder Valley of Liberalism, I will fear no evil, because thou art the evil one.
February 12, 2008

5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Mesa means table in Spanish. So Table Mesa translates to Table Table. It's like Bolder Boulder - you have to tell Boulderites everything twice.
February 12, 2008

5:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

I'll continue where Civility left off:

Record gas and crude oil prices.
Record trade deficits.
Record budget deficits (which had been surpluses when he became president).
No new tax to pay for major war (first president to do so).
Unwillingness to listen to own financial advisors, firing the first under protest.
Willingness to put inompetents in all levels of government and especially in early occupation of Iraq.
Significantly increased presidential powers and federal powers.
Increased spending in most areas of federal government.
Increased pork-barrel spending.
No vetoes for first 4 years of presidency, even on ridiculous budgets.
More signing statements than any other president (no competition even). Congress explicitly stated that the president shall not have a line-item veto. So Bush uses signing statements instead to much the same effect.
Inability to work with allies.
Total inability to unite nation.
His lack of ability to speak his native language.
Total mishandling of relations with Russia.
(I could go on)

Yep, got a great president there. Bush will go down in history as among the worst in foreign policy, the worst in economic policy and one of the worst in executing a war. He's done so little in domestic policy that I wouldn't even know where to rank him. Unfortunatly the dollar may not completely tank until right after his presidency so he might not get the full blame he deserves.
February 12, 2008

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

beavercreek writes:

GOOD JOB BOULDER! Fine example that everyone should follow. To all nay sayers saying we have problems with our roads and unsolved crime etc, How about the hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Iraqi women,children and grandmothers which were invaded by results of lies and intelligence that never existed? Our hands have blood on them, and the Bush cabal are murderers.
February 12, 2008

5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

kirby writes:

One can only hope these idiots follow through with this absurd waste of time, so summer tourist will rightfully go spend their hard earned $$$ somewhere else. You got to love these idiots and the logic their Bush Derangement Syndrome sucks out of their already vacuous heads.
February 12, 2008

5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

LastExit writes:

Cowles looks like a real wormy left wing sack of crap lawyer....see for yourself and drop him an email http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/index.php...
February 12, 2008

5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

LastExit writes:

I take it back, Cowles is a douchebag: Lawyer, Macon Cowles & Associates, Boulder, CO. Firm Specialty: toxics, environmental, civil rights, and class actions. 1991 to present
February 12, 2008

6:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

GWBushwacked writes:

i think gorge bushez so undirated. He kud kerr less about bolder and them tryen to impeech hymn. Jes have fath in the Lord. All them wacked out librels tryen to give us GOD ferring cu ntsirvativs a bad nam by tellen us we kant cumbplane that bolder is wastun tackspayur moneys.
February 12, 2008

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

siramelek writes:

1000s of lives and billions of dollars too late.
February 12, 2008

6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

jtg24 writes:

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time and your taxpayers' hard earned money? Instead of wasting a day putting together a pointless little demonstration, perhaps you could work on a way to improve school systems or reduce crime?
February 12, 2008

6:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

OhioJoe writes:

Right after you pass your resolution, print it out and take it down the hall and wipe your butt with it, that's about all it's worth. Council's are not able to impeach and don't have anything to do with it, what morons. Why don't you all get in a van and go to one of the seven weasels that hold the position of US House Representative for Colorado to do it? Quote "In 2006, the council approved a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and in 2003, the council passed a resolution opposing the invasion." Like that frickin worked! I'm not from Colorado but I thought even if you are a liberal you'd have some common sense! Moral of the story, you can't get a Big Mac at Burger King no matter how much you want it, cry for it, or demand it. Morons!
February 12, 2008

6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

beezdotcom writes:

What. A. Load. Of. Crap.
February 12, 2008

7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Charles_B "No amount of evidence can change the mind of a partisan hack like you."

That's not true! If there was ANY evidence of a crime, I would want the process to go forward. In fact I would like to see the Boulder City Council go forward with Charles_B as its star witness. You could testify about all the evidence that you claim is in the deleted emails.

As to the telecoms, it is difficult to explain a legal question to someone who doesn't know the difference between a crime and a tort, or between the words illegal and unlawful. The phone companies are afraid of being sued by unscrupulous lawyers, not of criminal prosecution.
February 12, 2008

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

jmwcctx writes:

Yeah, and I'm thinking of asking my city council to declare war on Boulder, too. What morons...
February 12, 2008

7:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

JimStaudt writes:

Impeach...huh? Yawn....'scuse me, but I have some socks to sort.
February 12, 2008

7:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

renwest writes:

I think we should give Colorado to Mexico.
February 12, 2008

7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

messenger writes:

I wish people didn't feel so cynical about a most serious subject. In conjunction with the new, incoming Administration extending an authentic offer to negotiate nuclear disarmament, the removal of the heads of the Executive Branch constitutes our opportunity to change our increasingly chaotic world into something very different within a few years. To understand why I am convinced that this is as close as you can get to a political "sure thing" in this world, please roam my site, www.prophecyrevealed.info. Many thanks to the Rocky Mountain News for permitting this introduction, if indeed they do!
February 12, 2008

7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Kuka writes:

Bush and Cheney sure are afraid of impeachment. You can tell by how many of his hacks are posting on these boards.
Can you imagine how they would be executed if found guilty of War Crimes, Murder or Treason?
If they got a fair trial like Saddam got, and were convicted, I'd like to see them shot by firing squad at the base of Mt. Rushmore. Have their brains blown all over the mountain!

Let the truth come OUT, Impeach the A-holes NOW
February 12, 2008

8 p.m.

Suggest removal

Badgersrule writes:

I thought all the "moon bats" were here in Madison, WI or in Berkley, CA. I guess I was wrong. Based on what I have read in other people's comments, it appears the City Council should focus on the tough issues like crime and fostering a pro-business community (this is the way jobs are created for you liberals out there who don't understand how the economy works) versus symbolic measures. But then again, this would actually be hard work and heaven knows, the Council may have a sit-in to get to or a candle light vigil to attend!
February 12, 2008

8:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Hillarious. First Berzerkly..now Berzuolder.

Face it...this is the action of a bunch of bitter, angry, unhappy little people. Those on the left STILL havent gotten over the election of 2000 and are CONSUMED by their hatred of Bush because in their eyes he STOLE their election.

Fact...there will NEVER be impeachment proceedings at the federal level against Bush. Why? Because if you even BOTHER using your brain you can go back the last 15 years and see that the democrats were saying the EXACT SAME THING Bush has said w/ regard to Iraq, Saddam, WMDs and terrorism. If Bush lied, so did Bill, Hilly, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, and every other lead democrat in the country. If they didnt lie, neither did Bush.

Simple fact is, until we did what we did, we didnt know what we know.Bush refused to allow ANOTHER 17 resolutions to be passed and ignored.

Oh...and BTW...since we KNOW Hussein had WMDs...since we know he has USED them and since the first UNSCOM team found and documented WMD stockpiles...has anyone ever bothered to ask the question "what did he do with them?"

Maybe if there had been world leadership under the UN and the Clinton admins...we would have known the answer to that question.

In the meantime...keep chanting, railing, and howling at the moon. Hate will consume you. Good luck.
February 12, 2008

8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

carbonneutralal writes:

What a joke. Thank a soldier. Hug a soldier. Thank God that we live in a great country in spite of nutjobs like those in Boulder and the Nancy and Harry show.

In the years since the terrorists attacked us (remember - they really did attack us...), President Bush has crushed the Taliban, liberated Afghanistan, dealt severe blows to Al Qaida, and liberated Iraq. In addition, we have made great strides in the ability to peacefully inspect the nuclear capabilities of North Korea. It appears that Iran will be next to peacefully come to the table. Oh yea, Libya decided that it was in their best interest to abandon their evil ways...

Safer world? I think so.

Complain all you want. You all sound like a bunch of little spoiled children.
February 12, 2008

8:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

captain writes:

Boulder was on our short list to relocate our small company of 220 employees but with a city council like this you can kiss us goodbye. Prescott here we come.
February 12, 2008

9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

sneddog writes:

You libs are at least good for a laugh!

Impeach Bush and Cheny? How rediculous!
February 12, 2008

9:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

danger writes:

Good, as a result of this, I will set up shop in Boulder. Less conservative terrorists up in this place. You should be disgusted with yourselves for continuing to abet and support a terrorist like Bush and Cheney. People like you need to be culled and treated like morons because after 8 years you've proven unable to even zip your own pants.

by the way: http://whoisterrorizing.us?
February 12, 2008

9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

notmystate writes:

I guess this is one more place I can take off my map of places to go. So much for my Denver trips. Let's see, I removed Vermont the other day for voting about arresting Bush and Cheney - now I can remove Colorado - What the ^#^ is wrong with you people.
February 12, 2008

9:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Unzip your pants? Well...duh...thats the liberal criteria for greatness...no? Do NOTHING, exploit chubby star struck interns less their age, cheat on your wife (well...honestly...hard to blame him there-who would want to bed Hillary? I mean...besides Rosie)...but actually DO something? Fuggedabowdit!

Such simple minded fools you liberals are. I wonder...did you forget the war we declared on Serbia under a democrat president? Havent heard squadoosh from libs about that. What was your justification? Seems to me I recall Bill citing an end to genocide as your just cause. Ummm...wasnt article three (after 1-refusal to comply with UN resolutions regarding full disclosure of Iraqs WMDs and 2-Iraqs ties to global terrorism) 3-cessation of genocide against the Iraqi people by Hussein? Point of fact...while there has been some 50-100k bodies discovered in Serbia there have been some 2 to 2.5 MILLION bodies discovered in mass gaves under the Hussein regime.

Did you forget the 8 separate attacks against Iraq during the liberal presidents term?

Did you forget Carnivore and other attacks on "civil liberties" under Clinton?

no...this is blind hatred fed solely from the fact that in your eyes Bush stole your ring of power (GOLLUM!!!). You HATES him! HAAATTTEESSS him!!!!

Hilarious.

Even MORE hilarious...you still worship at the alter of Gore.
February 12, 2008

9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

UberAlan writes:

Stupid is as stupid does!

-Forrest Gump
February 12, 2008

9:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Some one asked "whats next?" Let me play seer...

What is next is the emperor with no clothes will be elected. Barrack (Just call him Jimmy Carter) will indeed pull our troops out of Iraq. Iraq will explode with bloodshed you dont even want to imagine. Iran will continue to develop nukes and go unchecked. Terrorist attacks will increase, especially when Barrack tries to 'communicate' with animals that chant their praise to Allah while they blow up women and children in their just cause. Oil prices will skyrocket. Since Barrack has NOTHING but slogans he will indeed jack up taxes on the rich, the economy will face double digit inflation (ala the Carter years), We will face economic turmoil, and hopefully we will survive four years of unchecked social spending and further enslavement of lower income folks by the left.

But I will say this. As a retired military member I will be praying every day for President Obama. I will pray every day that i am wrong and he turns out to be a Godsend. I will pray the country will thrive and the economy will grow and he will actually figure out slogans dont bring about change and neither do falling back on idiotic and proven failed democrat policies (tax and spend tax and spend). I PRAY for his and our country's success.
February 12, 2008

9:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

UberAlan writes:

Stupid is as stupid does.

-Forrest Gump

Liberals = Losers
February 12, 2008

10:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bear75056 writes:

I think that the Boulder City Council would be debating a meaningless resolution that would do no more than the venting of frustrations, but I would defend to the death their right to do so!!
February 12, 2008

10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Booey writes:

Boulder City is taking its turn with Vermont, whats next letting NAMBLA have a convention in Boulder City? Worry about the problems that affect you truly!
February 12, 2008

10:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

mountainguy writes:

I can't believe I have to pay taxes in Boulder County. Between the City Council's stupidity, the high school promoting its students having sex and engaging in drug use and the University's hatred of a potential new president because he has an R after his name, Boulder certainly doesn't deserve my hard earned money. They are a laughing stock around the country but I guess they're so stoned that they don't even realize it. What's next for this community, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad giving the commencement addresses at Boulder High and CU. I wouldn't be surprised.
February 12, 2008

10:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

ysroq writes:

"You obviously have not clue what liberal means, other than someone who opposes you."

Liberal means liberal use of government and government intervention in people's lives. It means believing, arrogantly, that the few know more about what is best than hard working, individual Americans and forcing your decisions on them rather than letting them make their own choices.
February 12, 2008

10:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

patriot2008 writes:

What an awesome explosion of impotent rage this comments page is ... your Conservative Movement, having bankrupted and divided the nation, is going down in flames ... I guess you have to vent your anger somewhere. Keep typing angrily, my poor little Republicans. It's all you have left. I'll be out in the real world, working with President Obama and other sane Americans to try to clean up the awful mess that your heroes have created.
February 12, 2008

10:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

SaneIndividual writes:

If idiots in Boulder keep electing loons, they'll keep on looking like loons to the rest of the world.

Didn't Boulder have the High School assembly last year where the kids were encouraged to have unprotected sex and to take drugs?

You people need to get down to lower altitudes every once in a while, and stop drinking so much Cool-Aid.
February 12, 2008

11:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

kansasnative writes:

Wha-wha-what!
I'll have to wait for Trey Parker and Matt Stone to make sense of this insanity for me.
February 12, 2008

11:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nette writes:

If the Boulder City Council has so much time on their hands to tackle national issues, how about we recruit them to start building a fence along the US border? At least they'd be doing something constructive!
February 12, 2008

11:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

knaws writes:

It's not like Bush or Cheney fired a few people from the travel office or engaged in a shady real estate deal years before they took office. Now THAT would be, and come to think of it WAS, grounds for impeachment. Don't you jagoffs remember how every fourth word out your mouth ten years ago was "rule of law", and bemoaning Clinton's "stonewalling"? Seems now it's "executive privilege" that rules the day. Do you suppose there's a reason Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in history? Don't tell me, the "liberal media", right?
February 12, 2008

11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

patriot...relax. You wont have to work hard. We've seen the script. Class warfare, raise taxes, destroy the economy. Its all democrats know.

Ive done quite a bit of study on Obama. His policies can be summed up thusly...

Change! Hope!

ummmm...thats pretty much all I've got.
Obama say...
Education. No child left behind was fine...just underfunded. Oooookie dokie then...who's job was it to fund it? Oh yeah...congress. (hey...seriously...its OK to steal other peoples programs...especially if you have none of your own).

Foreign Policy. Why...negotiate with the Ahmadiniwhackjobs and Sadrs of the world. Why...go work with Hugo Chavez and Castro too. Kim Il Jung has a standing invitation...2:00 tee time. Negotiate with terrorists. THATS what they respect.

Social Security. Simple. Raise taxes!

Green programs. Why...more taxes...that will do it.

At the end of the day is Carter with charisma. And I DO think he'll win. And win he does...I'll be pulling for him. I care more about my COUNTRY than my PARTY. (ummm...that would be the libertarian party BTW)
February 12, 2008

11:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

knaws writes:

Vance, your nuanced command of complex issues is breathtaking. A regular Bill Buckley you are. Say, has the cost of the Iraq war been added to the books anywhere? Hmmmm?
February 12, 2008

11:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Civility writes:

The problem with liberals is that they're all over the board. That's because they use their minds to make their own decisions unlike the conservatives who all march in lockstep with their leader. Heil Bush!
February 13, 2008

12:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

progenerate writes:

The problem with liberals is they act on emotion. The Boulder City Council and the wing nuts who parade around in front of their council room have been hit exceedingly hard by the branches as they fell out of the stupid tree.
February 13, 2008

2:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Firefly writes:

There is no doubt that the protestors would support the wars in the mideast if they had originated by their side. How do I know? Because in 1998 President Clinton, in a nationwide address, advised the people of his intent to remove Saddam and place a democratic government in his place. The democrats applauded until their hands were raw. The democrats hoped we would forget that but, as President Bush implemented the Clinton war plan, their lust for power for their side couldn't have support for Republicans.

What it is these democrats lust for power greatly enough to lie terribly about the innocent for, is to influence the legislature into accepting irresponsible and inconsiderate lifestyles as the norm, and at the right time to make the laws necessary to make morality illegal in the United States. This would get the cops off your backs-----society be damned-----and everyone could thereafter fend for themselves: The very definition of an ungoverned people; the destroying of ours or any constitution.
February 13, 2008

3:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Budzrite writes:

The radical left-wing extremists will never get over it. Their man failed to steal an election by stuffing the ballot boxes and attempt to deny the vote to American Servicemen in Florida. Their response has been unbridled anger and irrational hatred. Then they offered a known traitor who was also defeated. That is what this is all about. They lost and they just can't cope. Thank God for George Bush. I hope our next president is as good. (Yes that means no Obama or Hillary).
February 13, 2008

4:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rudeseal writes:

It's amazing how much HATE and INTOLERANCE is exhibited by these Liberal Democrats on a DAILY basis. They talk about equality yet they are the most racist and and hateful people you will ever meet. They do NOT represent the people, instead they dictate to the people what they should think, say, eat, live, and die. They ignore our laws and constitutions for their personal power and glory. They represent Socialist Anti-American Liberal Hate Groups and not Freedom Loving Americans.
February 13, 2008

4:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rudey writes:

There's a reason Mork from Ork landed in Boulder. No one would think he's at all strange and he could easily blend in with the local population.
February 13, 2008

5:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

rayban14 writes:

Here is an example of a few pot heads trying to control a large group of idiots.
February 13, 2008

6:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Knaws...

Fine...discuss the cost of the Iraq war...by all means. Have you considered the cost of our last 3 years in Serbia/Bosnia? I mean...as long as you are being consistent!

But hey...cost, while being a VERY valid issue, is not the point. NOR I might add is it a reason to go or not to go to war. So...

Is combating genocide a valid reason to go to war? If no...then where was the left when Clinton took us to Serbia?

DID Hussein fail to comply with the 17 UN resolutions demanding full disclosure of the disposition of WMDs?

DID Hussein encourage, finance, and in fact harbor terrorists in Iraq?

Those are the three points laid out to the world.

I personally respect that Bush doesnt govern based on which direction the wind of public opinion is blowing. However, I dont like his spending and out of control government growth. Valid points to discuss for the next election-but the only people that would seek impeachment are bitter angry unhappy little people on the left.
February 13, 2008

6:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rangerjoe1 writes:

This is great more advertisement for Colorado, "Come see a real Hippie Zoo" Hey America come see "thirty-six square miles, surrounded by reality" One more thing Boulder city council why the ban on residential building and not one on the commercial building down town, I hear some big fat pay offs to the city council, MEMBERS. Any way come visit Boulder, America its alot of fun here at Colorados living ZOO.
February 13, 2008

6:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

sorry...dropped 10...that should have read...the last 13 (THIRTEEN) years in Serbia/Bosnia.

I laugh out loud any time I see a poster claim democrats "think for themselves." Really??? I had a pretty clear demonstration of liberal mindset in action in SantaFe just a week and a half ago. Rabid Obama supporters trying to rally support for their guy. Asked them a simple question...HOW will he bring about this mythical change. What I got back was slogans and campaign rhetoric. So...I asked again...Great...change...now...HOW? More of the same. Finally they gave up and accused me of just being ignorant and blindly supporting Hillary (hey...it was Santa Fe...there are none but liberals there...right?). I laughed and walked away.

Liberals are nothing if not predictable. All you have to do is pull their string.
February 13, 2008

6:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

rkolk writes:

I'm glad that the Boulder community is so bored that it has time to take up such meaningless requests. I'll be sure to bypass the Boulder community the next time I visit Colorado.
February 13, 2008

6:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Now...Knaws...you have to at LEAST be honest...

Clinton wasnt impeached for shady land deals or the white house travel office fiasco (or hiding the Rose Law firm records, or using government resources to go after political enemies, or hiring an uncleared individual and giving him access to just under a thousand classified FBI files, or any of the other myriad of dirty tricks held by Bill and co).

Now...Bill was impeached for lying under oath. Circumstances baby...

Bill was on civil trial for sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Ms Jones claimed (and was backed up by 'members' of Clinton's personal 'staff' that while working on his campaign, Jones was asked to go to candidate Clinton's room and discuss the next days strategy. When she knocked on the door she was told to come in. She found Bill sitting on a couch, facing her, his sweatpants down around his ankles and a towel over his lap. He was playing with himself. When she opened the door Bill stood up, let the towel drop to the floor, and asked her to "kiss it." That was text of the complaint against Bill.

During that trial the plaintiff attempted to show a pattern of behavior consistent with the charged behavior. The question of the relationship with Lewinsky was raised and Clinton, under oath, denied having a relationship.

Of course...the Lewinsky accusations were the best thing that could have happened to Bill. All anyone talks about know is the consensual nature of the relationship...not the fact that he was cheating on his wife, that he routinely targeted people like Lewinsky for sexual and power gratification, certainly not the context of the Jones trial, nor of the allegations of groping Kathleen Wiley on the day of her husbands funeral, nor the rape of Juanita Broderick.

Dont bring stupid things up if you dont want to have your nose rubbed in it like a puppy.
February 13, 2008

6:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

coachtugger writes:

America is ridiculous, they buy into this 24 hour news cycle and are so influenced by idiotic shows, such as, The O'Reilly (creepy, dirty old man) Factor & Countdown (to gay sex) with Keith Olbermann. We are becoming fat, ignorant, and lazy. The lack of knowledge on the issues is stifling, just canned one liners with no depth. We are heading down a path toward socialism. I don't know how Obama is going to change the situation of the poor in our country without mandating a change in behavior (take away people's freedom to be losers). McCain is a loose cannon. Thank God the office is overrated (like reality TV...reason so many goofy ignorant young people are involved)...also, a technique of Islam is deception (Barack Hussein Obama)
February 13, 2008

6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

knaws writes:

Vance, your point(or whichever scattershot generalization you were throwing around) was how to fund no child left behind. And several hundred billion dollars buys a couple of school books. And hospitals. Even though Halliburton wouldn't put a dime toward a rehab hospital for the troops despite making a killing in Iraq.
"DID Hussein encourage, finance, and in fact harbor terrorists in Iraq?"
Maybe a couple. DID SAUDI ARABIA?
"DID Hussein fail to comply with the 17 UN resolutions demanding full disclosure of the disposition of WMDs?" Big fan of the U.N. all of a sudden are we? Next thing you'll say is he violated the Geneva Conventions. What if he had complied? THERE WERE NO WMD'S THERE!!
"Is combating genocide a valid reason to go to war? If no...then where was the left when Clinton took us to Serbia?" Man, you really stay on "point". Clinton ain't the president and hasn't been for the better part of a decade. Genocide wasn't why we invaded Iraq. You know exactly what the reasons were and that they were all lies. You know all this Vance. I'm gonna make some coffee, you go back to your little Drudge report and your little Fox news. You're a waste of my time.
February 13, 2008

7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

knaws writes:

Thanks for the laugh. I overlooked the REAL reason he was impeached. Say, does directing the Justice dept to fire prosecutors count as "using government sources to go after political enemies"?

Don't tell me, you "don't remember, senator".
February 13, 2008

7:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Knaws...yer a hoot. Pathetic as a debater...but a hoot nonetheless.

If you had stated your object to the cost of the war was that the money could be better applied to programs like no child left behind...that might have helped. You may have noted in my comment...the funding issue is CERTAINLY a viable point to debate. However...since there seems to be plenty of money for virtually every other program under the sun, then it stands to reason congress (that body of which Obama is a member of) could have found the necessary funding for NCLB.

Andohbytheway...since you brought it up...guess when Haliburton was awarded the no bid IDIQ that it operates under...and if you guess back during the Clinton administration...you'd either be very good at guessing or have figured it out in the past. SINCE you brought it up.

Stay on point? The point was impeachment. I have been pointing out inconsistencies in the impeachment argument-thats all.

Impeach Bush for taking us to war for the cause of Genocide? Good luck. For 'lying' about WMDs? Good luck...every democrat for the last 15 years has held the position that Iraq possessed WMDs. Clinton launched several air assaults because of that argument.

As to the ties to global terrorism...1-the Iraqi government was funding terrorism. 2-While terrorists certainly come from Saudi Arabia (they also come from the USA), the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is heavily invested in fighting terrorism. At least they were the last 3 trips I made there. 3-that doesnt refute the argument that Iraq and Hussein WERE in fact paying for terrorist acts, were harboring known terrorists, and were housing terrorist training camps.
February 13, 2008

7:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

You say emphatically "THERE WERE NO WMD'S THERE!!" I say...fine...what happened to them? What happened to the 16 tones of developed chemical weapons the UNSCOM inspection teams documented following the first gulf war? What happened to the 17 tons of missing biological spores? What happened to the over 500 known WMD delivery vehicles? Hussein had been generating chemical weapons since at least the 70's. We know he had them. We know he used some of them. So...what happened to them? Perhaps with world leadership in the 90's we would know the answer to that question. However...the point is relevant. The REASON the UN PASSED 17 SEPARATE resolutions is that every intel agency in the WORLD believed, based on previous inspections, that Iraq had WMDs. He was obligated to disclose whereabouts or disposition under threat of war. He refused.

Even if he had his people dump them in the desert we would at least be able to track residue. So..the question remains...what happened to the weapons we KNOW he had? All he had to do was answer that question.

As for the relevance of Clinton and Bosnia...well...isnt the relevance obvious? Its not about Clinton..its about YOU and the idiotic left. If you support Clintons war in Bosnia without question and then open season attack Bush's actions in Iraq, its not Clinton that is being hypocritical...it is YOU.
February 13, 2008

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Knaws...there you go AGAIN.

It wasnt ABOUT using the federal machine to attack political enemies. If it was there would have been much more bloodshed in the Clinton admin.

And I LOVE that you laugh off the predatory nature of rape and sexual assault. Now...if it was someone like...oh...say Republican senator Bob Packwood squeezing a secretary's butt at a Christmas party...well...he is an affront to womanhood...nail him to the cross...but hey...it's not...it's just Bubba bein' Bubba.

I was just making sure you got your facts straight.

And BTW...there is a REASON I left both main parties several years ago. You wont get me defending Bush. Or for that matter attacking Clinton. I just point out the idiocy of their politically and ideologically bent attackers.
February 13, 2008

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

patriot2008 writes:

Vance, your "quite a bit of study" of Obama's proposals is every bit as impressive as your knowledge of our govt's expenditures on Iraq vs. the Balkans. In other words, you spend too much time typing, and not enough time reading.

Keep it up, though -- as long as you and similar right-wing Internet Tough Guys are flailing around in sandboxes like this, it'll keep you out of the real political process.
February 13, 2008

7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jimmie writes:

Ease up folks...after Boulder impeaches the President of the United States they are going to ban snowing...thats right folks you will never have to shovel snow again thanks to the all great and all powerfull Boulder leaders....no we won't be laughing with you we will be laughing at you...on the serious side if they get the above done they are thinking of making everyone in Boulder wear pink clothing right down to the underwear....will be sort of cute don't you think.....
February 13, 2008

7:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Quick...without trying to Google it...enlighten us. TELL ME how Obama is going to bring about this great message of hope and change. Tell me how he will resolve the immigration problem, foreign relations problem, 'fix' the economy, etc etc etc.

I'd LOVE to see the answers. I'm tired of the slogans.

And once again...in case you missed it. if he is elected...I will be CHEERING for his success. MY COUNTRY depends on it. I could not give a tinkers damn about party.
February 13, 2008

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnHKennedy writes:

Our group the Impeach Colorado Coalition is calling for Congress to immediately begin holding public hearings on impeachment to consider the evidence for passing articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. As most any American can tell you Vice President Cheney and President Bush are the most impeachable in US history. They have violated the Constitution and their oath of office more than any previous US president. Clinton damaged the honor of the office of president. Cheney and Bush threaten our Constitution, the Separation Of Powers and our individual rights. I'll just mention Bush's 700 plus signing statements, WMD lies that got American soldiers killed and maimed for nothing in Iraq, the wiretapping and outing of a covert CIA agent for political gain.

We believe that Cheney should be impeached first to offset the claim that if Bush were impeached then Cheney would become president. In fact the only impeachment bills that exist in Congress (H Res 333 & H Res 799) seek to impeach only Cheney. If Cheney is impeached the trail will lead to Bush but it must start with Cheney. Some activists that seek to impeach Bush first know that to suggest impeaching Bush kills the public discussion because so many Americans fear a Cheney presidency (so are those activists possibly trying to stop impeachment).

The Boulder City Council needs to join with US Rep. Wexler of Florida who is a member of the US House Judiciary Committee and who is a proponent of immediately holding impeachment hearings in the Committee. Please see his website at
http://WexlerWantsHearings.com Rep. Wexler will on Friday present a letter signed by many of his House colleagues and over 227,103 Americans asking the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment hearings. That's 227,103! Impeachment will happen. All of us should go to his website before Friday and sign up in support of hearings. Wexler knows that there is So Much Evidence that just holding hearings will force the Committee to act on impeachment. Currently H Res 333 has 24 House co-sponsors. The same number as during the effort to impeach Nixon. The reasons for impeachment today are important because the Cheney/Bush threat to our way life is far more dangerous than Nixon's.

Our group hopes that the Boulder City Council will pass a resolution asking our Colorado US Representatives to request the House Judiciary Committee to immediately begin holding public hearings on the possible impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Those who took an oath to protect the US Constitution can do no less. Almost every US and Colorado official takes such an oath. Thank you for your courage.

John H Kennedy Denver,CO Organizer
Impeach Colorado Coalition
http://ImpeachCo.com

..
February 13, 2008

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
February 13, 2008

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
February 13, 2008

8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
February 13, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
February 13, 2008

8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Like the song says..."Line em up."

If you want to seriously start impeachment hearings regarding what you believe are lies...well...we'll be seeing a whole lot of dems out of work.

Just sayin...
February 13, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

coachtugger writes:

Kennedy, you need to get a life, you're an idiot. People like Obama and Hillary (politically correct crowd) will take many more rights away then Bush/Cheney. These courageous tough guys use these powers to protect your fag ass from Muslims that want to chop your head off (first...they hate secular progressives the most).
Plus, if they are so restrictive toward rights then why do you get to continue with your stupidity?
February 13, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Aw c'mon coach....name calling just plays into it.

Your POINT is so much more valid. What a country we live in...opressing all these peoples rights and freedom of speech. Why...how many hundreds of thousands have Vonnegut, Penn, et al made traveling the country expressing their hatred for Bush, America, and oh yeah...bemoaning their loss of freedom of speech.

Man...we sure do have a weird way of taking peoples free speech...paying them to appear at college campuses...protecting and investing in the internet...free access to PBS...etc etc etc...
February 13, 2008

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Why are people who listen to Rush called dittoheads?
February 13, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

opusuno writes:

What Boulder does aside, the arguments on this post are less than impressive. It's pretty evident nobody knows, or cares about the Constitution and over reaching authority of government. Read Bruce Fein http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feat... And even you right wing nuts will have to admit if the show was on the other foot.. Imagine (I know there is limited capacity for such) just imagine if it were a Dem doing what BushCo is doing and ask yourself if you'd be making the same idiot cases.

Impeachment is the option Madison put in place to stop tyrants.. No matter what party they belong to. It's about checks and balances, but it's obvious you people all flunked civics.

As for the post that says they wouldn't send her kids to CU?? That's about as ridiculous a statement as there is.. Shouldn't that be their choice? Anyway, with parenting like that I would bet your kids aren't bright enough to get into any college, much less CU.
February 13, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

coachtugger writes:

The Senate rejected a series of amendments that would have restricted the government’s surveillance powers and eliminated immunity for the phone carriers, and it voted in convincing fashion — 69 to 29 — to end debate and bring the issue to a final vote. That vote on the overall bill was an almost identical 68 to 29.

You lefties are bull sh#t
February 13, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Why Charles...

first, the cut and paste follows a good half dozen original posts. the cut and paste shows unedited democrat comments regarding WMDs.

Shoe on the other foot? Well...apparently the shoe IS on the other foot. Clinton attacked Iraq citing Iraqs WMDs. he was either lying or mistaken or right. You make the call...I'll cede to your decision. Seriosuly...all those democrats were either lying or mistaken or right. Make the call...but the call has to be consistent. If Bush is lying all the dems are lying and ALL deserve impeachment. If they are all (Bush included) is just mistaken...then there are no grounds for impeachment.

If they are RIGHT...what is the complaint other than the fact that one is a dem and one is a rep?

And the facts BTW are simple and obvious. 3 points. 1-Genocide...undeniable. 2-Iraqs ties to global terrorism...undeniable. 3-Iraqs refusal to comply w/ UN resolution...again...undeniable.
February 13, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh...and btw...I wont vote for McCain. I will (have) vote for Paul. It wont matter. I wont cast a vote, but I think 9and almost hope) a dem will win.
February 13, 2008

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

coachtugger writes:

Hey Chucky B ...just like we are in South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Germany, Turkey, etc., etc. We go were we are needed and stay as long as we are needed. You and your blind hatred for Bush because of your political affiliation takes you out of the debate. There is a force in the world today known as Islam that doesn't care if you are a partisan Democrat. They want to chop your head off you moron infidel. The only WMD is Islam and Iraq is the perfect wedge country in that entire cesspool of Islam, so until we convince those women hating towel heads that if they try and impose their twisted religion on us or our allies...we will kick their ass! (where were you on 9/11?)
February 13, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

patriot2008 writes:

Vance said:
"Quick...without trying to Google it...enlighten us. TELL ME how Obama is going to bring about this great message of hope and change. Tell me how he will resolve the immigration problem, foreign relations problem, 'fix' the economy, etc etc etc."

Why should we do your research for you?
February 13, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

bwest writes:

This is why I do not spend one cent in Boulder, they are a bunch of elitests who sit under the shade tree while the rest of us build and grow the U.S.
February 13, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_B

Your hatred and ignorance know no bounds. You so love to use the Term "That would say a lot about you." or a version of it. How ironic that it applies so much better to you than to those to whom you utter it.
February 13, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

coachtugger writes:

Chucky,
Cheney supports you homos (his daughter is one)...another reason you hate religion (comparing Islam and Christianity shows what an ignorant person you are---obviously you've never been outside San Francisco...I would love to beam your tender ass to Saudi Arabia). The immunity is so that scummy lawyers don't tie the hands of the companies who are helping to protect your ass. You live in such an insulated drama queen world that you just don't get it. There is way too much chatter on the Islamic front to listen to your conversations about where the dinner party is tonight. And there is enough over sight (in congressional committees) that this technique can never be abused (except in some politico's mind)
February 13, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

The left is so angry about what they think was a rigged election in 2000 that they cannot get over it. Bush's reelection just infuriated them even more. They will do anything and everything to get him out of office, even if it destroys the country.

the left only wants to appear help the little guy, the misfortuned and the disadvantaged only to garner votes. But the people of Iraq dont vote, so it is easier to say Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands there. Your lies and tactics had made the situation in Iraq worse, and you are responsible for the length of the after-war and deaths of both US soldiers and Iraqi citizens. But because of the efforts of our men and the desire for freedom of the Iraqi people the situation has turned around. Now we need to be careful not just of Al-Qaeda, but left wing politics in Iraq.
February 13, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Charles B is defending one of our Constitutional rights. In turn, he's getting called "you homo" and living in a "drama queen world."

His detractors can't even stick to the points of a real issue that has just taken away one of the freedoms we're supposedly fighting for.

Charles B, keep speaking out for this country, even if some of our fellow citizens can't resist the urge to insult you for doing so. You're a true American in my book.
February 13, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brad writes:

anderson
You asked at 10:58 on 2/12 "You obviusly have not clue what lberal means." To me it means broad-minded,tolerant,generous, and openhanded. Calling people names like "pimps" and "idiots" it does not sound like a liberal to me.
February 13, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Toyman writes:

To Little to Late~ I'd say you need your heads examined. But then it is Boulder!
February 13, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Toyman writes:

For all you POSTERS or IMPOSTERS... I suggest that you keep within the context of the story , instead of the banter between individuals that neither will help nor direct change in individual thinking. We are who we are. Stupid people recognize themselves in the mirror , so no need to point it out. What really is going on here is the failure of government in Boulder. Perhaps they have taken their training from Washington DC.
February 13, 2008

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

coachtugger writes:

good stuff toyman...sorry Chuck
February 13, 2008

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

leisulin writes:

All these comments about Boulder remind me of the reaction toward France (one of the few countries with the courage and conviction to refuse to participate in this ill-conceived, dishonestly undertaken, and galactically wasteful war) by the massive throng of morons out there who insisted we rename French fries to "freedom fries" and who poured all that good French wine down the drain in protest...
February 13, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

leisulin:
The French were against the invasion of Iraq, just as Russia was. They knew they would get caught in the illegal sale of arms to Saddam, and they were caught. They didnt have any courage, they were protecting their own ass.
February 13, 2008

12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

denver_dog writes:

This movement is a day late, and a dollar short.
Time and money better spent elseware!
February 13, 2008

1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Geof writes:

Can we impeach the idiots who keep defending him, too? Maybe the punishment would be to send them to Texass just as it succeeds from the Union. Ahh, the dream that may one day be.
February 13, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Alive writes:

The difference between liberals and conservatives...hummmmm.

Not much on some things, but I have noticed that liberals DEMAND respect where conservatives usally seek to earn it.

Many, but not all, conservatives blame only themselves when things go wrong in their life. Liberals tend to blame others for their woes (Mostly conservatives.).

Moderates have the real value, generally they are the busy people that make the whole thing work. They generate the money that the greedy rich and the lazy "gimmes" need. The middle class is the lifeblood of both groups.

The rich will do nothing to care for the "entitled" when the middle class is gone. And both camps seem hell bent to make that happen.

Next time you step into that Gulfstream jet, or get free medical care down at the clinic, thank a middle class person.

LOL! Like that would ever happen!
February 13, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_b

Please try counting one more time I denounced your verbiage as hatred once. Therefore your utterance of "keep repeating" is once again something you have said that is in error!

You "Despise all religions"

"you are such a coward"

|Posted by Charles_B on February 13, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VanceMack:

By the way, the ability to cut and paste only makes your argument look shallow.

This after you "cut and pasted many things stated by other posters and put them out of context in an attack on their beliefs."

Oh and you only made this comment after I let you know that repeating what people say only makes you look stupid.

The only swamp that needs draining is the one between your ears. You seem to think your an expert on how to wage a war on terrorism, you have the gull to talk to me (someone who helped put hundreds of his fellow Marines in body bags after the event) about the Beirut bombing, you claim to know everything about haw to govern a nation at war. Yet you don't have the balls to join the military, run for an elected office or do anything at all to help your country. The only reason you are able to run-off at the mouth (the only thing you are willing to do) is because good men and women fought and died to preserve that right for you! Whether I agree or disagree with you is not the point, their are many fine Americans I disagree with who earned the right to their opinion by serving this Great Nation, until you EARN the respect of the rest of us, by doing likewise, SHUT YOU PIE-HOLE!
February 13, 2008

2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Devil_Dog informs Charles B: "The only reason you are able to run-off at the mouth (the only thing you are willing to do) is because good men and women fought and died to preserve that right for you! Whether I agree or disagree with you is not the point, their are many fine Americans I disagree with who earned the right to their opinion by serving this Great Nation, until you EARN the respect of the rest of us, by doing likewise, SHUT YOU PIE-HOLE!"

Hmmm...he tells Charles B that his right to "run off at the mouth" is because of soldiers like Devil_Dog, then he tells Charles B to shut his mouth. That makes a lot of sense.

Devil Dog, are you telling us that only soldiers have the right to an opinion in this country? Are you telling us that only soldiers are defending our rights to free speech and free rights? What about the civil rights activists who marched and demanded desegregation, equal voting rights, equal pay, and a host of other "equalities for all"?

What about the millions of Americans who every day call and write to legislators, who hold the feet of legislators to the fire to protect our American rights? Have they earned a right to an opinion in your book?

Is serving in the armed forced the only valid way of serving this country - in your book?

I thank you for putting your life at risk as a serviceman, but I am not sure what motivated you to do so, based on your telling a fellow American he doesn't have a right to an opinion.
February 13, 2008

2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Charles_B

You claim that you know me however, you say I do not know you.

This only proves you are a hypocrite and a fool!

Because something does not pass the test of a fool does not make it any less credible.

Until you have something to offer society, other than your personal test as to whether something is right or wrong, please discontinue your uneducated discourse.

Try going out into the real world and learn something first-hand. Try gaining some experiences to base your opinions upon. Try doing something other than denigrate those who are doing something to preserve this country for the ingrates like you. You offer nothing to society, you are merely a drain on it's kindness and resources.

To make this very simple for you:

PUT-UP OR SHUT-UP
February 13, 2008

3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...you said the ONLY difference between the war Clinton got us in and the war Bush got us in was that Clinton got us into a war we could win.

Excuse me...a points of clarification. The war Bush got us in was the war against Iraq. The war against the Hussein led government in Iraq. In case you missed it...that war ended in 2003. We didnt just win...we kicked ASS handily. Despite the half witted comments of Ted Kennedy and the best efforts of the liberals in this country, we defeated Hussein and his military in slightly less than a month.

Today we support a duly elected constitutionally represented government in Iraq. Today we train police officers. We train and fight side by side with their military. Not perfect...but unless you missed it...it took decades to help the Germans and Japanese recover from WW2. SO yeah...it might take a while to help people who have never KNOWN freedom to understand it and earn it for themselves. Of course...if we were unitied from the beginning instead of having elected democrats since the beginning talk about how we cant win...well...imagine how much further we would be today.

Today we are engaged in mil ops against terrorists. Let me ask you...is that REALLY a 'war' you are willing to quit? You REALLY want to let the terrorists win? I can spend the next day or two posting articles of the inhuman attrocities commited by these muslim extremists...acts that will make Abu Grahb look like a cotillion. These animals (not all muslims...the extremist factions of muslims) slaughter for fun. Shall I tell you a detailed account of what a group of muslim terrorists did to a couple and their 12, 7, and 5 year old daughters...in TIBET for Gods sake? How is your stomache? I wont go into details...just suffice to say that each terrorist one by one raped, tortured, mutilated, and disected the children in front of their parents, then the parents. And as horrible as it was...Those arent the DETAILS of what they did.

Or the schoolchildren beheaded in India.

or...

oh...whats the use.Negotiate with them...go ahead.
February 13, 2008

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VanceMack:
I have been making the point for over a year that the war is over. You have made excellent points, backed with provable data. Anyone else making comments without facts is just a whiner!
February 13, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack,

Yes, terrorists do despicable things, and as a mother, I can tell you just reading your description of what happened to that family is heartbreaking. Since this happened in Tibet, why aren't we also over there fighting terrorism? Why aren't we in Saudi Arabia - where most of the 9/11 terrorists were from - fighting terrorism and instilling democracy THERE?

I am pretty sure we are spending way more money on Iraq than we are in Afghanistan. I am pretty sure we have more troops in Iraq, too. Why? The most well-known terrorist in the world supposedly is hiding out in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

I feel these are valid questions about the war on terrorism, yet anyone who has the temerity to ask them is called an unpatriotic terrorist-lover.
February 13, 2008

3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Vance_Mack

Sad to say you're wasting your time with C_B, he does exactly what he states is wrong with my treatment of him and when I point this out to him and suggest he actually try to do something positive for this country his response is "Thank you for proving my point."

He is not capable of understanding what is going on in the world outside of his protected little area. Any action taken to prevent murderous thugs from invading our country in mass is a worthy undertaking. But the privileged people like C_B cannot possibly comprehend the sacrifices made by the people that provide their freedom. I have challenged C_B to join the ranks of those who have earned the right to be free, he chooses to ignore this challenge by hiding behind word games. " I know you but you don't know me" What childish behavior.
February 13, 2008

4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

BMat writes:

Never mind that college co-eds are getting raped and bludgeoned to death on Pearl Street.

Let's make sure we pass a resolution with no teeth and no effect at all about some lame duck president that has about 12 months to go before he's in the books like the 42 before him.
February 13, 2008

4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

The biggest enemies this country has is C_B and all like him! All mouth no action. No matter what the reason for it or where the war is waged you can bet C_B will be hiding behind someone's skirt flapping his lips as to why it's the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. If all Americans thought as he does America would not be here today and C_B wouldn't be alive to vomit out his ignorant drivel. I am not a fearmongerer nor a warmongerer but I will not allow bullies, thugs and terrorists to come to my country and kill my family. I wouldn't even let them kill C_B or his misguided followers, but that is the main difference between C_B and I. I actually am willing to do something other that bitch and moan. Once again C_B I call upon you to back-up your words and do something for someone other than yourself. Serve your country not your ego!
February 13, 2008

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Civility writes:

Actually Cheney got it right .... well in 1994. Check it out for your self! https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheneyv...
February 13, 2008

5 p.m.

Suggest removal

Civility writes:

Charles_B is serving his country by speaking out. Thank God for him and President Eisenhower who spoke out with his farewell address in 1961. That shows that not all Republican Presidents were bad. With the comments on this page, he would probably be considered a liberal commie. You can check out his farewell address at www.whywefight.com

Also check out Karen's story on the lower right who served her country for 20 years and see what she says.
February 13, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

I am convinced God doesn't like the tree-huggers, he's trying to erradicate them with the Pine Beetle. No trees, no tree huggers. They're a comin' around the mountain, Boulder's next on the list. Devine intervention, His backhand is sure ugly! Go God go!
February 13, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

louriez46 writes:

Yeah, you go Boulder!
February 13, 2008

6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

my2cents...

I think the answer is obvious as to why we arent more effectively battling terror everywhere. How can we when liberals in this country are hell bent on banging the drums of defeat at home?

Oh...I have no doubt that if we as a country allowed our political ideologies to stick to economy and borders but we were actually united with regard to national security, we could indeed have a MUCH greater impact and likely at half the cost. The extremists fight because they believe they can win...because our democrat politicians TELL them they are.
February 13, 2008

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

DD...I do think it is a little different for those that have served in those countries and seen it first hand. I highly doubt any of the libs would remain convinced they could bargain and negotiate with terrorists if they had seen what I personally have seen and what I assume you have as well. It becomes a little more than "they are jealous of our freedoms" and a lot more of "sorry...those are simply some hate filled sadistic bastards that would love nothing more than to slaughter a handful of women and children on their way to meet Allah...and you know what...I think we ought to do more to arrange the meeting."

Ive got no problem with people speaking their piece. Truth be told...I havent been too happy with any of our choices for president in a long long time. Still...I served under Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2. I supported Clinton every bit as fervently as I supported Reagan, primarily because I know how the gig works and the second the military decides to pick and choose which leaders they support...well...so long democracy.

I honestly dont see a dimes worth of difference in most politicians. 2 sides of the same coin. I expect it. I just have very little tolerance for the hypocrisy. Hold Bush to the same standard you held Clinton...no more, no less. If people did that we would still have disagreement, but, hell...thats a GOOD thing. Thats how we grow.
February 13, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...really...Pollyanna???

Just who the hell do you think it is killing those 10s of thousands of people Charles? The very same people you want to turn the country over to. In your zeal to hate Bush...you really truly CANT be that stupid can you? I dont mean that as an insult...I'm quite serious...you CANT be that stupid...can you be?

Or do you suppose it is the US soldiers planting IEDs, blowing up markets, souks, schools, hospitals, fuel lines, power plants, etc?
February 13, 2008

6:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack - thanks for taking the cheap way out of answering my questions.

Does anyone else see where this is going? Anyone that objects to how the war on terror is being fought is going to be blamed for its failures.
February 13, 2008

6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Civility...as on of the first 5,000 sent in as "the tripwire" I can tell you that Cheney was right on in 1994. Our Arab advisors were very direct and communicative. They had no problem with the coalition presence during the first Gulf war. Our mission directives were clear. We werent there to kill their brother, we were there to police their brother. Had we at the time them engaged full on, our own advisors stated they would turn on us in a heartbeat. Its the concept of Arab brotherhood. We would have had some 300,000 plus with enemies on all sides.

In 2002 things were a little different. Not much...but a little. The Emirates were tired of Saddam. The Kuwaitis have long been tired of Iran. The Saudi royal family saw Saddams ties to terrorism as an opening to Bin Laden to reignite his war against the Saudi royals. So...in 2002 they were pretty much told what was going to happen and their response this time was pretty much...meh...whatever.

Something else to consider...in 1991 we had every reason to assume the UN would follow through with the disarming sanctions. We certainly had no expectation that our 'allies' the French, Germans, and even the Russians (well...I think we expected it from the Russians) would sell Saddam banned weapons, would make him rich off the oil for food program, and on and an. Even American companies got into the act. So when 2002 rolled around and he still hadnt complied with UN resolutions and he was still sponsoring terrorism...well...time for him to go and there wasnt the Arab opposition.

As for the 20 year comm officer...apparently she missed the memo's that showed the democrats and other world leaders all believed the same thing. The quotes in the movie clip from republicans were no different than the quotes from democrats. The only difference of course is that the creator of the movie had one desire...produce a slanted and biased bio against Bush and 'war'. Funny...they were pretty quiet for Clintons 8 years, all the Hollywood peaceniks...

Oh...and BTW...I concur...bust your hump, pay taxes, be a good citizen...every American has a job to do...some of us just choose to do it a little different. I have no problem with ANYONE on the left speaking their mind. Heck...some of my own positions are so 'liberal' they might shock folks. All I have ever stood for is honesty and not hypocrisy.
February 13, 2008

6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

2cents...how was that a cheap way out of answering your question? DO we ALL acknowledge there are terror acts occurring around the world? I hope so. Would we ALL like to do something about all of it? Well...lets be honest...no. Not ALL of us. There are a significant number of people that care more about the party of their ideology's return to power than they care about unifying to combat evil. So consequently...it wont happen.

You MAY be surprised to know however that we DO have a significant number of advisers working in many of those smaller countries providing them training and intel to do whatever we can to fight terrorism.

Lets all so be honest...the bucket only holds so much water. We have to do what we can, with what we have, where we can.

Not sure how much more plain spoken I can be. Do YOU REALLY want to see us combat terrorism and do what we can to stop the types of atrocities that I described (that occur daily)? If so...well...your voice on the left would be a good start. If not...and you just want to "score points"...well...tahst sort of what I have seen as the problem.

So...MY position is plain as day Ive spoke it and Ive lived it. Ive spent 4 years in different parts of the middle east. Whats YOURS? Do we fight terrorism wherever and whenever?
February 13, 2008

6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

2cents...you know...you made me pause...so I had to go back and reread your initial post. Now I'm left with...'huh???'

OK...so YOU are saddened by what occurs...YOU acknowledge that terror attacks occur daily. You would LIKE to (apparently) see us attack terrorism EVERYWHERE...yet since that isn't happening, apparently we shouldn't be doing what we ARE or CAN.

Does that nail it down?

Or put it less bitingly...just what is YOUR ideas? What is YOUR plan?

And BTW...crawl down off your cross...no one accused you of being unpatriotic. Thats one of those asinine liberal soundbites and it is very sad, and very tired, and very untrue, and very very very old.
February 13, 2008

7:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

holtwork writes:

Least we forget the former Boulder Mayor and wife in their attempt to steal land from another citizen:

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/de...

The arrogance of these so called public servants...
February 13, 2008

7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

wilson5 writes:

The Boulder-hate seems to be confined to Colorado residents from the white suburbs and O'Reilly watchers. The nation as a whole has a generally positive view of Boulder. If you want to get a strong response, ask someone from another state how they feel about Tom Tancredo and whether he gives Colorado residents a good name or a bad name.
February 13, 2008

8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...Are you a Clinton because you are HILLYarious!

I have never made a bullying statement. In point of fact I have stated plainly I do not bash Bush, Clinton, or others. When I saw folks making attacking arguments I pointed out that the personal attacks were ineffective. I'm not going to play playground monitor, but I DID point it out to those from 'my' side...as if there is 1 side.

The ONLY thing you can point to as possibly being a 'bully' statement is my comment that you cant be as stupid as your position infers. I even pointed out then that I didnt intend it as a personal attack.

YOU stated that excuse YOU but YOU must have missed that the war was over. Indeed...Charles...YOU did miss it. The war against Iraq ended in 2003. We fight beside, train with, support, and sustain the Iraqi government and people. Yep...indeed. YOU have missed it.

YOU claim 10s of thousands of people still die. I agree. I ask...just who is it YOU think are killing those 10s of thousands of people? If it is not the US, then it must be the 'enemy' that we now face. And who is that enemy? Terrorists. And how would YOU propose we combat those terrorists Charles. IF YOU actually have a better plan I would LOVE to hear it.

I would absolutely LOVE to see how YOU would negotiate with animals that are beyond reason. I'm SURE YOU have some skills and powers heretofore unseen that would reach people that rape and slaughter innocent men, women, and children in Allah's glorious cause. I'm SURE you have a way to do so that is loving and humane and wont present to those animals a position of weakness.

Tell me...I'm ALL EARS.
February 13, 2008

8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh...and bytheway...what was it you said about cutting and pasting OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS? ;-)

"By the way, the ability to cut and paste only makes your argument look shallow"

LOVE to actually hear YOUR positions
February 13, 2008

8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

SamInGA writes:

It's sad that there's even a reason for me to be sitting here wasting my time reading these blogs, but even sadder is the reason they are posted at all. Will Democrats never get it? I think not.
February 13, 2008

8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

OhioJoe writes:

Right after you pass your resolution, print it out and take it down the hall and wipe your butt with it, that's about all it's worth. Council's are not able to impeach and don't have anything to do with it, what morons. Why don't you all get in a van and go to one of the seven weasels that hold the position of US House Representative for Colorado to do it? Quote "In 2006, the council approved a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and in 2003, the council passed a resolution opposing the invasion." Like that frickin worked! I'm not from Colorado but I thought even if you are a liberal you'd have some common sense!
February 13, 2008

8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh...and Charles...if it seems like I am less than open about peacefully dealing with terrorists...well...let me advise you to take a short visit to Kuwait city...Emirs market, due west of the Sharq Mall. there you will find an open air market, a prayer square and a few little restaurants. On the west wall of the prayer square you will observe stains, bullet pock marks, other nasty little things that will inform that the walls have a story to tell. If you ask folks that were there they will tell you about what happened to the people there when the Iraqi soldiers came into Kuwait City and what happened in that little square. If only it were so simple as people being gunned down. I wonder what your response might be if you witnessed children being punched, kicked, urinated on, defecated on, while you watched. Yeah...that was the start of it.

Sorry..I know of too many accounts of the atrocities committed by these animals to have hope that they can be negotiated with. But I assume you have a better answer. Again...LOVE to hear it.

And remember...just in case you are tempted to blame their actions on our presence...remember this occurs in the Philippines, in Tibet, in Chechnya...oh...just everywhere. 1 common theme...Muslim extremists.

Hey...also...in case you missed it...I do believe we will have a president Barrack...and if that is the case, I will pray for his success. I HOPE AGAINST HOPE that his actions prove me wrong.

We'll see though.
February 13, 2008

9:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Gene

As a Libertarian there are some things I LOVE about Ron Paul but shockingly...I know...gasp...some things I dont. Well...not just about Ron Paul but the entire libertarian 'movement.' Parenthesis included because you actually have to HAVE representation to be considered a movement.

The libertarian concepts are so powerful, yet they shoot themselves in the foot with isolationist viewpoints (not realistic in todays world) and their determined positions on legalizing all drugs. The last party meeting I attended I was asked to leave because I was disruptive...told I couldnt be a 'real' libertarian if I didnt believe those things. My position was (I thought) logical...abandon the drive to legalize and simply allow end the fed involvement into anything except illegal importing. Allow the states to choose. I thought that was much more realistic than "legalize heroin now." Sigh...and they wonder why there are no federally elected Libertarians. Even Ron Paul had to abandon the Libertarians to get re-elected.

BTW...I am culturally literate enough to know what a ditto-head is, but I dont listen to talk radio (except sports talk radio). I think Limbaugh is a caricature of "the true conservative talk show host."
February 13, 2008

11:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Ranting? I like that! Really? I havent called names. You have. I havent insulted. You have. Show you respect? Nothing but! Not returned...but I'll be blunt...I dont know you and couldnt give a rats ass about your opinion of me. But...just so we are clear...YOU are the one that has made all the attacks.

Jingoistic comments? Really? All Ive done is stated facts from a first person perspective. Those facts by the way arent refuted...you just apparently dont like that I have stated them.

Unless you have a position you simply are taking the position of being a whiner...a complainer. You dont like what is happening? Fine...LOVE to hear what you think would eb a superior course of action. I'd LOVE to see your thoughts on combating terrorism...I mean...since you dont like the current course of action SURELY there is a superior course of action that will work with our enemy.

Telling someone they are acting stupid or their position is stupid is NOT calling them stupid. I am quite sure those close to me will attest that I have carried the label on more than a few occasions. But...sorry...your argument was, in my opinion, a stupid argument. Cowardly? please...I havent been the one afraid to clearly speak and back up my positions.

From the very beginning I have made one argument. Agree...disagree...whatever. Just be consistent. If the position is that Bush lied and is deserving of impeachment then you should take the same position with every democrat that held the same ideas. If you attack one, then be consistent...attack all. Anything less is hypocrisy.
February 14, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack, the questions I posed to you in my 3:51 post yesterday were given with the hope that you, someone who has presented himself as having first-hand experience in the Middle East, would directly answer, one by one.

They were not given with the intent to anger you or provoke a shouting match. So I was disappointed with what I interpreted, as generalized partisan rhetoric that libs are to blame for obstacles in the war against terror.

Additionally, without answering my questions, you demanded to know my "plan." Did it ever occur to you that I was asking you those questions for clarification, maybe some enlightenment even, from someone who I thought might know since he's been over there? That I thought you might have an opinion of value which could possibly influence any suggested course of action I might be formulating?

I was honestly hoping for some insightful responses from you. I sense that you have very passionate opinions, and that's great, so do I, but let's not let those get in the way of cool-headed discussion. For my part in letting the discussion deteriorate, I sincerely apologize.
February 14, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Dear Charles:
Bush in no way violated the 4th Amendment. During a very difficult period in which the safety of many, many Americans was at risk, the administration felt it was reasonable considering the current times.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

As you can see Charles B the word unreasonable comes out pretty loudly. It should be familiar with you.
February 14, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

allseasonsfan, did I miss something? Does the 4th amendment state that the president has the authority to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable. Wow, and all these years I assumed that was a qualification decided by the courts when a warrant is requested.

The NSA amassed information from the telecoms on tens of millions of Americans' phone call records. Not just a hundred or so terrorist suspects. What part of that is "reasonable" to you? Not that it really matters, since it's not up to you or me or Bush to decide, but the Courts.

Bush broke the law, and the evidence is in plain sight. Hell, he admits it!

I also have another question for you: do you consider the terrorists the most powerful, smartest enemy this country has ever had? I just wonder because in the many wars and conflicts this country has undergone in the past, our presidents didn't need to break Constitutional law to win them.
February 14, 2008

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

C_B

You are a clueless whinny little baby. You have done everything you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of doing. You do nothing but complain about others yet have never once offered any solutions to the problems of the world (that you are so willing to point out). You accuse others of not answering your points directly yet you have never offered an adequate response to anything I or anyone else has said to you. You just whine and whine and whine. YOU HAVE NO FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE in any of the areas you continue to blather on about. As far as respect it is not handed out it is earned, you have not earned the respect you demand. It is not because I disagree with you that I do not respect you, it is because you do not deserve my respect. I know you will not like that but too bad.

And for whoever thinks C_B is serving his country by speaking up, please get a new definition of service. Speaking you mind is a right. One earned for us all by all the men and women who TRULY SERVED THIS COUNTRY. Now if C_B were to actually offer a valid solution instead of merely complaining and blaming then it might be said that he was trying to serve not just tear down.
February 14, 2008

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Devil Dog: "And for whoever thinks C_B is serving his country by speaking up, please get a new definition of service. Speaking you mind is a right. One earned for us all by all the men and women who TRULY SERVED THIS COUNTRY."

I'm the one who said that, and I also asked you if you felt serving in the armed forces was the only true way of serving this country. You never answered.
February 14, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

C_B

Since you have never responded to anyone else with a direct answer you do not deserve one in return, but if you read my first response to you statement about this you will find what you are looking for.

Mytwosense

Perhaps you are also unable to read? I specifically stated at least on (of many) other ways C_B could serve this country.

The silly little word games the two of you enjoy playing are cute but do not count as serving anything but your own vanity.
February 14, 2008

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

mytwosense

To try to answer in part some of your questions put to Vance Mack:

It is not militarily sound to fight a war on too many fronts at ounce. (Please see Nazi Germany in WWII as a modern day example and the later stages of the Roman Empire as an historical example)
Besides the logistics of the venture, you would create problems in funding, prioritizing, manpower, and increased danger of infiltration to name a few of the problems. Now you might ask "What about our effort in WWII? didn't we fight on many fronts?" Yes we did, with a with a determined and overwhelming number of allies. We also had a united nation that made a concerted effort. Our military strength grew daily and our work force changed forever due to that effort.

Do you think this country could do that now? We couldn't even stay united long enough to accomplish the mission at hand.

I am not trying to talk down to you so please do not take it that way, I am honestly trying to answer your questions.

Lets take the Philippines for example, a hotbed of terrorist activity. The might of the Japanese nation couldn't run out a few Philippine/American guerillas (and they tried). The effort to run the terrorists to ground, just in the Philippines (without extensive collateral damage) would be tremendous.

By taking the fight to the Middle East we might manage to cut off the head of the beast, and even then (since each cell is capable of autonomous activity) the worldwide battle would be no picnic, but should be much more manageable.
February 14, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

C_B

When you don't like someone's answer you resort to name calling and political dancing. You have no answers to any questions posed to you. You are incapable of rational discourse, until you provide answers to some of the questions I and others have asked you further conversation is pointless.
February 14, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

mytwosense:

Boy your living in a dream. The difference between Bush and other Presidents is he was honest about the wire tapping and had good solid cause. if you think politicians on many levels dont use illegal means to get what they want your wrong. I applaud him for it. Why not ask the Kennedys about wire tapping and such? Just ask Marilyn Monroe. Bush did it for the security of our nation, your democrat leaders did for the security of their image.
February 14, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

allseasonsfan wrote: "mytwosense:

Boy your living in a dream. The difference between Bush and other Presidents is he was honest about the wire tapping and had good solid cause. if you think politicians on many levels dont use illegal means to get what they want your wrong. I applaud him for it. Why not ask the Kennedys about wire tapping and such? Just ask Marilyn Monroe. Bush did it for the security of our nation, your democrat leaders did for the security of their image."

* * *

PLEASE GOD PLEASE, if Bush ever is impeached for illegal wiretapping, let this be the defense his legal team uses!!!
February 14, 2008

3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

devil dog....do you believe that iraq had anyting to do with AQ or 9/11 or had wmd's?
February 14, 2008

4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles B:

Then according to your abuse of power, should Roosevelt have been impeached for executive order 9066, which put Japanese/Americans into internment camps?
February 14, 2008

10:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Its exhausting really...

Since day one the democrats were informed about the wiretapping programming. The courts also. Because YOU claim it is illegal does not make it so.

Since day one the democrats were informed about the CIA interrogation techniques. Pelosi herself is on record saying "do you think they are harsh enough?"

Listen...I understand THAT you hate the man. I'm not sure why. Democrats dont express the same hatred for Clinton for example as they do Bush.

All Bush has managed to do by his action is keep the number of terrorist attacks against America to 1. Whether he gets blame for 9-11 is up for debate, though it might be hard to blame Bush since it is obvious the terrorists came here and began planning their attack in the mid 90's. Still...

No...I dont like erosion of the civil liberties of US citizens. For all the rhetoric...I dont see people being lined up against the wall because cell phone sniffers have been filtering phone calls based on terror related keywords. We HAVE seen terror cells interrupted, individuals arrested, plots stopped. I suppose it would have been better just to let them happen. And of course...I suppose that the left has a better solution.

Still waiting...

If the dems thought for one second that they had viable impeachment grounds they would have proceeded. The facts are there. Bush didnt lie, any more than Clinton lied, Chiraq lied, any of the world leaders and intel agencies lied, or any of the leading democrats lied. They all made statements based on what was believed to be the truth.

If Bush broke the laws of the land the dems would be all over it. Of course...they would have to explain why none of them said anything considering they were involved from the beginning.

This is the kind of pointless rhetoric that has torn this country apart. Liberals have been ACHING to settle the score for Clintons impeachment and Bush 'stealing' their ring of power. And it is damaging the fabric of the country.
February 14, 2008

11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

freethinker07 writes:

Idiocy in Washington does not excuse idiocy in Boulder.

The question is not whether Bush should be impeached. The question is not even why Senator Salazar has not made a motion to impeach. the question is why Liz Robinson and her cohorts are not targeting Salazar.
February 15, 2008

8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Good luck negotiating with these guys!

In case you arent getting it...there is ONE ANSWER. Kill them. Engage them...head on...root them out. Step on their throat.

We ARE at war. We are NOT at war with Iraq...that one is long past. We ARE at war against Muslim extremist terrorists. You REALLY want to stop fighting that war?

I ask again...if your answer is leave Iraq...then what is your solution to combating terrorism? LOVE to see an actual response and not " just because we dont believe we should be fighting the terrorists doesnt mean we arent patriots or wont fight terrorism."

BAGHDAD - Two suicide bombers, one apparently armed with a grenade as well as an explosive vest, killed at least three people and wounded 17 as worshippers left a Shiite mosque after Friday prayers in the northwestern city of Tal Afar.

The explosions came on a day when the U.S. military and Iraqis were at odds over who was killed in a raid earlier this week, also in this country's restive north. The Americans and their Iraqi allies are pushing to take control of the region, where insurgent fighters are making a stand with their influence diminished in Baghdad and other areas.

The suicide bombers struck the Sheik Juwad mosque in Tal Afar, about 260 miles northwest of Baghdad.

The first bomber "threw a grenade on worshippers before he blew himself up," said the city's mayor, Maj. Gen. Najim Abdullah. A few minutes later, the second attacker ran toward people scrambling in the aftermath of the first explosion. "But police opened fire on him before he reached the people," the mayor said.
February 15, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...you are a joke. Sorry...I know you see that as an insult. But you are.

If George Bush broke the laws (remember...for all of your grand wisdom...I somehow doubt you have the first f-in' clue about "the laws" that you spout off about) the dems would have gone after him LOOOOOONG before the last year of his term.

Democrats WERE informed (I didnt say EVERY DEMOCRAT...I said DEMOCRATS) form DAY ONE. Now...I havent read the congressional handbook...but in the military I take an oath to VIOLATE orders that are against the law and to report those orders. Maybe COngress has some playbook that says they have to keep their mouth shut no matter what. I HIGHLY doubt it. But hey...I dont know. Maybe YOU do.

You keep spouting your empty headed arguments...go ahead. You keep blathering about your impotent positions and stands.

In ALL of the posts you have made here I have NEVER...NOT ONCE...seen you or any other detractor of Bush offer ANY answer about how YOU would see things done. Notr once. OH...you are quick to whine and complain "dont attack my patriotism"...as if I have. You jump IMMEDIATELY to insult, then whine about being insulted.

I stated I would not only support a president Obama but pray for his success. However...I DID ask his supporters to give some sort of a hint as to how he has said he would accomplish his goals. I KNOW the answer...Ive read it on his web sites and heard his speeches. I highly doubt his followers know. When asked here...all I hear is "we arent going to tell you!" WHich is typical of ALL the empty headed rhetoric you spew.

CLUELESS as to politicians you support.
CLUELESS as to how you would fight the war on terror.
CLUELESS as to what the 'law' actually says or means.

So...you keep on spouting your hatred. It has served you and the country so well.

Meanwhile...there is a game on. Luckily for you...you have no obligation to worry about it. Others will take care of it for you and you have the freedom to sit back and bitch, moan, and whine about how it is engaged. What a LUCKY man.
February 15, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack wrote: "If Bush broke the laws of the land the dems would be all over it. Of course...they would have to explain why none of them said anything considering they were involved from the beginning."

Exactly! My position is that there ARE culpable Dems, and that's why so many of them voted the other day for telecom immunity. Trust me, I am all about throwing those bums out, too.

You will never convince me that terrorists are such a powerful and smart enemy that it is critical we do away with the need for a warrant before spying on Americans.

VanceMack, you also keep asking us what our "plan" is. That's kind of like asking us, "How do you plan on cleaning up this mess you didn't make?" (When I say "you," I am referring to the hundreds of thousands of people who have always been against invading Iraq. I am not referring to the spineless legislators, Dems and Repubs, who supported it.)

And I suppose history is full of people who have to clean up messes other people make. What I can never understand is why that question isn't leveled more at the people responsible for the mess...

We never should have invaded. If we needed a stronghold somewhere in the Middle East, I don't understand why we didn't make it Afghanistan, where we were first, where the terrorist who claimed responsibility for 9/11 was and may still be, and where the terrorist-harboring regime was, and factions of still are.

I also don't think we're doing enough to cut off terrorist funding. If anything, we're helping to create huge economies in the Middle East now. Look at Halliburton, for God's sake. They have made billions...and have now relocated their headquarters to Dubai. Middle Eastern companies ARE getting contracts for construction jobs. The lead contractor of the new Iraqi embassy being built is a Kuwaiti firm...http://www.usatoday.com/news/w....

Those are just two examples. There is no way I am naive enough to believe that the millions and billions of dollars we're helping to generate over there isn't getting funneled back by these Middle Eastern companies (and I count Halliburton as a Middle Eastern company now) somehow to terrorists.

Yes, we kicked out Saddam. And paved the way to spend billions of dollars in Iraq. Meanwhile, bin Laden is free, and essentially a folk hero now because we let him get away. The Taliban still has control in parts of Afghanistan - seven years later!!! Terrorism is still happening all over the world.

Instead of asking me MY plan, how about telling US how what we're currently doing is the right course???
February 15, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...really...you talk about devoid of substance? Please...

I attribute to you the positions you have displayed. Nothing more nor less. All you have done is whine bitch and moan. Never once a substative contribution to the conversation. Never. Not once.

Your pathetic comment is absolutely telling. Rape and eat little babies. Charming. No...Charles...that is the behavior of the enemy. They have clearly demonstrated it time and time again. I would destroy the enemy. You would destroy the enemy of the enemy.

You freely complain about the actions of others...others that have indeed engaged the enemy. Yet when challenged you have no answer as to how YOU would see the enemy engaged. Until you do...you are...well...what you clearly show yourself to be.

And thats the beauty of this country...there will ALWAYS be people that will do the heavy lifting that you find so disgusting and there will always be people that bitch about how they do it. Yet...when asked how they would do it differently their response is "dont insult me just because I disagree with you." Pathetic. Typical. Telling.
February 15, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"Instead of asking me MY plan, how about telling US how what we're currently doing is the right course???"

For once...just once...I would love to see YOU illustrate what YOU consider to be a RIGHT and EFFECTIVE plan...since and you and yours belive everything is WRONG.

I believe we combat terrorism with every tool in the bag. I believe that is what we have done. I believe the evidence has proven that the war against terror has been fairly effective.

Funny thing about warrants. Without evidence you dont get them. SO...if I understand your position correctly...the US intel agencies SHOULD NOT be monitoring cell phone conversations placed from America to known terrorist hotbeds. They SHOULD NOT be running those conversations through software programs designed to sniff out terror related keywords.

You are very good at stating what SHOULD NOT be done. I am interested in hearing what you believe SHOULD be done.

I have stated I believe Obama will win and I will support him and pray for his success. Unfortunately, if the plan is to do anything less than engage the enemy full on and not use any tool in your arsenal ( or at least the threat of every tool in your arsenal) you can not win. It has I think been clearly deminstrated that terrorists ar e not reasonable, rational, loving human beings. So...

What would you do?
February 15, 2008

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack: "For once...just once...I would love to see YOU illustrate what YOU consider to be a RIGHT and EFFECTIVE plan...since and you and yours belive everything is WRONG."

Part of the reason I'm asking you the questions I've been asking IS to figure out what the best course of action is, as you've presented yourself as a knowledgeable person with first-hand experience. Yet I can't seem to get any detailed answers from you. You're letting your emotions run high and it's getting in the way of any hope of a logical and informative discussion.

VanceMack: "Funny thing about warrants. Without evidence you dont get them. SO...if I understand your position correctly...the US intel agencies SHOULD NOT be monitoring cell phone conversations placed from America to known terrorist hotbeds. They SHOULD NOT be running those conversations through software programs designed to sniff out terror related keywords."

No, they simply need "probable cause" to get a warrant to then collect that evidence. It seems to have worked in ordinary criminal investigations throughout American history, and in times of war...I don't understand what has changed that we need to do away with warrants. Again, I am not convinced terrorists are the most powerful and sophisticated enemy we've ever had.

And please don't completely misstate my position so that you can win a point. I don't debate others that way, and I would appreciate the same fairness in return. I have stated over and over and over that I am against warrantless spying, not against spying on terrorists.
February 15, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack, can I ask you two questions?

1) Before we invaded Iraq, was that the country that either harbored the most members of Al Qaeda, or the most powerful members of Al Qaeda?

2) Is Iraq currently the country that harbors the most members of Al Qaeda, or the most powerful members of Al Qaeda?
February 15, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

We ousted Hitler. He was responsible for the slaughter of millions. The people of Germany embraced their opportunity. We spend billions in Germany. We are still there. It worked.

We ousted Milosovic. He was responsible for the slaughter of thousands. We spend billions in Bosnia. We are still there. It worked.

We ousted Hussein. He was responsible for the slaughter of millions. We spend billions in Iraq. Time will tell if it will work.

We ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were responsible for the slaughter of thousands. They killed women for daring to teach children to read. They harbored known terrorists. We spend billions there. Time will tell if it will work.

Bush gave 3 reasons for attacking Iraq. Iraqs ties to global terrorism. Undeniable Iraqs commision of genocide. Undeniable. Iraqs refusal to comply with 17 UN resolutions disclosing the whereabouts or disposition of their known WMDs. Again. Undeniable.

I get that you believe we shouldnt have gone in the first place. Thats fine...there a lot of people that believe that. One of the things I love about Susan Sarandon is that her anti war position and behaviors are universal. She is consistent. I disagree with her...but respect the hell out of her for making a principled stand, regardless of who occupies the WHite House.

I ask...should we have gone to Serbia? If yes...Why? If no...then why was there not an uproar about a president taking us to war under the banner of combating genocide?

I have said from the beginning...certainly there are things to be discussed...valid disagreements. Check back...you will find that position consistent. However...and the reason i got started on this thread...the VAST MAJORITY of liberals dont give a rats ass about the military, or war, or anything else. They are hypocrites driven only by their hatred of George Bush.

If Bush lied, Clinton lied. (oh...wait...no...according to some here Clinton and the dems didnt lie, they were just mistaken).

If regime change in Iraq was wrong under Bush it was wrong under Clinton.

If attacking Iraq was wrong under Bush, then it was wrong under Clinton.

If fighting a war to end the genocide of thousands was right under Clinton, then fighting a war to end genocide of millions was right in Iraq.

Ad nauseum.
February 15, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

CB:

What is your agenda? Why do you hate Bush? What is hidden behind your whining? The Democrats have been attacking Bush on every front from day one. Trying to discredit him. Are they angry because they feel the election of 2000 was stolen from them? We they scared because he showed true leadership in the days after 9-11. Was it because their last 2 Presidents were a womanizing, lying cheat and do nothing peanut farmer. Did they need to bring him down to make themselves look better? Bush’s approval rating is currently at 30%, the lowest since Truman, while the Democratic lead congress is just 22%. I think this says 2 things, people are sick and tired of politics as usual, and they trust Bush more than the Democrats (shhhh, the media doesn’t want you to catch wind of that last little tidbit).

I am not happy with today’s politics; there are things about Bush I am not happy with. Today’s politics are a cancer upon America. Threatening our own liberties, whether it is having a private phone conversation (your fear) or not being able to choose the best school or doctor for my kids (my fear). In time this can destroy us. This country needs chemotherapy.

Islamic extremists are a fire. They are trying to consume our daily liberties. For instance life, I consider this to be a liberty. It is threatening us today, taking lives today; not just military lives but the lives of my kids, my family and yes even you. This fire needs to be put out!

Now CB, do you want to stay on fire on the way to standing in line for your chemo? Or do you think it is a good idea to put the fire out FIRST!
February 15, 2008

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Not once Charles. Not once have you offered on opinion on what SHOULD be done. All you offer is your disdain for what HAS been done. Until you do...you prove yourself to be a whiny, impotent, malcontent. That is simply fact. You ask me to prove my position. My proof is in your inability or unwillingness to state your position on what you would see done. Thats not a lie...its a fact and it is proved every time you make a post. You have NEVER stated what you believe should be done...just disgust for what HAS been done. When asked directly you whine, shout and howl at the moon.

Oh...but you ARE good at stating what SHOULDNT be done. I will give you that. LOTS of people can whine about solutions of others...especially easy when they have no requirement to actually DO something.
February 15, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack: "I ask...should we have gone to Serbia? If yes...Why? If no...then why was there not an uproar about a president taking us to war under the banner of combating genocide?"

I can't speak for everyone else, but I can tell you why I raised an uproar - I flat out didn't believe that was why Bush took us into Iraq. It just didn't make sense. Here we still hadn't caught bin Laden, and the Taliban hadn't been completely eradicated, and all of a sudden he swung the nation's attention to Iraq. It's like he had finally found a reason to wage war over there. Remember, he had been making noise about Iraq ever since he got into office.

I felt then, and I felt now, that one of the main reasons he led us into war in Iraq was because he was pissed off at all the comments about the first administration not "finishing the job" in the original Gulf War. I believe that was one of the biggest things motivating him, and made it very easy for him to be led to make that decision by his advisors - who had other reasons/agendas.

And contrary to your belief, I DO give a rat's ass about our young men and women being sent over there to fight that idiot's war.
February 15, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Gee Charles...NOT being a lawyer or expert on much of the US code (of course...you ARE familiar with it arent you...I mean...you didnt just cut and paste without reading and understanding it did you???)it would appear that warrantless wiretapping of individuals placing calls from America to foreign countries using sniffer detect software is safely covered under 1802 sub a1 B and C. Just for starters. Seems to me reasonable that the intel gathered would be generic, desinged to target calls most likely placed by non US citizens to oh, say, Yemen, and would only be used for intel gathering if the calls actually contained language deemed of intelligence value.

So...I know you disagree. Fine. Lost do...but how many calls have you made to known terrorist countries lately? How many times have the FBI kicked in your door? Or others that you know of? I'm just really curious to see how this erosion of your civil liberties has caused you such consternation.

No...I'm not a lawyer...I dont even play one on TV NOR do I pretend to play one on blogs. But since there ARE plenty of lawyers employed by moveon.org and others I would certainly think that if there was a clear enough violation of law...they would have acted on it.

But...appparently they dont understand it as well as you do.
February 15, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

1) Before we invaded Iraq, was that the country that either harbored the most members of Al Qaeda, or the most powerful members of Al Qaeda? Unknown. Likely Yemen or Pakistan...maybe Syria since that is where so many of them poured in from.

2) Is Iraq currently the country that harbors the most members of Al Qaeda, or the most powerful members of Al Qaeda?

No...and if you believ the Iraqi commanders from letters recently released there are a LOT fewer...in fact THEY find the surge so successful they are angry at their IRAQI brothers for not supporting their cause.

But...since Al Qaida was NOT the reason we went to Iraq I'm not sure the relevant point. Still since I know this is a set up question, I'll play your game. Volley returned. Now ask me why we didnt attack Saidi Arabia for supporting Al Qaida...or whatever the next venture is.
February 15, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"I don't discuss things with people who show me no respect and appear incapable of honesty"

Sorry...had to laugh at that one. Show respect? Please...

Once again...you ask for me to prove a negative. My point you have done nothing but bitch moan and whine. When asked for what you would do differently you ginore and complain you are being attacked. I state you dont like how we fight terrorism, yet you offer no insight into how you think we SHOULD.

So...either you are an empty headed fool with NO ideas and so you have none to offer, or...well...I dont know what else that makes you.

You cant combat terrorism with hype or rhetoric. You dont like what HAS been done. Until you offer solutions you have none.

Oh...wait...I'll play YOUR silly game too...

Show me JUST ONCE where you have offered substantive contributions...YOUR plan or ideas for combating terrorism.
February 15, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

This was to be a blog on the Boulder City Councils proposed vote for the backing of impeachment of the President of the United States. In true Democratic hate mongoring, it was an attack on Bush that had nothing to do with the Boulder City Council article, and I quote:

"Posted by lcdrjjxant on February 12, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, no, no. Impeachment too messy and lengthy. Court martial Bush, he is a 40+ 0years UCMJ-felon; AWOLee, deserter and he is also guilty of illegal separation and discharge. Felon appoints fellow felon. USSC Judge Sam "Affirmative Action" Alito is a Bush clone. Alito pimped and exploited taxpayers for 7 years of free college education (JD/undergrad degrees)in the US Army's ROTC program. Alito incurred an 11 year active military duty obligation as a result of thee gifts. Read his online "bio", there is no mention of him completing this service. Black folks should demand that Marion Jones and Mike Vick be freed (prosecuted by a felon), and Bush and Alito jailed."

Just another example of how Dems would rather gain power by discrediting someone rather then dealing with the issues that confront this nation.
February 15, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

2cents...thanks...I actually appreciate your response. I dont have a problem with you not believing we should have gone to war with Iraq. Of course...and dont take this the wrong way...your position is just based on your feelings and not facts...but I mean this sincerely...I'm FINE with that. I personally believe that every time Bill Clinton sent us into mil ops it was to cover for another of his stains. That being said...I went...I served...and I never once allowed a subordinate to hear my contempt for the individual nor to express their disgust for their commander in chief. (that kind of talk is fine for enlisted folks around beers...provided they are peers and provided they can put it aside when it is time to go to work).

As for you personally caring...I accept you at your word. I stand by mine...most liberals DONT.
February 15, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

2cents...

Do you think it is "probable cause" that someone from the US using an untraceable disposable cell phone would call a known terrorist state?
See...there is no way to state subject X is calling location Y wihtout knowing it is going to happen. Unless of course we blanket ASSUME it is going to happen. But you cant get a warant based on that.

From the warrantless wire taps they have uncovered plots, cells, banking procedures, money laundering, etc etc etc. The program has been effective.

But...OK...lets assume for a second that I ced to your positions. Lets assume we oust Bush (soon enough...relax...it'll happen) and we have new leadership. So...

What would you see them do? And if they didnt do EVERYTHING in their power...democrat or republican...to combat terrorism, then how do we answer for another 9-11?

Thats not fear mongering...it is simply our reality. The terrorist threat isnt me being a wicked mean bully baby killer. I dont create them. I dont make them up. The threat is real and they make no qualms about their desires.

SO...we are back to it. What would you do?
February 15, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack, yeah, I know my theory on why we went to war can't be factually proven. That's kind of the problem, the public has been swamped with so many reasons and justifications for the war, at this point many can't see the forest for the trees.

Moving on...

You stated: "But...since Al Qaida was NOT the reason we went to Iraq I'm not sure the relevant point. Still since I know this is a set up question, I'll play your game. Volley returned. Now ask me why we didnt attack Saidi Arabia for supporting Al Qaida...or whatever the next venture is."

Actually, I really didn't know the answers to those questions and figured you did - that's why I asked them. The reason I wanted to know is because Devil Dog brought up the point of establishing a main country to fight terrorism in Middle East, and I'm trying to understand why Iraq would be the logical choice. Based on your answers...well, I guess I still don't understand.

As for why we didn't attack Saudi Arabia for supporting Al Qaeda, and instead, after 9/11 withdrew our military presence from there - something Saudi Arabian bin Laden and his 9/11 suicide bombers vehemently believed should be done - I have no idea. Obviously, the American government (not just the Bush Administration) and Saudi Arabian monarchy have been in cahoots for years. There must be some reason, and it's not strictly so we can have access to their oil. We only import something like, 20%, 25% of our oil from the Middle East. However, I believe our relationship with the Saudis has very much to do with effecting the price on world petroleum. And I hate to see wars fought so rich people can hold on to their gold.
February 15, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...color me confused....

"Nothing in your post contradicts what I have said regarding wiretaps."

My post cited the US code that YOU posted and clearly demonstrated the legality of warrantless wiretaps.

"I'm still waiting for evidence that I hold the positions you ascribe to me or your retraction of those claims"
I cant retract my claims because they are consistent with your unwillingness to state a position beyond your disgust and disdain for what IS being done yet your absolute inability or unwllingness to state what you believe SHOULD be done.
February 15, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack: "Do you think it is "probable cause" that someone from the US using an untraceable disposable cell phone would call a known terrorist state?"

No. That would not be enough probable cause, in my opinion.

VanceMack: "See...there is no way to state subject X is calling location Y wihtout knowing it is going to happen. Unless of course we blanket ASSUME it is going to happen. But you cant get a warant based on that."

No, you're right, you can't and you shouldn't be able to get a warrant based on vague assumptions. And if that's how we intend to handle criminal investigations going forward, I am seriously afraid for our country.

By the way, don't we have informants, and plants in suspected terrorist cells? Do we have enough Arab-speaking intelligence workers? Or are we getting lazy and starting to rely more on examining phone call, email, and Internet usage records?

You know, the more I research this subject, the more I am beginning to suspect the NSA has been up to these kinds of activities well before 9/11. Check out:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr...
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB...

If they have, they sure failed miserably at preventing 9/11...

VanceMack: "SO...we are back to it. What would you do?"

Leave Iraq. I have yet to see proof it's the logical place to be waging a war against terrorism. I would also double, triple, whatever it takes our efforts to cut off terrorist funding. I would keep us in Afghanistan until we've wiped out the Taliban for good, and either get bin Laden alive or irrefutable proof that he's dead.

Also, I would re-assess our so-called ally Pakistan. I do not see how they have proven to help us.

On a longer term level, I would free us from our relationship with Saudi Arabia, too, and concentrate this country's economic growth plans on green technology. That would seriously reduce our dependency on any one country's oil, and probably do away with most of the reasons we go to war in the first place. Because there's no point in leaving Iraq, only to find ourselves in another war for the same reasons ten, twenty, thirty years down the road.
February 15, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

The truth? The Truth? CB you cant handle the truth! I stated my agenda. It is to make my country safe from a bunch of deranged extremist! I still remember 9-11. I still remember the days after. I remember Bush's address to Congress and the people of this nation that this war would be long and hard, but that our government would do what it takes to win this war and make this nation safe. The country was united in this cause. I support my President because I believe he is still fighting this battle, a battle he promised to fight.

As far as your beloved FISA is concerned. Your on a ledge hanging by your fingernails. The Patriot Act signed into law on Oct 26th, 2001 (prior to wiretaping), gave the government the ability to do exactly what they did. This has been the point of contention in whether Bush broke the law or not. Since impeachment proceedings have not been started, I think a lot of high priced lawyers agree.

The truth CB is that desperate times, calls for desperate measures. Without monday morning quarterbacking to fall back on, We all felt another attack on our soil was a matter of time. Actions like the Patriot Act and wiretapping have prevented this. There is no guessing about this, it is fact. No attacks since 9-11 on US soil.

Now get over it. This President has protected your sorry butt. Maybe thats why your mad, perhaps that is your agenda. You lack the guts to kill yourself and your mad the government has made it that no one will do it for you and make you a martyr.
February 15, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

2cents...

I can square away a few of those points (from my understanding and perspective only)...

1-We dont need a new base of operations in the middle east. Kuwait LOVES us. They have virtually no military and are stuck between 2 very volatile neighbors. We have several bases in Kuwait. We also have several bases in UAE Qatar, and Turkey.

Historically, we DID need a presence in the middle east to stem the south and westwardly flow of the Soviet Union. Or dealings w/ the Shah were designed to stop the Soviet Union from Annexing the middle east. That position was takne by every US president following the 2nd world war. When Carter gave Iran away we did indeed get in bed w/ Saddam. Its the old tale of the lesser of two evils. Saddam was a bastard...the Soviets had plans of world domination. If they had taken Afghanistan, they would have continued on. (or maybe someone else can see a value in investing so much of their military and economic resources to capturing Afghanistan)

2-The government of Saudi Arabia is NOT a sponsor of terrorism. The Saud/Fahd kingdom walsk a delicate balance between capitalism and Muslim fundamentalism. The Saudis are similar to the Emirates...you can bank, you can plan...but you cant train and you damn sure better not conduct a terror operation within their borders.

I have to tell you...the Arab mindset is simply something most people dont get...even after living there. MOST of them dont think like we do. MOST of them are wonderful people...but their ideas and values are just built on a different set of rules. I think part of it is resignation to what they see as the natural order of things...the way it is "meant to be."

I have seen new cars left in the middle of the desert because the engine died or it got a flat tire. We are forbidden to offer assistance, because it was apparently Allahs will that the car died (never mind that maybe it was Allahs will that we came along to help).

Anyway...

just my own 2cents. I dont claim to be an expert but I have spent 7 trips and 4 years and time in just about every country in the middle east. My biggest impression from MOST of them is that they are decent people and just want to talk..to be understood. They dont hate America or Americans. They just dont understand or often like our government (something to which I often replied "that qualifies you to be an American!"). I loved my time over there...even the bad times. It taught me tons. I dont hate Muslims...far from it. But I DO loathe those that use it as their justification for terror acts.
February 15, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

By the way, don't we have informants, and plants in suspected terrorist cells?

Sure...and it works GREAT...in the movies.

"Do we have enough Arab-speaking intelligence workers?"

No...and thank goodness CLinton didnt get to cut all the intel gathering capabilities that he WANTED to or that Kerry actually proposed. No...we have never recovered from the HUMINT losses in the 90's. Thats not me attacking Clinton...it IS the truth.

"Or are we getting lazy and starting to rely more on examining phone call, email, and Internet usage records?"

Some might not call that lazy...some might call that an effective means of intelligence gathering...one that has netted incredible amounts of data.
February 15, 2008

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

CB:
my apologies on the killing yourself comment. That was incredibly low.
February 15, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

2Cents...

Well...wow...Those are actually great positions. I dont necessarily agree with them...but not bad. I will take that over nothing ANY DAY.

Now...I have said from the beginning there is LOTS of room for discussion. Here is what I WOULD have done in Iraq. I would have set up a 24/7 TV station broadcasting on multiple channels the known attrocities of muslim terrorists. I would have dedicated web sites to the attrocities committed, Arab on Arab. I would have set up cyber cafes on every corner. I would have discussed with the Iraqi people our expectations and our willingness to support them. I would have told them from day 1..."its your country. All we can do is win you the opportunity for freedom but YOU have to choose. You want the animals to win? Fine with me. See you in another 10-15 years. If not...we will work with you. Its 2003...by 2005 our troops will be out of your cities and in remote bases. By 2006 we will have turned over the control of all your cities to your police and military. By 2007 we are out of your country unless specifically requested by your government. Thanks for playing...have a nice day." I would have published and broadcast metrics daily. Anytime an Arab was killed by a Muslim terrorist I would have put it on billboards.

Problem is...I'm not in charge.
February 15, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"Problem is...I'm not in charge."

Ooops...that sounds arrogant. Not my intent. The problem is...I am not in charge so i dont get to say. That means I am left with two choices in our two party world. Option 1...what Bush is doing...alone...without dems offering anything but the rhetoric of failure. or...Option 2 (the dem plan)....anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

Its funny...when Hillary talks about pulling out of Iraq she has hedged her comments...We must pull out. We must withdraw immediately. We must reduce to...90 thousand troops.

Huhwha??? Thats only slightly less than was there before the 'surge'.
February 15, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

CB: you sound like Obama. "By not retracting them, you are guaranteeing I will not discuss how to combat terrorism with you." You will not give us your sage wisedom because your feelings are hurt? Just like Obama who promises to give end and beat health care plan with in 2 months of becoming president. Never mind making the country better now or never if not elected president. That is change for you. Hold the election hostage.
February 15, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh...and BTW..2cents...

Dont know if you knew it...but the playform you describe RE ending our energy dependence on foreign oil was the national College debate topic in 1977 and high school debate topic in 1978. There is SO MUCH more we could and should have been doing. I agree completely. Simple stuff...

Solar power is not THE answer but could be an incredibly effective component of THE answer. If every new home since 1980 had been built with solar panels, the 110VAC power needs would like be met requiring only city feeds for 220vac and emergency power. the cell collection and battery storage is so much more efficient today than yesterday. So...why not. Big oil...right?

I dont think so. Its politicians. If EVERY HOUSE had solar panels, then how do you tax the sun? How do you raise revenues for city, state and federal govt?
February 15, 2008

11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...your gifts are wasted...you really should employ your vast knowledge of the laws to bring down Bush. No one else seems to know how.

The US code stated that there is not a REQUIRMENT for a warrant if the conditions stated can be met. They obviously have been.
February 15, 2008

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"By not retracting them, you are guaranteeing I will not discuss how to combat terrorism with you."

I'm heartbroke.

Simple fact...you havent discussed your opinions since the thread began.

Dont worry...it's being taken care of. Enjoy the show.
February 15, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Allseasonfan...dont you recognize the strategy? It is the same one employed by Kerry. "I have a plan!" What is it? "Its a GREAT plan!" Super...what is it? "Well...its a secret plan." Ummmmm...no...seriously...what is your PLAN? "I hate George Bush!"

And the crowd goes wild.
February 15, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VanceMack, you made me laugh.
February 15, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VMack: I am still laughing! It is so true.
February 15, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

ASF...sad...but true. I work w/ several Obama supporters (formerly Hillary supporters). I have asked THEM what they like in his POLICIES...not a one can answer. They HATE Hillary now...and Bill. I asked them what happens if somehow Hilly wins. Pale faces...immediately...
February 15, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VMack... I think CB and 2cents went further into the internet to find liberal media facts to back their position..... but too many porn sites popped up, giving them a trojan virus and thus had to think for themselves. Suddenly they realized that the freedom of speech was responsible for their demise and loss web access, now they are happy because someone else's rights weren't violated.
February 15, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh...I was sort of enjoying the exchange w/ 2 cents. I actually dont mind disagreeing with folks...dont mind it when people disagree with me. Heck...I had my opinion on capital punishment changed by such an exchange.

And if they WERE looking for facts to back their position, at least thats more than you can say about a LOT of folks on the far left (far right too for that matter!).

All I have ever asked for is consistency and not hypocrisy. Thats why I have a lot of respect for the Susan Sarandons of the world. May not agree with a thing she says, but love that she backs it up no matter which pony she has to flog.
February 15, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

You have a very healthy outlook. With todays access to information, one can find anything that backs their position. You just have to look hard enough. In a quote from Einstein he stated that mathmatics was the only pure science, that it was the only one that could not be argued. Taken out of context. But scientist will develop a thesis and try and prove it right first. Not unlike partisan politics.
February 15, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

My years of debate taught me that statistics dont lie...statisticians do. Its OK...I use them to my advantage wherever I can as well. Like for example...I am a firm believer that we are adults at 18. However...the anti-gun folks used the statistic "13 children a day die by gunfire" a statistic oft quoted by Bill Clinton. Then you find that to get to that statistic they include the 0-25 age demographic...well...duh...18 to 25 males is the most violent statistical age category. So fine...since 13 'children' a day die as cited by Bill Clinton, then Bill Clinton is a child molester since Monica Lewinski was, by his accepted use of the definition, a child.

Yep...thats "Fun with internet sources and statistics."
February 15, 2008

1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Einstein was quoted to say:
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of people who are evil, but because of people who do nothing about it."

Edmund Burke said:
"All that is needed for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing"

And finally, Leonardo Da Vinci once spoke:
"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done"
February 15, 2008

3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

CB; The Patriot Act made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act.
So although your FISA of 1978 prevents certain actions, the Patriot Act changed that. It is the beauty of the government in which was so wonderfully created by our founding fathers. It is one that is allowed to breath and change. It is one of the people, by the people and for the people. It's the people who elect our leaders, giving them trust to carry out the deeds of their office. And in trying times, acts need to be carried out so the people are free to govern themselves.
February 15, 2008

4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles, you cant possibly be having a discussion with me...
February 15, 2008

4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

Too many have died since the Christians elected Bush whose reign kills the Christians in Iraq and their churches deserted. Christians should stay home on election day: They are voting for "Huckleberry," the HucklePhony preacher. I would be elated if Bush and Cheney were impeached and convicted for crimes against humanity.
February 15, 2008

6:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles, if all you say is true.. and I repeat VanceMack.... why has Bush not been impeached? With the 2006 election and the Dems taking control of the Congress and their complete disdain for Bush, why have they not tried to impeach the man. And tell me Chaz...should city governments even be involved in this?

Oh and BTW the Patriot act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism," thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
February 16, 2008

12:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Vi...

Here is your enemy in action. Now...negotiate with them. Good luck.

The video is very graphic. Be warned.
February 16, 2008

7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

VanceMack- excellent posts. I'm sure you know what 'troll' means and Charles B is listed there under the definition thereof. It's funny to watch you feed him as I don't have the patience.
February 16, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

More from the religion of peace extremists. Remember...you have to DEAL with people like this. Good luck negotiating.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A suicide bomber rammed a car laden with explosives into the election office of an independent candidate in northwest Pakistan Saturday, killing 37 people days before a crucial parliamentary vote, government officials said.

More than 90 people were wounded. Bodies were seen lying in pools of blood following the blast in Parachinar, a volatile tribal area bordering Afghanistan, one witness said.

Most of the victims appeared to be members of the opposition Pakistan People's Party, formerly headed by the slain Benazir Bhutto. They had gathered at the candidate's home following a campaign rally, said Mushtaq Hussain, an administrative official in the Kurram area.

He said a suicide bomber apparently "rammed his explosive-laden car into the election office.
February 16, 2008

8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

More...just in case you missed it and you probably did...but THIS is your enemy. Deal with them.

July 19 2007: Taliban kidnap 23 South Korean church workers, killing two execution-style and dumping their bloodied bodies by the roadside. Two of the female hostages reported being repeatedly raped.
February 16, 2008

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Hey...just want to keep this article at the top of the Google charts.

June 3 2007: The Righteous Swords of Islam splash acid on allegedly immodestly dressed women in the Gaza Strip and threaten female employees of Palestine TV with beheading unless they dress more modestly
February 16, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

June 2-3 2007: Canadian police raids capture 17 (Muslim) conspirators (an 18th captured later) planning to bomb multiple targets including Parliament, and to behead the Prime Minister.
February 16, 2008

8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Cutting and pasting is weak...not expressing my own arguments. Still...getting the picture? Try NEGOTIATING with these people...

Indonesia, October 29: In Poso, Central Sulawesi, four Christian schoolgirls aged 15 to 17 years on their way home from school were assaulted by six masked Muslim men who beheaded three of them, Theresia Morangke, Alfita Poliwo, and Yarni Sambue, with machetes and placed their severed heads in front of a church and a police station. The fourth girl, Noviana Malewa, survived but suffered serious machete wounds. The terrorists belong to the group Tanah Runtuh whose leader Hasanuddin confessed at his trial that the well-planned assault was inspired and financed by Guru Sanusi, a former Muslim rebel (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) from Mindanao.[5][6] Central Jakarta District Court sentenced two of the killers to 14 years in prison and mastermind Hasanuddin to 20 years
February 16, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles....simple there a handful of Democrats who lack the backbone? Last I checked there was a lot more then a handful in Congress! Check election results 2006, or Congressional role calls. Heck there a enough loonies on the left coast alone. The fact is... it is not simple. There are many laws in this area that contradict one another. Bush was clearly upset at the story about wiretapping because it played our hand to our enemy. Letting your enemy know what your are doing is a bad idea. Now thats simple. The wiretapping and eavesdropping by our government was for the protection of the people. Thats simple as well. Exposing our plans to the enemy at every turn, demanding your so called right to know everything at the expense of U.S. men and womens lifes... thats not simple, its TREASONOUS!
I'll tell you why impeachment hasn't been brought up.. after 9-11 the determination to defend America and create unity was so strong... that those same Democratic leaders were in on it, they knew what we were doing and even approved of it. So if they were going after Bush on the so called illegallity of the wiretapping, they would have to expose themselves as well. But the liberal media won't let you know that... will they.
February 16, 2008

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...Charles...Charles...

You keep your head in the sand...there are people that would love to exploit the position.

THATS the reality of the world. I could post literally THOUSANDS of articles. THATS the enemy you should be worried about. THATS the enemy Bush has been engaged in fighting. THATS the enemy you will have to confront. THATS the enemy you have no answers for. THATS the enemy you think deserves constitutional protection.

Fear? Charles...PLEASE...DONT BE AFRAID. You should live your life in happiness. I want the same thing for my children and grandchildren...to LIVE...free of fear. I'm willing to confront that enemy so my children dont have to. So my grandchildren dont have to.

But make NO MISTAKE my friend. Those animals are out there. They dont hate you. They dont hate America. They hate EVERYONE that doesnt see Allah in precisely the same way they see Allah. They hate Shiites, they Suni, they hate any and everyone that doesnt do ESCATLY what they believe they should do. They kill in markets, they kill in schools, they kill in homes, they kill in hospitals.

The WAR AGAINST TERRORISM Charles...it is a VERY REAL WAR. That is the ONLY war in which we are currently engaged. And YOU dont have an answer...but you have LOTS of hatred against those do.

Hey...try Ghandi's answer to terrorism.

Dear Friend,

Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be an impertinence. Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it may be worth.

It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to a savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success? Any way I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you.

I remain,

Your sincere friend,

M. K. Gandhi

Herr Hitler,

Berlin,

Germany
February 16, 2008

9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

Theres an option for you.
February 16, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

allseasonfan: "I'll tell you why impeachment hasn't been brought up.. after 9-11 the determination to defend America and create unity was so strong... that those same Democratic leaders were in on it, they knew what we were doing and even approved of it. So if they were going after Bush on the so called illegallity of the wiretapping, they would have to expose themselves as well."

THAT I absolutely agree with you on.
February 16, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

Charles, did you come with Mork?
February 16, 2008

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...I am quite simply convinced you are an impotent little fool that hasnt the ability to express an independent thought if your life depended on it.

You were continually challenged to answer basic questions and refuse to..but I think you refuse to because you know how idiotic your position, stands, and beliefs are. When the fact that you are devoid of idea is placed on display, you did what your ilk does...whine and cry. "Oh...you attacked me. Oh...you attacked my patriotism...Oh...wah wah wah."

Trust the economy to people like you? Trust our national security to people like you? Well...we may unfortunately see. I imagine a president Obama will learn quick, fast, and in a hurry that if they are going to combat terror they are going to have to do those same things Bush has done. And I believe that just like the liberals support of war when it is convenient, they will also support anti-terror tactics when it is convenient.

Your insistence that YOUR understanding of the laws is superior to every other lawyer and politician that would LOVE to do Bush in but knows they CANT smacks of typical hate filled rhetoric from the idiotic lunatic left. But since it works so well for you...keep it up.

You do what liberals always do...in the face of the actual PROBLEM you blame and attack people that are engaged in attempting to actually resolve the problem. This is no different than our national debacle with regards to the war on terror. The left has been so intent on attacking the right that they have refused to engage the actual enemy and it has emboldened the enemy.

From the beginning, Bush told the democrat leaders what the plans and intentions were. They knew from day one. They went along because they have no other answers and I think they know it is what has to be done. They only feigned outrage when the press disclosed, then they went completely SILENT when their role was also exposed. Which leaves idiots like you to be able to continue to rant and rave and howl at the moon your hypocritical disdain.

You and urine arent part of the solution. You never have been. You never will be.
February 16, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles... I did not answer your revelant question because it is completely irrelevent. "If" is a big word. Like I have unsuccessfully pointed out to you, Bush did not break your precious (like that VanceMack? Your reference from several days ago)FISA.
I have made my point to you over and over again, not as elequently as VanceMack though.... WE ARE UNDER ATTACK EVERYDAY! WE ARE AT WAR WITH AN UNCONVENTIONAL ENEMY THAT WILL BLOW UP ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO WIN! THEY MUST BE STOPPED, PERIOD.

Now you answer the revelant question... What are you willing to do to stop this??????
February 16, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

2cents...Thanks for agreeing with me, but I did say "so called illegality".
February 16, 2008

6:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

Did FDR or any agent of this country ever break any laws during WWII?
February 16, 2008

7 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

The logic of Charles's argument is:

Terrorists attack others,
Bush lied, people died.

The economy is in shambles,
Bush lied, people died.

My goldfish is floating upside down,
Bush lied, people died.
February 16, 2008

8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

sprachen sie deutsche?
February 16, 2008

9:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

I'll go you one better.

Bush didnt lie. Iraq did indeed refuse to give an accounting of their WMD programs as ordered by 17 separate UN resolutions.

Bush may or may not have been mistaken about the whereabouts of Iraqs WMDs but the UN inspection teams following the first Gulf war documented their existence. Bush operated under the same intel that all of the dems and other world intel agencies operated under.

Bush did not violate the law. A bunch of liberals claiming it is a fact does not make it so. I tend to believe that there are actually greater authorities on US law than found on blogs. For all the impotent ramblings of hate filled small minded little people, the lawyers on the left cant seem to muster the evidence necessary to impeach Bush. If they could, they would have...a LOOOONG time ago.

Bush said nothing different than what Clinton and all the lead democrats said. Democrats were involved in the wiretapping, the interrogation discussions. The liberals hate and vilify Bush but defend the actions and words of the democrats which proves the real 'villains' here are the liars and hypocrites on the left.
February 17, 2008

9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

allseasonfan: "2cents...Thanks for agreeing with me, but I did say "so called illegality".

Yes, I noticed that you added that qualifier. I was simply agreeing with you that the Dems were very likely in on the warrantless spying.

Unfortunately, if the amendment allowing telecom immunity passes in the House, we'll probably never know just how culpable the Dems were in this matter. And I think Americans deserve to know the truth. That's my position, which I understand is different from your own.
February 17, 2008

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

allseasonfan, let me clarify what I just said above: I don't mean your position is that Americans don't deserve to know the truth. I meant our positions are different on whether or not telecoms should get immunity for their role in the warrantless spying.
February 17, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Surprisingly, the Rocky Mountain News recently wrote an editorial stating no immunity should be granted to the telecoms. If anyone wants to join the discussion over there, the link is http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
February 17, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles: What a great question! One with only 2 choices for a answer and niether on favors me. Sounds like Socialism!

As far as FDR is concerned... A great leader who was helped by the greatest generation. "All we have to fear is fear itself" Inspiring words, but lets lock up all the Japanese Americans on the West Coast just in case. I think that was an act of fear. And I don't think he was wrong in his action, I try not to put todays values on history. Bush however, did not lock up Middle Eastern Americans, instead uses intelligence to monitor communications from suspected terrorist cells.

I believe a President who acts for the good of the country without malice or harm to it's citizens in order to protect his peoples freedoms, rights and lives should not be attacked by its people and leaders but should be praised and thanked.

Your problem Charles is you hate the man because he has religion. You believe religion is the route of all evil and the cause of all wars. It is not, hate and indifference is the route evil. And don't confuse religion with faith. Did you not say in one of your first posts "By the way, I despise all religion, not just Islam.
You want to undermine Islam? Undermine Christianity. They are co-dependent."
Isn't this your agenda, to undermine religion at the expense of your country?

Most of us here do not want to undermine Islam... we want to stop extremist who hide behind the vale of Islam.
February 17, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

ASF...EXCELLENT point RE FDR and the interment camps. Apparently FDR didnt fear fear...he saw an area where he felt he needed to act and did so, without fear. His words are apparently glorified while his realistic actions are ignored for the sake of making a point.
February 17, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Luke 19:27 gives W. Bush the Right to assassinate dictators; ("Bring them hither and slay them in front of me" and "jew" baby Jesus morphed into a Christian god sends W. to Iraq with his orders), hence here are ten dictators for Bush to assassinate: Kim Jonj-IL North Korea: Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan: Than Shwe, Burma: King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia: Hu Jintao, China: Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe: Sayid Ali Khamenei, Iran: Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan: Islam Karivov, Uzbekistan: Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea: And while W. is assassinating he may as well shoot Iran's President.
February 17, 2008

2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

I forgot to sign (and, I lifted the names from Parade 2/17/08: Richard Grimes, Deicide: http://www.geocities/r22037/think.html ~~ If anyone asks what is impossible, now you know:

Deicide Corner: “It is impossible to exaggerate the evil work theology has done in the world.” -- Lydia Maria Child
February 17, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

No, Charles...we are simply pointing out that while you threw out rhetoric (all we have to fear is fear itself) the man that YOU quoted violated far more in the realm of civil rights than listening in on phone calls from people in this country calling known terrorist strongholds. Right or wrong...FDR recognized that we didnt need to FEAR the Japanese or Germans, but by damn...we DID need to identify the threat and fight them.
February 17, 2008

4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

VanceMack, I appreciate your service to our country as well as everyone who does some selfless act for the greater good.
I would gladly give up some of my personal freedoms/liberties in order to keep my family/neighboors/etc. safe.
Does this make me a sap...probably.
I'm sure Charles will argue 'start giving in and they will never stop taking'. A very persuasive argument. However, I would still give up some of my rights for others.
Thank you to all the armed forces (volunteer the last time I looked) for doing a phenomenal job keeping us all safe.
February 17, 2008

5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Thanks John...I always say...everyone plays a role. Yeah...I volunteered so good and bad...Ive got no complaints. But still...the country would die without wage earners, tax payers, consumers, voters...just your average, everyday Joe citizen. I think it is everything else that makes it worthwhile to keep fighting for our freedoms.

I really dont much believe most of the liberals and their BS. When Clinton was president he ordered the military into action on numerous occasions and the libs pretty much all bought into it and supported it. I have no doubt that even if we do have a democrat president there will be times when the military will be sent into action. When we are, the left will be right behind their president. Which again just tells me they are a bunch of hypocrites who really just hate Bush because he beat Gore and Kerry.

I have far more respect for the committed pacifist (even if I disagree with them) than a I do the convenient pacifist.
February 17, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles... Your comprehension skills are less then exceptable. Just like all those educated Boulderites. Knowledge and applied knowledge are as far apart as you and me. When a valid point is made that supports our arguement, you try and change it around... throw up some smoke and blame someone else. Sounds like a liberal to me. We have stated our agenda's, they are clear. While I support protecting and defending our freedoms and rights, you fear religion and will destroy those that defend the right practice it. Hey is that a constitutional right your trying to squash?
February 17, 2008

6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

As I look back, Charles gave the example of being resolute against the Germans, the Japanese, and the Soviets. He spouts FDR quotes.

Charles...How many time did Reagan talk about the evil empire? How often did they point out their goal of world dimination and our need to stand up to it? For that matter how often did FDR speak against the tyranny of Hitler? Were they too spouting hate filled rhetoric? Were they just promoting fear?

The enemy Charles is REAL. If I was fear mongering I would be talking about ghosts. I'm not. I am talking about a very real enemy who has proved his desire to attack this country. And Oh yes..the very real actions of a president to combat that terror. And like an idiot, you hate the President, not the actual enemy. Why? because you CAN. Because you have the luxury of knowing that they have done damn near everything in their power to protect you. So...express your hatred...fire away. Keep on with your inane ramblings.

Its funny...your OWN WORDS are lost on you...so anxious you are to make a point.

Yes...heed the words of FDR. Dont fear fear. Identify and combat your enemy.

What am I saying...thats what you are doing.
February 18, 2008

7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

napewaste writes:

All of you local detractors of the Rule of Law should consider this of a statement of where you stand on America's future. If you let this pass, all your going to do is lose face in the eyes of the Nation. You might think your domestic problems far outweigh any results an impeachment would accomplish, but if history is any indication, that would make you a Tory. Google that word if you have any doubts to it's meaning. You either are for acknowledging the administration is/are performing criminal acts OR you support these very acts. The Republicans on this blog that tell you this is a waste of time, will also be telling you the surge is working and everything if fine. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not being partisan on this as I am a true Republican.
February 18, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Nate...the simple fact remains there are LEGIONS of lawyers on the left that would love nothing more than to crucify George Bush. They havent and they cant, not because they are unwilling but because it isnt enough in a court of law to SAY someone has broken the law, you have to prove it. Just because a bunch of bloggers believe it doesnt make it so.

The initial contention is he should impeached because he "lied." Thats simply not true. In point of fact his contention was Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions giving a full accounting of the whereabouts and/or disposition of their WMDS. That is an absolute TRUTH. Reinforced by the fact that the UN passed 17 resolutions in order to attempt to force compliance.

Leftists say he lied about Iraqs involvement in the 9-11 attacks. Hogwash. He stated that Iraq was guilty of ties to global terrorism. That is also an undeniable truth.

The third main position, one that never gets discussed, is Iraqs commission of genocide. 2.5 million found in mass graves and warehouses proves that to be true.

So the left moves to taking us to war under false pretenses. The problem with that is that the three main positions given are there, they are undeniable, and the accusation supposes you know why he took us to war if it is different than what was stated. Well...good luck proving THAT.

Then you can look at the warrant-less wiretaps. Since both parties leadership was involved and lawyers at the top level have examined it and found it fits within the presidential powers during a time of war, good luck proving THAT as well.

Saying something doesnt make it so. George Bush simply cant be impeached. People with have to be content with their hatred.
February 18, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...you keep saying you are ignoring me...such a wonderful job you are doing of that.

No...I stated the three reasons that Bush gave for going to war with Iraq. I have stated it on numerous occasions-

1-Iraq refused to comply w/ 17 UN resolutions giving a complete accounting of their WMDs

2-Iraqs ties to global terrorism

3 Iraqs commission of genocide

Those three positions are irrefutable.

Those are the three reasons cited which took us to war against Iraq. The war with Iraq ended in 2003. Since then we have remained in Iraq just as we remained in Germany and Japan, to assist a country build a government so that we wouldnt HAVE to have a GW3. Our enemy today is indeed the Muslim extremists...terrorists that think nothing of slaughtering innocents to bring about their ends.
Iraq is not the ONLY place where the war on terror is being engaged but it IS the focal point. Abandon Iraq without the proper tools in place, watch and see what happens.

You have done NOTHING but whine in your typical impotent weak minded way about everything that you hate about Bush but have said NOTHING about what you would see DONE. Its EASY to bitch, whine, moan, and cry. Accomplishing something takes actual guts, determine, a willingness to engage. You cant even engage in a conversation.

At least 2cents had the guts to state her position. You may have noted...even though I disagree with her I give and gave her nothing but RESPECT because at least she is willing to state a belief and an action.

It MIGHT even be pointed out that in my discussion with her I stated that if I had my way we would have been gone a long time ago. So you see...I dont and have never simply blindly followed. I do have a differing opinion. But since my opinion doesnt count I have a choice of two plans...the Bush plan, which while I dont agree with completely has been effective in preventing more terrorist attacks in this country and has done a reasonably effective job of combating terror attacks abroad, or the democrat plan which is...thats right...those are crickets you hear chirping...because they HAVE NO PLAN. Oh...but they DO love to whine. You say you ARENT a democrat? You should be.

All ANY of us can do in this arena is offer personal opinions. You dont even have the guts to do that.
February 18, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles, VMAck is right, you should be a Dem. You come back with your cutting and pasting only parts of what someone said... are you with the media. Heres a similar example.."it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth" Doesn't sound great, but it is from the 1st sentence of the Declaration of Independance."
In my comment about your disdain for religion, you cut out what does not serve you and anyone who is not lazy can go to previous posts to figure it out. Just like your precious youtube video about wiretapping... what about the whole speech, does he mention FISA? Does he talk about domestic wiretapping? He certainly mentions international survelliance in part 2.
For the rest of you who believe Bush should be impeached? I suggest you should do some research from reputable sources. If you want him impeached because you think Gore won in 2000.... then get over it or better yet.. ever played "horse" on a basketball court? If you want him to prove the win in 2000 look into the presidential election of 2004. Yeah the horse reference works real well with Kerry.
February 18, 2008

12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VanceMack, I take exception to your comments that Charles B has no guts and no position. Early in this thread, he spoke his mind, and he got vilified for doing so. He clearly shares my opinion that we don't have to resort to warrantless wiretapping and fighting a war in Iraq to win the war on terrorism.

However, just about everyone on this thread is having a really hard time keeping their cool and not resorting to insults. Myself included in some of my posts. It is with great struggle and restraint that I had to rein in my own anger and get to a more calm place to discuss specific points with you. I had to struggle to interpret your demands for my position not as an attack, but a valid challenge that forced me to clarify my thoughts and opinions.

You don't have to convince me with examples that terrorism is despicable, believe me, I have seen plenty of news stories that have illustrated unbridled evil that have literally made me weep. Charles is not denying the fact of terrorism, either. Like me, he is questioning how we're fighting it.

My position on how we're fighting terrorism stems from a broad look at where we are years later after the bombing of the USS Cole and 9/11. In terms of our country getting attacked again, it can't be ignored that we haven't. Thank God. Is that largely because of warrantless wiretapping? If so, what is the need for such a large military presence in Iraq? Also, is our right to privacy permanently revoked, or only for the duration of the war against terrorism? If the latter, how long can we expect that war to last? I would love to see discussion of these questions, but only if the discussion is thoughtful and rational. I think I'm at a point with you where we could do that; I'm not so sure about some of the others on this thread.

Now, switching our attention to incidents of terrorism outside America, around the world. It seems to have significantly elevated. Terrorism in numerous other places is going unchecked, while remains a daily occurrence in Iraq - despite our military presence there for going on five years now. And of course, we STILL haven't caught bin Laden, and our government tells us that doesn't matter. The Taliban also still has control in some areas of Afghanistan. I absolutely don't lay the blame of these problems on the troops actually doing the work in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I absolutely question the strategy of our leaders.
February 18, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Charles B states: "I said early in our conversation that I'd be happy to tell you how I think we should address terrorism. The only condition was that you take back your false attributions to me or provide proof that they were not false.

You won't because your stupid pride won't let you admit I never said or indicated those things and despite having time to continually post non-germane straw-man slaying diatribes you haven't been able to find quotes by me which would prove your case.

As I said then--I will not be bullied."

CB, maybe you're letting your own pride get in the way a little bit, too...just a little??

What personally helps me with that is keeping in mind that the thread's responders aren't the only people reading it. There are likely a lot more readers, and they could be influenced by my opinion.
February 18, 2008

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

2cents...I dont DEMAND anyone give their position but I do think we need more to have a discussion than just "the other guy sucks."

Rules of debate are pretty simple. You cant win a debate by just stating the other side is bad. You have to either be able to defend status quo as acceptable or offer a viable and more powerful alternative.

Honestly...I respect people that simply say "I have no idea what to do." Heck...its a pretty complex game that is being played and there really arent any quick and dirty, simple, cut and dried easy answers. There just arent.

Ideally, I would love to be able to adopt Christs model of turn the other cheek. Unfortunately, the enemy we face wouldnt be moved to compassion, they would see that as a weakness and would continue to attack. But ideologically...it would be wonderful to be able to do that. I mean that sincerely.

I know there are people that would rather die than fight back. OK...for them. But I personally dont see that as a a viable option. History is not on the side of tyrants being moved by peaceful resistance. History IS on the side of the valiant battling tyranny. And so yes...sometimes that means it gets ugly.

And I WOULD like to point out that at least to me it appears that you and I can completely disagree and still be civil. I simply have a hard time with people that lack the strength and courage to state a position but have no problem expressing hatred in opposition. That doesnt take strength or courage. Heck..ANYONE can whine about the actions of others.

You have stated how YOU would see terrorism fought. I am relieved to see that you acknowledge that it does need to be fought...at least in that we have common ground.

I also would point out that I believe we will see a democrat president and I hope and pray whoever he or she is will do an effective job of fighting terrorism. If you ever see me suddenly pouncing on their actions then you and anyone else will have every right to call me a hypocrite. The only peep you will hear from me is if they choose NOT to fight terrorism and our situation becomes worse.

I spent 8 years supporting Bill Clintons war on terror. I have no problem supporting the next president...provided they are PROACTIVE...even if it isnt what I believe is the best course of action. I dont believe in opposing a duly elected president just because he or she happens to represent a party I dont support.
February 18, 2008

1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh Charles...that is so funny for reasons you cant even IMAGINE.

No my poor, sad, impotent little Charles. Your weakness and lack of position has nothing to do with me. You are simply quite content to bleat and whine, but to actually engage? Why...perish the thought of you actually having to state a position that you might actually have to defend.

Like I said...if you ARENT a democrat...you SHOULD be. You sound not unlike John Kerry and Barrack Obama.
February 18, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...I still can't believe we have far right wing footsoldiers who are apologists for the fiasco in iraq.

you 28%'ers never cease to stagger the imagination.
February 18, 2008

2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Yep...thats what it is. I've said it before Charles...yer a hoot.

Funny...I can HAVE a discussion with someone that actually engages in conversation (fair, respectful, even in disagreement)...yet cant have one when it comes to someone like you. Amazing how that works.

Oh...I dont think people reading this thread will have any trouble at all identifying the characters and characteristics displayed here. None at all.
February 18, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles... Charles.... Charles.... Do you not read you own posts. You stated you despise religion, all religions. It was one of your first posts. It is what defined you in this whole discussion. It defined your actions and your fears. No I won't give you a retraction.

Jay.. thanks for dropping in with a jab. OF course your part of the 22% who support the democratic lead congress. If you have read any of the posts you would know that I am not far right.. I believe in the right to choose, but I think moneys should be spent on helping young women to see their pregnancies through, to make it a simpler process for adoption, That we should stop judging and making them feel shame... I believe in gun control to a point.(the whole doing the same thing and expecting different results)... I believe that all the worlds religions have something to benefit mankind. I believe the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. I believe the answer to all non-mathematical questions is "it depends". I believe the reason terrorist activity is up around the world and not in the US is fear. They fear retaliation. They fear Bush. To extreme Islam, negotiation is a weakness, but they understand an eye for eye. I believe that history is something that can be learned from, not changed and not judged by todays values. I believe people should be given a hand up, not a hand out. I beleive the differences in cultures and race should be embraced. And I believe that he who does not punish evil, commands it to be done. Saddaam and his reign were evil. No longer should the world live in fear; Dafur, Iraq, Sudan.... it is mans duty to protect the innocent whenever and wherever possible.
February 18, 2008

5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles B...
Since you have failed to reveal your true agenda, you open yourself to people analyzing your comments and actions in order to understand them and you. This is what I have done. This is not a conversation, I have asked you about the wife and kids and made small talk about the weather. This is a full scale debate. One of which you try to hold hostage your stance on terrorism, because your feelings are hurt. Your like your buddy Obama. Criminy, you can't even get into his website without giving up your email address.
You call VanceMack my comrade and my mentor. There is almost nothing that VMack posts that I do not agree with with, so if that is what you mean... so be it.

For more please visit www.charlesbsecretagenda.com
February 18, 2008

6:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Ohhhhh Charllllllles? Are you there? Looky what I found.

You posted to me at 5:39 today......"There's a difference between what I said and what you claim. In an adult conversation, you don't get to make up what other people think."

Yet on another post you posted at 11:56 this morning... "If you aren't a racist then why do you believe that calling John "Juan" is insulting? Simple: You think Mexican/Spanis names have a negative connotation. You are very clearly racist if that is your belief." Aren't you telling someone else what they think?

Clearly you have proven that you talk out of both sides of your A**!

I have one more belief, you don't have to remember what you said when you speak the truth. Good one for you learn, eh?
February 18, 2008

6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

Charles,
out of pure curiosity, and don't feel you have to answer, but why do you despise all religions?
February 18, 2008

6:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Me...mentor...really? Well...thanks! Good company I'd say.

The difference between every other poster here and Charles is that people aren't left to assume with regard to their position because they have the guts to simply speak their position. Talk about fear...how pathetic and limp do you have to be to refuse to allow your position to see the light of day?

You say you allow for the presence of the enemy. Fine...now...since you believe what is being done is WRONG (no...not wrong...you believe it is illegal)...again...fine...since your opinion is about as viable on the world stage as is oh...mine...then your 'opinion' goes noted. However...when it comes to the logical next stage..."since you hate what has been done, what would YOU do"...thats when you strike the democrat party line. Stutter...stammer, obfuscate...anything but actually express position. Someone might actually hold you to it. Oh...and bleat that people are attacking your patriotism...nice one there Bill!

Hillary made the same mistake. She started off singing the siren song of peace and immediate withdrawal. But when pressed...turns out that her concept of withdrawal actually means downsize to a presence of 80-90 thousand. When it is pointed out that that is the approximate troop presence we had before the 'surge' she immediately backtracks and ignores the specifics of the plan. Who knew people would actually call her on it?

Same as her plan to give 5k to every newborn child. Why...GREAT idea...especially when posed on front of mionority voting groups. Of course when pressed for how she would pay for a plan that would cost 4 TRILLION annually, she backed off. It was just a concept...an idea. No...it was just pandering.

So...much better to stick to attacks and slogans. Obama tried it last week...got smacked for his troubles. After an entire campaign devoid of ideas beyond the slogan of hope and change he was finally pressed to put out some sort of economic plan. He did...people gasped. He backtracked. Yeah...what a shocker...tax the rich, tax corporations, more giveaway programs to the poor and disenfranchised. Hmm....we've HEARD that somewhere before...

Look...dont worry. Just keep doing what you do. No one really expects anything different. If you state a position you might actually have to defend it. Or worse...if you state an opinion it might show just how ludicrous your position is.

No...stick with what you are doing...someday you can run for president.
February 18, 2008

6:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

VanceMack,
you might want to wind it a little tighter. It'll remind me of the wind up toys that bounced around the floor.
February 18, 2008

8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

thedinosaur writes:

Charles,
why dont you want to respond to vancemack and allseasonsfan. all you do is work around any direct questions and then cut and paste little portions of their earlier comments to try and make them look bad. you aren't trying to have an intelligent debate backed up by facts rather than your opinion. it seems that you are more worried about what people think about vancemack and allseasonsfan than fighting for your side of the debate. this should be an adult conversation, not a middle school girl fight where you try and hurt their feelings.
February 18, 2008

11:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Not to get into an argument re religion vs the big bang...but all sides rely on faith...even science. The ASSUMPTION is their was this unexplainable implosion of nothingess, from which all known and unknown matter...every mineral, every plant, every animal, occurred. No knowledge...in point of fact the theory changes frequently. The best that can be done is theorized and surmised. But if you allow for the theory, then you can go a long way to explaining things. But first...you got to have faith...even in the scientific process.

Darwin once said "if my theories (re evolution) cannot explain complex organs they must then be wrong." In response, he was asked to explain the evolution of the eye. He tried...stopped...and said simply, "it MUST have occurred, because look, we have eyes." Darwin himself took it on faith that somehow, for some reason, without the first strand of optic nerve or nuero-receptor, the body over the course of thousands of years allowed the skeleton to evolve to what is known as the ocular cavity-the development of which served no evolutionary advantage without the 12 million plus components required for the ultimate creation and function of the eye.

But Darwin was cool with faith. It just depends on what you have faith in.
February 19, 2008

5:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

Charles, I feel bad for you.
I can be blamed in complicity for:
-The killing of the Egyptian firstborn males
-The Holocaust in Germany
-911
-The Hindu Gujarat
-the 14th Dalai Lama slaughtering the members of New Kadampa Sect

All of the above actions took place because of zealots.
I choose to deny my animal instincts and try to live as God would have me live. I am human, therefore I am not perfect. But perfection will always be my goal.
With faith in my life I believe that when I die, I will not simply end. I have something to look forward to.
The reason I feel sorry for Charles and others who do not have faith in something larger than themselves is the questions that go through their minds when near death. What a sad and lonely time that must be.
February 19, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles... funny how you always demand retraction but are never willing to admit you were wrong.
February 19, 2008

8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles

Why do you make this do easy? Can you touch love? Can you define it? Can you prove it scientifically? Oh you can take polls and gather opinions, but you can't prove it's existence. But Charles, does love exist?
February 19, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles... it is extremism that is the problem. From the left, from the right, from Islam, from Christianity, from Nazi Germany, from individuals. It is what prevents the desire to understand. It is why I post with you, to try to understand and to be understood. I know a lot more then I did before. I know why people want Bush to be impeached. I do not agree with it, but I understand it more.

Somehow, I don't believe this is your goal. I *think* that you are an anti-religous zealot who believes religion and faith are dangerous. And since the current President is faith based, you fear his actions are based on that faith.

BTW, extreme Islam is not based on faith, it is based on fear. Check Nazi Germany circa 1933 - 1945.

Also, how do you feel about JFK, was it his faith that got us involved in Vietnam?
February 19, 2008

8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles...Thank you. He did say you were right. So that justifies what you said to me to me.... making up what people think. So I guess the end does justify the means?
February 19, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Why parse words? Tell me...how many people take the "theory" as scientific fact? There is a reaosn why the words hypothesis and postulate are prevalent in the scientific arena.

Science invents fields to deal with the unknowns and still press on with discovery. I'm not discrediting the practice...simply stating the reality.

How did science deal with the question of where all this matter came from? Simple...they declared it ALWAYS existed in the form of "dark matter"...and awwwwaaaaaaayyyyy we go.

Carry on the concept of complex organs. Evolution has always held that it is either events through a series of evolutionary advantages or simple mistakes/mutations, but the development of complex organs defies that theory. Without the eye itself why develope nueroreceptors in the brain to interpret impulses and signals? Why would the skeleton evolve? Why would optic nerves thread from brain to occular cavity? and so on...

You can postulate all day as to why, but the simple fact is that there is no evolutionary advantage so it shouldnt have happened. Yet, it must have. Somehow.

Of course...science doesnt like the word 'faith'...but it's the same thing.
February 19, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

You'd be amazed at how many people take simple math concepts on 'faith'. I had professors-certifiable math geniuses-that couldnt explain why a negative times a negative equals a positive, except that the principle works when applied.

BTW...it works in the 'not' realm. But the point is there are generations of mathematicians that simply take it on faith that it works.
February 19, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles..being wrong all the time and being married... finally something we can agree on.

On love, my question was rhetorical. You cannot define it. but you can embrace it.

I am not a fan of any religion that goes against its faith, but it is people who do this. But I do believe in a greater spirit, I have seen it first hand and more importantly, I have felt it.
February 19, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Ah...but ASF...you CAN define love...the psych world does it all the time. Love in a scientific sense is simply a series of chemical imbalances, akin to the measurable chemistry of anger, passion, etc.

Of course..that means all human beings are chemically imbalanced.
February 19, 2008

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VMack - especially CB!
February 19, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

What would it make someone if they simply rode in and posted negative diatribes about the Left...about...say Clinton and his history...without posting any thoughts or ideas for a positive change?

As for the chemical imbalance...I guess the point is that the psych community basically does what the scientific community does...that is makes general statements of fact in their quest for scientific credibility. With very very few exceptions, the only 'chemical imbalances' are ones readily explained by circumstance. Yes...you are angry...because the events of your life suck. No....the events of your life suck because you are chemically imbalanced.

Actually...the psych community does it with far less fact...but they present it as fact or at least "provable theory" nonetheless.

I realize...this takes us from impeachment...but really...thats been done to death I think. And it was defeated...bigger fish to fry as they say.
February 19, 2008

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Good luck. Sagan tried it (defining love). It didnt work for him-he just had to accept that he was "in it."
February 19, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

OK Charles I'll go along

What I mean is... you said you don't get to make up what people think.. What I said was a logical conclusion based on your multiple previous posts. Just like your logical conclusion based on one post from T1anda. But since your opponent in that debate verified your claim, it is ok by your standards to make the claim in the first place - hence, the end justifies the means.
February 19, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles we can argue this forever and not get anywhere. So are you ever going to answer my question?

What is your agenda?

And are you afraid of the end of your existance. If I told you, you would die in the next day, would you be afraid?
February 19, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

It doesn't really matter what you say your agenda is. I get it too. You can't be honest with yourself, why should I think you would be honest with us. Fear can also be a positive response. It what keeps us safer.
February 19, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

allseasonsfan: "Fear can also be a positive response. It what keeps us safer."

It also serves as a willingness to give up certain freedoms. If it's always used as the primary tactic to keep us "safer," one day we're going to find ourselves without a LOT of freedoms. Yeah, we may be safe from being bombed by terrorists. But will we be safe from our own government???
February 19, 2008

12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

mytwosense -

Valid question. Do you feel that the Bush adminstration is dangerous to its citizens? That they intend to grasp power and unleash it upon this country. Is that why we have the 3 branches of government?

Do you feel that they broke the law: whether the intentions were right or not, we need to set an example of him so future officals dont test the limits?

Do you feel safer today, then you did on 9-12-01?
February 19, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...reread your quote. Darwin himself was rationalizing and justifying his theory. Reason tells us? Really? so how did you get to even the simple eye?

Look...I'm not even fighting with you and you want to turn this into a pissing contest. I certainly dont know the inner workings of evolution, intelligent design, or whatever grand mishap occured that caused life. However...to base your 'superior' position based on the grand theorizing of a concept theif (sorry...Darwins ideas werent even his own) is just downright silly in my eyes. This sentence posited as 'proof' is nothing more than Darwin tap dancing around the fact that he had no answers.

"...reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound"
February 19, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

"There is no evolutionary advantage to having eyes?"

Where I studied evolution teaches that evolutionary change comes over thousands of years...not creation of complex organs just beacuse it would be nice to 'have' eyes.

ummmm...from the perspective of that slightly more advanced premordial state...what are 'eyes' and what would they serve us? And which genetic strain caught the 'vision' that they would be good to have? and over the course of how many millenia did they will the different components to become? And which came first...the threading of an optic nerve, the receptor to interpret it, the cranial opening ( or was it first deemed viable from an endoskeletal perspective), or did it all happen in concert?
February 19, 2008

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

I imagine both versions of the afterlife (or lack thereof) are very freeing...depending on your perspective and how you choose to live your life.

I do think the bigger question, if we are all just evolved animals and there is no afterlife, is where does the concept of morality and right and wrong come from? Are we simply working off a set of artificial rules set in place for societal benefit?
February 19, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VMack - for once I disagree with you. I don't think the impeachment issue has reached a conclusion. I am tired of the anti-Bushrhetoric by the left. I am tired of the protestors on I70 and wadsworth trying to influence people because of party politics. It happened in the 60's and 70's. And now Nixon is the one responsible for Vietnam, not JFK and LBJ. The left preaches understanding and care for their fellow man, yet they try to destroy based on principal. They promise to help you out and give you hope, but keep you down so they can have votes.

No this is far from over, the extreme left isn't about freedom and rights! They are about power and once they have it, they wont change a damn thing. Oh appearances my look like change, but it wont be change, it will be illusion.
February 19, 2008

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles. Where does your majority come from? Did the NY Times do a survey of Americans at an Obama rally? You want a survey, stand on a corner with a sign saying "If you want Bush impeached, honk". You wont have to. It's been done, and I didn't hear a lot of honking.

Also Charles, in all your posts and your cutting and pasting and your links, not once have you mentioned how many American citizens were effected by wiretapping? No facts on why Bush has not been impeached, just conjecture. But then you base your whole argument on so called facts? You make statements and when confronted, go out to the internet to back up your claims. Anyone can find the answer that fits them if that is all your looking for, especially on the misinformation super highway.

So here are the facts.

1. Bush has not been impeached.

2.
February 19, 2008

3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Good lord, dude...do you LIVE to fight? You sure you dont have a little Jihadi in you?

"I posted the Darwin quote to put the lie to your contention that his understanding of how the eye might have evolved was more nuanced than simply: "..it MUST have occurred, because look, we have eyes."

reread his comment. AFTER being challenged on the evolution of the eye of an eagle, he made the very simple comment (dont worrry...I'm digging for the exact quote). But the point is immaterial (and NOT an attempt at a battle). In your 'wicked' and 'cutting' response and your eagerness to put a 'lie' to something you gave a mealy mouthed quote from Darwin FULL of supposition that could have as easily supported my position than yours. Or did you even bother to read it?
February 19, 2008

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

BTW...which quote did you provide? the raw...1st edition, The honed and changed second? The third version? Maybe it was the fourth..posited after he had time to think and rethink, or the fifth or even the 6th edition posted some 13 uears after the first? And notice...even in the 6th, his comments should have, could have, might have, must have, and all manner of speculative verbage that "gives lie to" the idea that "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

And so he goes about positing on how it could, that it could, and even allows that there are no archeological evidences that it DID , but that shouldnt stop us from supposing...

And thats FINE...as far as theory goes.

But you dont find the words could, should, might, as being at least a little dependent on faith? Why not? He did.

"Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?"
February 19, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

ASF...we'll agree to disagree...I know there are many that would LOVE to see Bush impeached but the simple fact is that it would take congress to impeach Bush and unless the dems are willing to paint virtually ALL their leadership with the same brush as Bush, then it will never happen. Instead, the Kucinich's and Conyers' of the party will continue their impotent little rants because hey...thats what is expected of them.

I truly am almost excited to see what happens if a Dem wins the White House. I wonder what their action will be. Whatever it is...I hope and pray it is successful.
February 19, 2008

4:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

There is a headline on the Boulder Paper site that catches my eye every time..."Bill adds child rape to capital-crime list" and I cant read and not see "Bill Clinton adds..."
February 19, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Charles...Im not an absolutist. Simple fact is I dont KNOW. I personally think it all ought to be taught as idea or theory. I personally think people that are so rock solid convinced of theory are as illogical as those they ridicule in creationism.

My kids came home from school and asked how we reconciled faith with Darwinism. my response was simple...dont reconcile...learn. Understand all you can. Accept it as theory...theory that we may never really know the answer to, and then press on with your life. Study everything you can.

And yes, I do believe in the existence of a higher power. I find it as illogical to believe that all the matter in the known universe always existed as others find my illogical belief in a creator.
February 19, 2008

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

I gladly voted for George Bush twice
and would gladly vote for him a third time.
Of course, I don't normally read Darwin at night before bed, so I
guess my evolutionary chain must be limited.
I still feel bad for you Charles. I'm fairly happy to see the Democrat primary going the way it is. Intellectuals will always rationalize everything, whereas normal people will vote for convictions.
February 19, 2008

6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

By the way Charles,
according to your superior logical ability, every person of any faith does harm to others. This reminds me of the argument:
All cats are animals,
all dogs are animals,
therefore all cats are dogs.
Wow.
February 19, 2008

7:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

thedinosaur writes:

Charles

Why do you fear wire tapping? Have you done something criminal that you fear the government would catch you doing? Do you fear safety? If your family was in danger and wire tapping could prevent harm from coming to them would you still consider it wrong? If you would then you truly don't understand love.

"Wrong. Science relies on methodology which is specifically designed to take "faith" out of the equation."

Debate is also a science. It requires at least some faith that the opinions of those debating are correct in their opinions. So the question is, Do you have faith that what you are debating about is correct or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Oh, and by the way you have mentioned multiple times the impeachable crimes that Bush commited between 2000 and 2004. You claim, "the majority of Americans favor impeachment." While I commend you on having a semi-reliable source, the poll was only taken by 1216 americans. A miniscule fraction of the whole population. And if Bush had commited impeachable crimes between 2000 and 2004 and your poll was taken in 2006, why then would the majority of the nation vote for Bush? Check out the poll I have (which by the way 121,480,019 people participated in).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/page...
February 19, 2008

9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles... the question of Bush not being impeached is very relevent. Unless your a constitutional attorney or I am we can argue all day long about who is right. The only fact out there is that he has not been impeached and like we have said, if the evidence is so against him why has it not happened? I think it is because he didn't break the law.

Also, I love your little link on your poll backing up your claims of impeachment support. Of those polled that were Dems or Republicans, 75% were Democrats. Also of all polled only 17% were Republicans. Like I said, Obama rally.

FYI VMack I was refering to the discussion at hand not national view of impeachment when saying it was not a dead issue, nor should it be.
February 20, 2008

8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Good Morning Charles. In response somewhat to your post to Johntrythisone. You to him:

"What I said is that people of "faith" lend the credibility of numbers to those nutjobs blowing themselves and others up, because they share the same underlying belief in the afterlife. The harm is indirect, but very real. Care to respond to the *actual* logic of my belief rather than slaying the straw-man in the form of a flawed analogy you provided?"

I have given you proof that a many suicide bombers do not do it out of a flawed attempt to meet virgins in heaven. That they are being threatend to do so or are mentally disabled and brainwashed to do so. You have not cared to respond to this reason, yet sidestepped it.
It is easy to blame religion on events in history, but I argue that religion is just the mechanism. It is indifference that has been the cause. If all men were atheist, I believe the results would be the same. Hitler, was said to be an atheist, this can be argued, but he did not just murder 6 million Jews. He killed 5 million gypsies, criminals, masons et al. Stalin was another atheist who killed 20 million of his own people, he did it in the name of power. I could keep going and then you would give examples of atrosities in the name of religion. But we both know that there is only one common denominator, man. Man can be evil and that is why I believe going into Iraq was something that needed to be done. The 20th century had seen it fair share of powers that went unchecked and costs millions... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Did we really need another?
February 20, 2008

9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

After 9-11 is was difficult to realize the extent of the war on terror. 19 militants had killed close to 3000 people. How much more ability did they have to do this, when so few could kill so many. Could this continue. Under the leadship of our President it has not continued. No attacks on native soil. And although, sadly, we have lost over 3000 of our heroes, Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces have lost at least 10 times that amount. We have taken the battle to them and exposed them to the Middle East of the dogs they are. We are winning and there is change afoot. News today should point this out, that a shift not only in tactics has worked but also a shift in how the people of Iraq are winning. Check this out!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/ir...

The war on terror has drawn them out in the open. One time allies of their cause are now against them. They have proven to have no respect for any human life, culture or beliefs. The people of Iraq are used to this but will not stand for it any further. The Sunni's in Iraq are tired of Al-Qaeda ways. Al-Qaeda in Iraq have created "enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. Lets hope it lasts.
February 20, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

allseasonfan, to answer your questions...

1) Do you feel that the Bush adminstration is dangerous to its citizens? That they intend to grasp power and unleash it upon this country. Is that why we have the 3 branches of government?

Yes, and particularly from an economic standpoint. I feel they have a "privatize everything" ideology that is bent on undoing a lot of what built America into a powerful and prosperous country. For example, I worry that my generation is going to be the last one to benefit from a superb public school education - a system that taught us well, and prepared us all, no matter our socioeconomic background, for college and beyond.

Truthfully, I believe this ideology stems from a belief that there are those destined to rule and to own, and those meant to serve those rulers. They would never admit it, but in my strong opinion, the ideology that espouses complete privatization of everything is deeply rooted in views about class.

As for our three branches of government, that system of checks and balances, it is without a doubt why America has, for the most part, remained a peaceful and lawful country for hundreds of years now. You see other countries with continuous civil wars and economic poverty - those checks and balances aren't there. The Bush administration has, on numerous occasions, tried to side-step the procedures this system puts in place so that no one branch has too much power. The warrantless wiretapping is a perfect example of this.

2) Do you feel that they broke the law: whether the intentions were right or not, we need to set an example of him so future officals dont test the limits?

The warrantless wiretapping breaks a clear Constitutional law, and it does set a dangerous precedent, particularly for how ordinary criminal investigations could be carried out in the future. Even if we don't impeach Bush, I would like to see the Supreme Court rule that it was illegal, to warn future administrations not to do the same thing. However, our Supreme Court is declining to hear cases various organizations are bringing to them about warrantless wiretapping. And they are declining those cases without comment or explanation.

Yet, they will agree to hear a case like Anna Nicole Smith's lawsuit for her dead husband's billions. I am disgusted by that.

3) Do you feel safer today, then you did on 9-12-01?

Good question. I definitely felt after 9/11 we were going to see more incidents of terrorism in this country, and, like most citizens, was on edge. Seven years later, we haven't had any. I'm relieved, and yes, I do feel safer in that respect. But I never really got over 9/11, as I'm sure most of us haven't. There's that fear...just when we get comfortable, will another horrific event occur?
February 20, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

mytwosense.. excellent responses. Thank you. Most conservatives feel the opposite about Bush, that he has created too much government. I think there are many hands in the failure of our public schools. I do believe there needs to be a much bigger effort in this area. Throwing money at it just seems to do nothing. I do believe we need to make it a national priority, but we also need to change our mindset. I have teenagers that have gone to schools of choice or charter schools from day one. These are successful schools with dedicated teachers and staff, but what makes them successful is the parents involvement in their childrens future. I dont know how to legislate that.
I agree with the Supreme Court and Anna Nicole Smith. But getting to the wiretapping, according Patriot Act it is within the bounds to wiretape foreign communication without warrant for the purpose of preventing terrorism. Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard". So all though they are controversial and some struck down by federal judges in late 2007, Congress did approve the act. So did Bush knowingly break the law, did he bend it or did he use the loopholes in it to make us safer? I think it is the latter and I have no issue with it (CharlesB).
I couldn't agree with you more on number 3. My wife still will not watch anything to do with it, it is to painful..even movies.
February 20, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles, as I tried to point out to you. It is not about religious principal. You stated that the suicide bombers motivation is martyrdom. That once dead they will reach enrichment in the afterlife. How does having somebody else do your bidding and dying help you in the afterlife when you’re not the one dead. It is not about that! That is the fallacy; it is about power and evil.
February 20, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

thedinosaur writes:

charles

"Personally, I fear unchecked power no matter who possesses it."

Power is checked because last I checked there were three branches of the government used for a system of Checks and Balances. I do fear unchecked power but if you can prove to me with facts and not Public Acknowledgement that it is unchecked then I then I will back down on the matter. I do not care whether a President is a Democrat or a Republican. All I want is a President that will keep Americans safe and prosperous. Every president since Reagan has been succesful in doing this and if a Democrat would do this better than a Republican than he is *my guy*.
February 20, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles. Quite frankly, there are things our government needs to do to keep us safe that I do not want to know about. This is a different time than Ben Franklin (when the Brits were aghast by colonials targeting officers during battles). Most everything evolves or devolves, our founding fathers new this and made the constitution a breathing document. And come on Charles, what President in this day and age can do anything unchecked? Do I fear a 1984 George Orwellian society? No, I do not. As the dino said, checks and balances. You seem to want to get me into a “what if” argument about Bush and wiretapping. You are convinced he did this illegally. The expression “the proof is in the pudding” comes to mind.

Also, on all issues you have with me, I respond and debate. Yet when you bring up points; whether original or in response to me or someone else; I and come back to you with facts. You seem to ignore them, sweep them under the rug…. What about your survey of “most Americans want Bush impeached”, no response. What about terrorist not dying but having others die for them, did this just die? Or is it easier to ignore than admit defeat?
February 20, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Dino, every President since Reagan has kept us safe and prosperous? I think Clinton had a lot to do with 911.
February 20, 2008

1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Guppy writes:

To the Boulder City counsel members involved, especially Gray, Morzell, and Osborne.

You never cared about the impeachment resolution passing. You knew that as long as the "Camera" carried the debate story, you'd end up getting your names on the AP wire. It's all about self promotion, and it won't be forgotten during your next election.

At least cooler heads kept the city counsel, as a whole, from wasting even more of my tax money.

How do we impeach you?

A concerned, and increasingly fed-up Boulder resident.
February 20, 2008

1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/f...

It appears that maybe the FISA question is not as cut and dried as the blogging experts on law appear to think.

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
February 20, 2008

4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Right Charles...and you do. You make me laugh. Dude...you missed your calling.All these people out to impeach the man...and all the have to do is call you...because YOU have all the answers.

yeah...yer a joke.
February 20, 2008

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh...BTW Charles...its not me...hey. Well...I mean...I DO think you are wrong. But more importantly, the FISA appeals court also disagrees with you. So...you are smarter than lawyers, smarter than judges...shame though...because they have the authority. Which is why impotent little people stage impeachment hearings in places like Boulder Colorado and Berkley California. And on the moveon.org websites...and all the little leftist blogs...etc.

But hey...if all that makes you feel better...I hope you get something from it.
February 20, 2008

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles. Heres a little video for you.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-z2D9lo9-8
February 20, 2008

7:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

Quoting from Charles:

Johntrythisone:

"With faith in my life I believe that when I die, I will not simply end."

Exactly. That's the problem. A suicide bomber believes the same thing.

*** A suicide bomber---does this mean a particular person or is this a generalization. I'm sorry, Charles but I need more specifics from you. Does every suicide bomber feel the
same thing****

"The reason I feel sorry for Charles and others who do not have faith in something larger than themselves is the questions that go through their minds when near death."

Whereas a suicide bomber is completely self-assured and confident in their eternal reward right before they kill themselves and their innocent victims.

*** Again the generic suicide bomber. We're not stereotyping are we now?***

Ahhhh, the benefits of "faith".

***Charles, can you tell me that there has not been a single person who has helped rather than hurt others because of faith?***

And by the way, you don't need religion to believe in "something larger than yourself".

Sorry Johntrythisone, what you've outlined is a composition fallacy. What I said is that people of "faith" lend the
credibility of numbers to those nutjobs blowing themselves and others up, because they share the same underlying belief in the afterlife. The harm is indirect, but very real. Care to respond to the *actual* logic of my belief rather than slaying the straw-man in the form of a flawed analogy you provided?

***People of faith---does this mean 2 or more or all?***

***I never said all or no people of faith have done bad. That is your argument. I would like to know what straw-man you are referring to.***

***I am referring to a person(Charles) who is so narrow minded, that he/she cannot even admit another person could have a worthy idea. Isn't that just the definition of open minded discussion? I read comments from people completly from opposite ends, and yet they show some willingness to at least listen to what the other is saying. I only see Charles espousing his own self righteousness.
February 20, 2008

7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Charles__B writes:

You people all make me *sick* to my stomach. I don't need people like you twocents helping me.
Grow up all of you pathetic liars. I have all the *truth* I need.
February 20, 2008

8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

In the interest of...I dont know...fairness...decency...that looks to be a cloned Charles_B comment (looks like two __). Thats probably a little more pathetic an attack than anything you could attribute to the guy. Says more about you than him. Just an opinion.
February 20, 2008

8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johntrythisone writes:

VanceMack,
You're absolutely right. Nobody has to stoop to lowness to represent Charles. He kinda does that himself. Sorry, couldn't help myself!
February 20, 2008

9:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Charles.. coming from you, your last statement is a compliment. Everything you have said is the polar opposite of my opinion. A little FYI... my perception is my reality. And I was incorrect, something you'll never admit to. You are not just an anti-religious zealot... Your a nut! Sorry to go there, but hey you demand the truth.
February 21, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

No worries...We CAN still be civil. No room in my life for hatred...especially with people I dont even know.

OK...SO...the FISA courts are a joke. Agree to disagree...but it does make the whol thing sort of immaterial, right?

The 3 main reasons cited by Bush for going to war are irrefutable. The FISA courts have found no legal course for action. Done and done.

I dont think its a question of us not knowing what our government does...it is a question of knowing our government is going to do everything in its power to combat terrorism, and for the life of me...I STILL have yet to see this horde of thousands...or hundreds...or even tens of American citizens that have had their civil rights violated in the name of national security.

I HAVE seen the exposure of terror cells, individuals collecting intel and resources for terrorist groups, and terrorist communication and banking practices intercepted. I have seen a country relatively secure since 9-11.

I just really have a hard time believing those on the left would be so up in arms if it were a democrat president. I have a hard time believing it because they said nothing during Clintons 8 years, which means it is more about hatred and politics than actual concern. For most people.

I also acknowledge there would the extremists on the left that will complain about anything a democrat president does. Cut from the same cloth in my opinion.
February 21, 2008

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

CB - Do you care to comment on fact that the greatest killers of the 20th century were all aetheists? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pot. Like I have said many times... is it the evils and indifference of man or is it religion? Please respond.
February 21, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VMack - Great Point. If all that had been done in the past 7 years been done by a Dem, I don't believe they would have responded. I do think some Republicans would have. Partisan politics has become a cancer to this nation; it has always been an issue. After 9-11 I thought one good thing to come from it was that the nation would come together and defeat a common enemy. To me, that has been my complaint of Bush. He lacks the verbal skills of a Roosevelt or a Reagan to inspire or rally those to the cause.

The attacks on Bush though have gotten out of hand, Katrina? Come on. It has gotten to the point that when it snows to much we make sarcastic remarks like “Blame it on Bush”. The left sees a tactical advantage and keeps up the pressure. The right fires back with their own onslaught. In the middle are the majority of moderate Americans who want nothing more the honesty and trust from their leaders. With the coming national elections, they won’t get their wish.
February 21, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Oh I would have loved to have had the "Katrina" conversation. For all the BS, did anyone ever ask how long it took Clintons FEMA to get into the Carolinas following...what was it...Andrew? I recall seeing a video of Jessie Jacksons show where he interviewed Clintons FEMA director and they still werent on the ground after 28 days. Guess Jessie just dont like white people...cuz it was OK then.

Hypocrites.

And no one bothered to ask what New Orleans did with the 3.5 million it spent in emergency preparation. I guess the plan was...RUN!!! I think I could have come up with that plan for a LOT less.
February 21, 2008

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

Blame the Bush! Blame the Republicans! Blame! Blame! Blame! Looks like gunfire to me.
What they don't realize is when you point the finger, 3 are pointing right back at you.
February 21, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

chobbes writes:

VMack - did you see my link. I am not on the extreme right, in fact I share a lot of Guilianni's views. But this is spot on.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-z2D9lo9-8
February 21, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

VanceMack writes:

Thanks ASF...I'll check it out later from home.

Home › News › Local News

Boulder: Impeach Bush?

By Ryan Morgan, Daily Camera

Published February 12, 2008 at 6:16 a.m.

Related Links

Related Stories

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs