Vt. towns approve Bush 'indictment'

[LV426]

Vt. towns approve Bush 'indictment'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_fe_st/odd_bush_warrant;_yl t=Asy.ZAo.0qGEsaRtlx wcq1NvzwcF
By JOHN CURRAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution.


More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere — if they're not impeached first.

In Brattleboro, the vote was 2,012-1,795. In Marlboro, which held a town meeting on the issue, it was 43-25 with three abstentions.

"I hope the one thing that people take from this is, 'Hey, it can be done,'" said Kurt Daims, 54, who organized the petition drive that led to the Brattleboro vote.

The measure in Marlboro isn't binding because it didn't appear on the warning for the meeting, according to Nora Wilson.

"It was emotional. There were heartfelt speeches on both sides," Wilson said.

The question put to voters in Brattleboro referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations.

In Brattleboro, a steady stream of voters paraded into the Union High School gym to cast their ballots on a day when school board elections and Vermont's presidential primary were also on the slate.

Voters interviewed after casting ballots said they saw the article as an opportunity to express their frustration over the war in Iraq and Bush's tenure in general.

"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."

Ian Kelley, 41, a radio DJ, said he didn't vote on the article.

"It's not a good reflection on the town," he said. "Do I like either of them and would I vote for them? No. But I don't think it's cause to arrest them."

Barbara Southworth, a 66-year-old nurse, said she would have voted against it.

"I forgot to vote because it was on the flip side," she said.

The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort.

"It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them.

[Bookwyrm]

Hmm . . . I think Blair Latoff has it wrong. Well, maybe not entirely -- a lot of what liberals do is a waste of money. But then that's more a human trait than a political one.

The vote is symbolic and can't do anything, but I think it's much more important than any Senate or House non-binding resolution (I always find those amusing), since this is a reflection of what ordinary people think. Are they right or wrong? That almost doesn't matter. The point is that this is what they believe.

A vote like this is far more telling than any poll (though I would like to know the total number of eligible voters who didn't vote), since it's not someone answering a phone to take a pop-quiz from the local polling agency. This is a vote where people had time to really think about the answer and put down their firm opinion.

Now, the article makes a point about the vagueness of the charge, which is important to consider. I've noticed that a lot of people don't actually know what the Constitution says (similar to how many Christians don't know what the Bible actually says sometimes), so it would have been better to explain the charge in simple terms rather than just leave it vague. Not everyone knows the specific line to go to regarding the current issue of the day. (I don't. I can only think of the clauses on war powers, which as far as I know weren't violated -- though they technically were for Afganistan, if you happen to be a strict constructionist.)

[UNODRAGONE]

Vt. towns approve Bush 'indictment'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_fe_st/odd_bush_warrant;_yl t=Asy.ZAo.0qGEsaRtlx wcq1NvzwcF
By JOHN CURRAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution.


More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere — if they're not impeached first.

In Brattleboro, the vote was 2,012-1,795. In Marlboro, which held a town meeting on the issue, it was 43-25 with three abstentions.

"I hope the one thing that people take from this is, 'Hey, it can be done,'" said Kurt Daims, 54, who organized the petition drive that led to the Brattleboro vote.

The measure in Marlboro isn't binding because it didn't appear on the warning for the meeting, according to Nora Wilson.

"It was emotional. There were heartfelt speeches on both sides," Wilson said.

The question put to voters in Brattleboro referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations.
In Brattleboro, a steady stream of voters paraded into the Union High School gym to cast their ballots on a day when school board elections and Vermont's presidential primary were also on the slate.

Voters interviewed after casting ballots said they saw the article as an opportunity to express their frustration over the war in Iraq and Bush's tenure in general.

"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."
Ian Kelley, 41, a radio DJ, said he didn't vote on the article.

"It's not a good reflection on the town," he said. "Do I like either of them and would I vote for them? No. But I don't think it's cause to arrest them."

Barbara Southworth, a 66-year-old nurse, said she would have voted against it.

"I forgot to vote because it was on the flip side," she said.

The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort.

"It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them.


This is utterly retarded, FYI people VOLUNTEER to go into the military, I mean honestly did I sleep through some draft recently? I'm sorry no offense to anyone but having serve in the military myself and getting a first hand look as to how things are decided this just makes me laugh. Instead of bitching and moaning like little whores why not solve the worlds issues yourself or come up with some way to solve todays problems since you think you can do better. Honestly, everyone loves to bitch about something that is not right but thats all they do, no one actually does anything about it. Ok thats my rant for the day :) good find LV

[Lance Walker]

While it may be non binding, I think it was right to let the voters express themselves like this. I personally, think there's a lot more people in this nation on both sides of the political isle that would love to vote on such a question if given the chance.

I only wish that it were put on the a ballot here sometime so I could express my discontent with this administration.

Well, I'm out.

Later all,

Lance Walker:cool:

[Bookwyrm]

While it may be non binding, I think it was right to let the voters express themselves like this. I personally, think there's a lot more people in this nation on both sides of the political isle that would love to vote on such a question if given the chance.

I only wish that it were put on the a ballot here sometime so I could express my discontent with this administration.

There are plenty of ways to do that, you know. The best thing to do is let your other elected officials know how you feel. They were put in office to serve you, not the other way around. If you have a problem with something in the government, pick up a phone and call the office for your councilman, mayor, state senator, governor, national senator/representative, and even the White House itself. You can even express your opinion to the Supreme Court, although they aren't allowed to let that change their minds; the point is that there are these avenues of communication.

The problem most people have is that they just shoot off their mouths about it. Instead, the way to be heard is to express yourself in a calm, collected, and especially concise manner. One should always leave an audience feeling that didn't speak long enough rather than the other way around. This is true for a lecture, a presentation, a resume, an interview, or calling your Congressman.

It is my firm belief that this is the main reason that conservatives have had such success being heard in this way in the last year or two. We've all heard the soundbite "Conservatism is about ideas" or somesuch. Well, there are plenty of ideas on both sides, but liberalism leans more towards emotional appeal than logic. There might be fallacies in conservative logic (I've spotted a lot myself), but my point is that they are generally able to present a calmer, more concise picture than the average liberal. This is a shame, because there are great ideas on both sides, and very few people will stop and consider their opponent's plans without prejudice simply because they have a different letter in front of their name.

What this country needs isn't more people shouting slogans. It's more people presenting clear, calm, concise, and logical ideas and arguments. That movement is growing on the conservative side, but liberals seem to be reacting by being more shrill.

So I like this vote simply because of that. It wasn't a rally where people shouted and waved signs. It wasn't a bunch of people sitting around making fun of Bush's public speaking skills or talking about how much Senator Kennedy drinks. Instead, it was a calm, organized process whereby a lot of people were able to express their opinion on the record and be counted. Their knowledge of Constitutional law is suspect, and especially their knowledge of judicial jurisdiction, but I'm sure the call for that vote started with a group of people calmly arguing the case that they needed this avenue of public expression.

[UNODRAGONE]

There are plenty of ways to do that, you know. The best thing to do is let your other elected officials know how you feel. They were put in office to serve you, not the other way around. If you have a problem with something in the government, pick up a phone and call the office for your councilman, mayor, state senator, governor, national senator/representative, and even the White House itself. You can even express your opinion to the Supreme Court, although they aren't allowed to let that change their minds; the point is that there are these avenues of communication.

The problem most people have is that they just shoot off their mouths about it. Instead, the way to be heard is to express yourself in a calm, collected, and especially concise manner. One should always leave an audience feeling that didn't speak long enough rather than the other way around. This is true for a lecture, a presentation, a resume, an interview, or calling your Congressman.

It is my firm belief that this is the main reason that conservatives have had such success being heard in this way in the last year or two. We've all heard the soundbite "Conservatism is about ideas" or somesuch. Well, there are plenty of ideas on both sides, but liberalism leans more towards emotional appeal than logic. There might be fallacies in conservative logic (I've spotted a lot myself), but my point is that they are generally able to present a calmer, more concise picture than the average liberal. This is a shame, because there are great ideas on both sides, and very few people will stop and consider their opponent's plans without prejudice simply because they have a different letter in front of their name.

What this country needs isn't more people shouting slogans. It's more people presenting clear, calm, concise, and logical ideas and arguments. That movement is growing on the conservative side, but liberals seem to be reacting by being more shrill.

So I like this vote simply because of that. It wasn't a rally where people shouted and waved signs. It wasn't a bunch of people sitting around making fun of Bush's public speaking skills or talking about how much Senator Kennedy drinks. Instead, it was a calm, organized process whereby a lot of people were able to express their opinion on the record and be counted. Their knowledge of Constitutional law is suspect, and especially their knowledge of judicial jurisdiction, but I'm sure the call for that vote started with a group of people calmly arguing the case that they needed this avenue of public expression.


:notworthy I think you and I will get along famously :)

[Vendetta]

This is utterly retarded, FYI people VOLUNTEER to go into the military, I mean honestly did I sleep through some draft recently? I'm sorry no offense to anyone but having serve in the military myself and getting a first hand look as to how things are decided this just makes me laugh.
I'm curious, what does the article have to do with a volunteer military?

Also, as for wasting tax-payers' money, it's sounds like the tax-payers PARTICIPATED, so I'm not sure how exactly that was a waste. They wasted their own money somehow? Isn't that everyone's right?

Spending exorbitant amounts of money on an unwinnable war, now THAT's a waste of tax-payers' money.

[Lysander]

Spending exorbitant amounts of money on an unwinnable war, now THAT's a waste of tax-payers' money.

Yeah you are right.. the war on poverty has costed hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 40 years and is totally unwinnable.

[UNODRAGONE]

I'm curious, what does the article have to do with a volunteer military?

Also, as for wasting tax-payers' money, it's sounds like the tax-payers PARTICIPATED, so I'm not sure how exactly that was a waste. They wasted their own money somehow? Isn't that everyone's right?

Spending exorbitant amounts of money on an unwinnable war, now THAT's a waste of tax-payers' money.

]"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."[/B]

who do you think is honestly fighting this war?

[Vendetta]

"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."

who do you think is honestly fighting this war?
You DO understand that the people fighting a war just don't go where ever they please right? They have political and military leaders who TELL them where to go. This guy is complaining about poor leadership, not people who volunteer for the military.

[UNODRAGONE]

You DO understand that the people fighting a war just don't go where ever they please right? They have political and military leaders who TELL them where to go. This guy is complaining about poor leadership, not people who volunteer for the military.

his arguement seems mute since he will not go into detail on why he doesn't agree with something except for the simple fact he doesn't agree

[Vendetta]

his arguement seems moot since he will not go into detail on why he doesn't agree with something except for the simple fact he doesn't agree
People can't disagree with things on simple principle?

[UNODRAGONE]

People can't disagree with things on simple principle?

yes, but that wasn't the case here. The voters were given a specific question

The question put to voters in Brattleboro referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations.


if your going to ask a question like that then you should have something in place stating specifics