kelpdiver 2 #101 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteOn what charge? I am no fan of Bush, but I was wondering the same thing. Usurpation of power, lying to Congress. Is the first one a crime? He's commander in chief and got a pretty blank approval check from Congress. They have yet to revoke it or to try to invoke the WPA. Plausible deniability is strong on the second one. (of course, this pretends that the 'jurors' would actually treat this as a trial, not a kangaroo court) The 2006 election was the punishment. And strangely, most of the GOP candidates seem to want 2008 as a repeat referendum on the subject. Staying the course might keep the extremists, but won't do them any favors with the masses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #102 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>My original point was that impeaching Bush, while I may feel he >deserves it, may not be best for the nation. Congress checking Executive >power might be a better option. I agree. Congress should censure Bush for his abuses of executive power and move on. I think there's payback owed, esp since that POS Lott was driving the Clinton impeachment while he was fucking a mistress. It is just the climate of today;s politics. You are proving once again that you do not know why Clinton was impeached or, you just want to continue the medial lie about it. I illustrated why in teh previous thread and even posted the charges that the House brought forward, 2 of the 4 attempted, and the senate result. You keep bantering this theme but have yet to produce evidence to the contrary. No comment on Lott..... can't figure out why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityJunky 0 #103 March 28, 2007 Quote On what charge? No seriously what's your question? PICK ONE! Heaven KNOWS THERE ARE PLENTY TO CHOOSE FROM!*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too! *Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge *Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie} Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #104 March 28, 2007 QuoteI think it is time to bring back the quotes (from before Bush) about the danger of SH and Iraq. The quotes from Hillary, Bill, Kerry, Kenedy, Schemer Ried and on and and and on.................. Yes, things never change, the Japs are considering a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #105 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd impeaching Clinton over a BJ and subs lie is a good thing? I thought it was a waste of time and money, myself. Well, it's that whole equal and opposite reaction thing. I think they should but won't toshow they are above it. If two wrongs don't make a right, try three! Here here. (raises drink) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #106 March 28, 2007 If they investigate.... You're assuming an aweful lot. Starting an impeachment process does not mean bring charges first and then investigate, that's just backwards. As others here have said, your hatred of the man is not grounds for impeachment. Hate does no good. Half of those you hate don't know, and the other half don't care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #107 March 28, 2007 QuoteLucky, I think you didn't actually read who or about what the responce was to. Y'all might wanna go back and reread it. I thought it was to me. I'm so used to Rush constantly clammering that I don't know the impeachment process, guess that was an extension of that. QuoteFurther I find it a really common and cheap tactic these days on the internet to simply call somebody that points out flaws in others posts as "condescending." WHat's condescending is for someone to suggest that I don't know the general rules of impeachment. I now realize you were talking to somone else, but to assert someone does't know the rules, fatcs etc is just agrumentative rather than illustrating why. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #108 March 28, 2007 Well then if your party is so virgin, a quick testimony under oath would put this baby to bed, agree? Oh no, you want the ability for a dress rehersal to see which lies won't wash, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #109 March 28, 2007 Quote>There is tons for documentation that ShrubCo "fixed the "facts" around >the policy". Start with the Downing Street Memos. Yes. But selectively citing intelligence to support one's desire for war is not criminal. It's no more criminal than a used car salesperson who sells you a car by citing all of its good points and downplaying its bad points. It might be slimy and manipulative, but again, that's not a crime. Suppresing evidence could be usurpation of power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #110 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteSome House Reps are considering it, should he be impeached? A recent AOL poll just showed that 62% said yes he sould if he keeps the Iraq idiocy going. That is not an impeachable offense. Find some evidence that shows he committed a CRIME, not "I don't like what he did". Then sure, try to impeach him. This is becoming circular, that is why the Dems want the criminal party under oath. That is also why the criminals want a backroom dress rehersal, so they fix which lies won;t work and even own up to the lies that won't wash. If Clinton had a dress rehersal (no pun intended) then he would have admitted to the affair and there would have been no impeachment. I don't want the criminal party having any different rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #111 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteSome House Reps are considering it, should he be impeached? A recent AOL poll just showed that 62% said yes he sould if he keeps the Iraq idiocy going. That is not an impeachable offense. Find some evidence that shows he committed a CRIME, not "I don't like what he did". Then sure, try to impeach him. Usurpation of power, lying to congress Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #112 March 28, 2007 QuoteIt's a waste of time to talk about it because the votes at a Senate trial will be along party lines and the Dems don't have the votes to convict - a 2/3 majority is required. Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were saved by the 2/3 rule, as the majority voted against both presidents. Didn't save Clinton, prob saved AJ as he had many charges the senate voted on. QuoteBesides saying that 'til I'm blue in the face, I'm also of the opinion that impeachment SHOULD BE a dire step to take against a President who's clearly out of control. Which could arguably be our Boy George.... That's teh way it was, now it's used as a censure. QuoteNevertheless, the only two times a Pres has been impeached, were both abuses of the process in my opnion (and both the work of radical Republican Congresses against Demo Presidents who they hated, historic fact). Johnson was impeached for firing his Sec'y of War Edwin Stanton, and Bubba Bill of course for lying under oath about a couple blowjobs that were really nobody's damn business. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Andrew Johnson was the successor behind Lincoln, the first Repub pres. I don't know the composition of congress during the Lincoln/Johnson admin, so I can;t attest as to why he was impeached other than disregarding congress, Usurpation of power from congress. QuoteSo instead of fanning the flames of impeachment every time some President or another pisses us off, maybe we should just THINK a lot more carefully about the ones we elect. As well as our reasons for running off to war, which is always easier to start than to finish. New world. With teh impeachment of Clinton the Repubs have opened a can of worms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #113 March 28, 2007 Quote> This thread is just proof that liberals aren't about peace, love >and tolerance. I sense nothing but hate. Read more carefully. Most of the liberals in this thread do NOT want Bush impeached. Compare that to the number of conservatives who were 100% behind Clinton's impeachment, and you'll get a good sense of where the hate is coming from. Fuck, that makes me a neo-conservo-maggot. Fuck Good obsrvation with the thread trend. I realize it will do nothing to benefit anyone, I just want the neo's to understand that if they are gonna bring to oath a person for personal reasons, then the door swings both ways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #114 March 28, 2007 >then the door swings both ways. Precisely, and heres why; Voters and their representative political parties are stigmatized by the actions of the president they support. For Democrats,(like myself) the Clinton years were mostly favorable - the economy was on the upswing, and the world was in RELATIVE peace with itself, America had a good reputation world wide, life was good and people were happy...Until Clinton decided to stick his dick in a 240 volt light socket and light up a big neon sign that said "LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY, I'M AN ASSHOLE!!" now we have to deal with that stigma... For Republicans, well, The Bush administration's Iraq policy is gonna be your legacy and stigma to deal with. and I have to tell you from experience...you will never hear the end of it- so good luck with that. Maybe it's time for a woman to take charge cuz as any of you who live with a gal know......they are always right, I mean correct.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #115 March 28, 2007 Quote I just want the neo's to understand that if they are gonna bring to oath a person for personal reasons, then the door swings both ways. Good luck with that. Don't forget, they've got God(R) on their side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #116 March 28, 2007 >Suppresing evidence could be usurpation of power. Neither one is a crime. (If suppressing inconvenient facts was a crime, every used car salesman in the US would be in jail.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #117 March 28, 2007 Quotesure, lets impeach him. that will be great for our country. i just love how for the last few years, the dems have been doing everything they can to embarrass the administration and make our pesident look bad. And you don't think Bush has done it himself? The Dems might be there to point it out, as any opponent would do, but the boob even makes un of his own semi-litteracy, not a good standpoint for a pres. Quoteif bush is as bad as the dems say, they wouldn't need to waste so much energy pointing it out, it would be obvious and they could spend their time doing something constructive. They pointed it out for teh first 4 years, the country didn't understand it, so they need to make clear what a horror he is. Quotealso, if there were the slightest shed of evidence that bush lied, it would be on the front page of the new york times daily. I see what you mean: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opinion/29sun1.html?ei=5090&en=4785bb029b806e38&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=print A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies. Quotein the interest of fairness, they same thing may have been going on during the clinton administration, i don't know, all i remember is that he lied about something he never should have been asked about and our pesident was embarrassed in front of the world. Of course and that has opened the door for all Republicans to be witch-hunted like he was. The thing is that the country loved Clinton and the Repubs were seriously scared of an FDR kind of love for the Dems, a trend to have 5 or 6 terms of Dems as pres, so they had to set up a person with his achilles. Quotethis trend is not good for us. This trend is good for the people,perhaps not the Repubs. On a more global basis, the Repub congress has show how putridly abhorrent they are by refusing to pass the min wage increase. They truly suck and there is no recovery from that, so the Repubs need to be minimized in our gov and now and I think the American voters see that. The leading losers, McCain and Guliani are going to get wasted by Hillary or Obama, watch and see... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #118 March 28, 2007 QuoteConstant use of degrading terms in reference to a certain political party and President most likely is what leads to people assuming someone doesn't understand the political process. Worrying about referring to Bush as a Nazi is semantic. At the end of teh day, where do we sit? The 3 stooges have jacked this debt up by over 75% of its total, the OT law, Ergonomics Bill, BK law, medical coverage, etc. Willard, these are all topics I've gone into detail with here and the righties just ignore them and defer to me calling Bush a Nazi.....so what???? QuoteWrong. To veto any or all bills put before him is well within the powers of the President. If congress wants and has the votes they can then override a veto. That is not a pilitical charge, but that can motivate them to seek political charges, which is what their recent fiching expedition is, ala Ken Starr's fuching expedition, a witchhunt and it has begun as teh subpoenas were issued....need to be served and then teh fight starts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #119 March 28, 2007 QuoteImpeachment will not solve anything because it isn't the president who is doing anything criminal. That is to be discovered. I if was a fly on teh wall of anyone, I could constitute some behavior of theirs as felonious. The laws are written so loosely that anything is a felony just as the pres could be indicted on charges. The composition of the House is such that any charge will do. QuoteEither he is incredibly smart or incredibly stupid. His administration are the ones who are committing criminal acts. While the president sits there and looks like an idiot his administration is doing all the dirty work. Look at how many criminal situations have surrounded the president but never directly involved him. Sure, he is stupid. He appoints them and knowingly has then do their dirtywork. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #120 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteAs for what we can impeach the Republiscum for: Usurpation of power, just as the first scumbag Repug. If he thumbs his nose at Congress enough and overrides their vote, they can impeach. Not a valid reason. "I don't like him!!!!" is not an impeachable offense no matter how much you don't like him. For a person who claims to know about the impeachment process and law, you seem to forget, or just choose to ignore, that he has not done anything illegal that you or anyone else can produce any evidence. If he ignores the direction of congress, they will go fishing and find a charge. Right now they are just posturing with their threats. IF he were to agree to a pullout by 09 they will back down. If not, I see them going thru with it. As for teh Senate, if tehy get a charge (impeachment), I see some Repubs, esp ones who are up in 08 going against Bush. If you are a Repub senator up in 08 you probably act very unRepublican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #121 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuote> This thread is just proof that liberals aren't about peace, love >and tolerance. I sense nothing but hate. Read more carefully. Most of the liberals in this thread do NOT want Bush impeached. Compare that to the number of conservatives who were 100% behind Clinton's impeachment, and you'll get a good sense of where the hate is coming from. CLINTON BROKE THE LAW BASED ON A SEXIUAL HARRASMENT SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST HIM FOR HIS ACIONS BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT!!! He purgered himself and conspired to have others lie for him under oath. Did not have a fucking thing to do with a GD BJ. Big dam difference And that's where you don't understand the impeachment of Clinton, he was impeached for Purgery and obstruction, they failed o get the other 2 attemped impeachments for the Paula Jones issue. A charged filed befoe teh House that fails is not an impeachment, just as a Grand jury failing to indict and issue a true bill for a criminal defendant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #122 March 28, 2007 QuoteOk, so I guess you're not against the dems of the congress breaking out the ol' judicial microscope and scrutinizing the political lives and doings of Chaney, Libby, Rove, Bush and Gonzales. Oh no, Rus is, this is a 1-way street. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #123 March 28, 2007 QuoteI think it is now. I think each president should be impeached every year of their term regardless of whatever party they are in (but especially if they are in the 'other' party, and especially if they are ugly, or have bad hair, or if their hair is better than mine). Your boys started it, so quit whining. You were probably on teh edge of your seat cheering for impeachment during the Clinton years, deal with this now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #124 March 28, 2007 QuoteI voted No. Do I want him to be impeached yes. But has he broke the law unfortunately he has not. So we can not impeach him. It sucks to want. I'm not sure if the wiretapping stuff might be callified as impeachable. Remember, all we have to do is get some lame charge and push it thru the House, as it will go eaily and then let the Repub Senators up in 08 shuffle their feet. IF there was Dem solidarity in the senate, a couple crossovers in teh senate and the senators up in 08 who might want to run again, well, it could happen (removal), not likley. As for an impeachment, just get any charge before the House and it's a lock. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #125 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteCLINTON BROKE THE LAW BASED ON A SEXIUAL HARRASMENT SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST HIM FOR HIS ACIONS BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT!!! He purgered himself and conspired to have others lie for him under oath. Did not have a fucking thing to do with a GD BJ. Big dam difference The difference is that the conservatives didn't focus on this. They did not focus on the readily apparent difference between two consenting adults and the head of government with an intern. The move on Clinton was focused on the moral - not the legal. On that basis, the conservatives blew it, no pun intended. Right, so ot goes from the logical to the emotional, rendering a reciprocal impeachment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
