Should our criminal in chief be impeached?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The only thing more tiresome than democrats who think Clinton didn't lie are republicans who think he was found guilty for doing so.

Clinton was not found guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor in the impeachment sense, nor was he found "guilty" of perjury in the criminal sense.

He was found liable for a civil discovery sanction when the judge found that he lied under penalty of perjury, which resulted in $90k of costs and fees for the opposing counsel that would have been unnecessary had he merely told the truth.

The sanction also resulted in Clinton's adminstrative sanction of being suspended by the Arkansas Bar, as well as being expelled by the US Supreme Court for his abuses.

So, he was not found "guilty" per se, but he was sanctioned for his lack of truthfulness.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,088]

>So, he was not found "guilty" per se, but he was sanctioned for his lack of truthfulness.

Right. Isn't that what I said?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

$90k of costs and fees for the opposing counsel

God, I love this country.

[lawrocket 3]

It was what you said. I put that to clarify for everyone.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

and he lied about what?

Careful. I have all the quotes from Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Edwards, Kenedy and on and on and on.

Did they all lie too??

I guess that depends on whether or not they knew that the intel had been cherry picked and laundered through the OSP. If they knew, they lied. If they didn't, then they just repeated a lie.

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

Some 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.


Should lawmakers pursue impeachment if President Bush continues with his Iraq plan?

No, they shouldnt impeach him if he continues with his Iraq plan. They should impeach him for the mere fact that he is an asshole.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Some 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.


Should lawmakers pursue impeachment if President Bush continues with his Iraq plan?

No, they shouldnt impeach him if he continues with his Iraq plan. They should impeach him for the mere fact that he is an asshole.

And that is essentially what they're doing, they need to find an imeachable reason. The reds thoug Clintin was an asshole so they impeached him for no reason, went fishing in his personal life and forced testimony under oath and got him to lie to avoid his wife knowing. WHat comes around makes the reds cry...boo-fuckin-hoo

[Lucky... 0]

So after days on here 59% agree with AOL, which was 62%, turd-boy s/b impeached. Funny thing is that it is an emotional reaction, as most people claim there is no basis for an impeachment, but various people are pissed about the goodies chump did:

- Ergonomics Bill killing
- Overtime Law
- BK Law
- Arsenic in drinking water reduction killing
- Numerous environmental assaults
- Wiretapping
- Asswipe appointees
- Doubled the rate of debt increase over even Reagan/Bush
- Katrina reastion
- Numerous tax cuts for the rich
- Union killing
- Medicare cuts
- Privatized prescriptions / illeaglizin Canadian meds
- New taxation proposal for employer provided medical coverage
- Many more I am missing....

So the impeachment is a backdoor way to say fuck you. When the Reds impeaced Clinton, over 1/2 the people disagreed and were pissed. When the Dems impeach this POS the people will cheer.

So my point here:

The snate just passed teh Houses' resolution to award funding for the war, but it has strings where the troops must pull out by March 08. So now if Bush vetos, he is killing funding for teh troops (sound familiar Rush - Clinton refused to sign the 2nd min wage incr due to piggybacked bills), not the Dems in Congress. If he signs to get the funding, refuses to pull the troops, clear cut Usurpation of Congress by not obeying their bill that he signed. Do you think so? Doesn't matter, it's the House that can/will impeach and they will have time in March 08. It's almost as they planned it that way .

Think it won't happen? Watch. Your run of horror is over Repubs, hope it was fun

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

. . . they need to find an imeachable reason. . .

I believe impeachment is a bad idea, given the current situation. However, it would seem that Bush could be properly impeached over some of his presidential signing statements, or, more specifically, failure to implement policy which Congress has passed in the form of legislation.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

. . . they need to find an imeachable reason. . .

I believe impeachment is a bad idea, given the current situation. However, it would seem that Bush could be properly impeached over some of his presidential signing statements, or, more specifically, failure to implement policy which Congress has passed in the form of legislation.

There's so much division in this day that I see several impeachments in the next several presidencies. This impeachment would be great, as he has truely fucked the country; just a way for the people to say, "fuck you" to a really bad person.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

. . . they need to find an imeachable reason. . .

I believe impeachment is a bad idea, given the current situation. However, it would seem that Bush could be properly impeached over some of his presidential signing statements, or, more specifically, failure to implement policy which Congress has passed in the form of legislation.

There's so much division in this day that I see several impeachments in the next several presidencies. This impeachment would be great, as he has truely fucked the country; just a way for the people to say, "fuck you" to a really bad person.

This line of thought is why Iraq is in such bad shape today. Saddam was a really bad guy, so we took him out. Unfortunately, our leaders gave little, if any, thought to the ensuing power vacuum. There was no credible leader to take Saddam's place. As a result, Iraq has suffered greatly.

Would the nation really be better off with Cheney in the Oval Office? Sure, W is bad, but I don't know that we should advocate going from bad to (arguably) worse for the sake of principle.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[willard 0]

C'mon, Lucky. I sense you're holding something back. Tell us how you really feel.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

C'mon, Lucky. I sense you're holding something back. Tell us how you really feel.

So no real response to:

The senate just passed the Houses' resolution to award funding for the war, but it has strings where the troops must pull out by March 08. So now if Bush vetos, he is killing funding for teh troops (sound familiar Rush - Clinton refused to sign the 2nd min wage incr due to piggybacked bills), not the Dems in Congress. If he signs to get the funding, refuses to pull the troops, clear cut Usurpation of Congress by not obeying their bill that he signed. Do you think so? Doesn't matter, it's the House that can/will impeach and they will have time in March 08. It's almost as they planned it that way

Nothing, no response?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

. . . they need to find an imeachable reason. . .

I believe impeachment is a bad idea, given the current situation. However, it would seem that Bush could be properly impeached over some of his presidential signing statements, or, more specifically, failure to implement policy which Congress has passed in the form of legislation.

There's so much division in this day that I see several impeachments in the next several presidencies. This impeachment would be great, as he has truely fucked the country; just a way for the people to say, "fuck you" to a really bad person.

This line of thought is why Iraq is in such bad shape today. Saddam was a really bad guy, so we took him out. Unfortunately, our leaders gave little, if any, thought to the ensuing power vacuum. There was no credible leader to take Saddam's place. As a result, Iraq has suffered greatly.

Would the nation really be better off with Cheney in the Oval Office? Sure, W is bad, but I don't know that we should advocate going from bad to (arguably) worse for the sake of principle.

Some say Cheney is running it now, so would there be a diff? I think to insulate this abhorrent POS by way of fearing teh alternative is really weak. Isn't that like giving in to terrorists? We can be well assured that any removal attempt would fail anyway, so it's a way of the people tellin teh criminal chimp he sucks and mar his already destined for shit legacy to shit.

Most people think the Clin ton impeachment ws a joke, most others wonder why we haven't impeached the chimp as of yet.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

C'mon, Lucky. I sense you're holding something back. Tell us how you really feel.

So no real response to:

The senate just passed the Houses' resolution to award funding for the war, but it has strings where the troops must pull out by March 08. So now if Bush vetos, he is killing funding for teh troops (sound familiar Rush - Clinton refused to sign the 2nd min wage incr due to piggybacked bills), not the Dems in Congress. If he signs to get the funding, refuses to pull the troops, clear cut Usurpation of Congress by not obeying their bill that he signed. Do you think so? Doesn't matter, it's the House that can/will impeach and they will have time in March 08. It's almost as they planned it that way

Nothing, no response?

Nope. I have found my life much more enjoyable when I leave political bickering and whining to others, so have at it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

C'mon, Lucky. I sense you're holding something back. Tell us how you really feel.

So no real response to:

The senate just passed the Houses' resolution to award funding for the war, but it has strings where the troops must pull out by March 08. So now if Bush vetos, he is killing funding for teh troops (sound familiar Rush - Clinton refused to sign the 2nd min wage incr due to piggybacked bills), not the Dems in Congress. If he signs to get the funding, refuses to pull the troops, clear cut Usurpation of Congress by not obeying their bill that he signed. Do you think so? Doesn't matter, it's the House that can/will impeach and they will have time in March 08. It's almost as they planned it that way

Nothing, no response?

Nope. I have found my life much more enjoyable when I leave political bickering and whining to others, so have at it.

Instead you find the need to impart stuff like: C'mon, Lucky. I sense you're holding something back. Tell us how you really feel.

WHy not just acquiesce? Oh, you did.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

and he lied about what?

Careful. I have all the quotes from Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Edwards, Kenedy and on and on and on.

Did they all lie too??

I guess that depends on whether or not they knew that the intel had been cherry picked and laundered through the OSP. If they knew, they lied. If they didn't, then they just repeated a lie.

OK, cherry picked by whom in the years before GB was even running for pres. In the years when Clinton was still pres.

Who cherry picked the intel when all those listed made their comments in the times before GWB?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[willard 0]

Quote

WHy not just acquiesce? Oh, you did.

Yeah, right.
Choosing not to debate does not in any way mean acceptance of the challengers viewpoint as fact.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

t's almost as they planned it that way

At least we all recognize the blatant partisan posturing in the structure of the thing. It'll be interesting to see how this spin is spun in the legis response.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

OK, cherry picked by whom in the years before GB was even running for pres. In the years when Clinton was still pres.

Who cherry picked the intel when all those listed made their comments in the times before GWB?

Sorry man, Iraq is 100% Bush (43) baby. The assumptions of the late 90's were based on lack of access to Iraq. Bush had "unfettered" access, didn't like what they weren't finding, swept the truth under the rug, made up a scary story and then launched their new product line in Sept of 2002, because "everyone knows you never launch a new product in August".

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, cherry picked by whom in the years before GB was even running for pres. In the years when Clinton was still pres.

Who cherry picked the intel when all those listed made their comments in the times before GWB?

Sorry man, Iraq is 100% Bush (43) baby. The assumptions of the late 90's were based on lack of access to Iraq. Bush had "unfettered" access, didn't like what they weren't finding, swept the truth under the rug, made up a scary story and then launched their new product line in Sept of 2002, because "everyone knows you never launch a new product in August".

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln