Lucky... 0 #126 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Agnew was not VP when Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, Ford was. Right. I'm making an analogy to today's situation. It's not a given that Cheney will become president if/when Bush is impeached, since it's not a given that he will still be VP. That is a fair point. 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. And impeaching Clinton over a BJ and subs lie is a good thing? Welcome to this fucked up world in 2000. It wasn't the BJ Lucky, it was lying under oath that powered the request for Clinton's impeachment. Technically, but the witchhunt of Clinton is what initiated the whole thing. Why would it even come to light to subpoena the pres over that? That is the real question, as Lawrocket said, it was a moral indictment. It wasn't as if they were exploring something else, they went after the man for his sexual indiscretions, that is not debatable, is it? Then the idiot lied so his wife wouldn't know and they had him and then turned it into an issue of a lie. The whole thing started out as a fishing expedition of a man's sexual life...pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #127 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteWe had Clinton doing it, too - lest people forget, his unchecked exercise of moral and righteous domination was so strong after less than two years that the voters removed Dems from Congress en masse in 1994 - giving Repubs control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years. You don't think the more obvious causes - the tax hikes, along with the recession in 1994, didn't lead to this result? It wasn't until the next election cycle where the dropping deficit and growing economy made that move look better. Recession of 94, please provide any economical data to support that. He inherited the recession of the early 90's, 7.5% unemp soaring debt,etc and turned it around, but we didn't see a real change until after the 96 election, so I disagree. The tax increases by both GWH Bush and the 93 Onibus spending bill are what fueled the turn-around. COnversely the tax cuts by Reagan, Bush, Bush are the things that have made them liable for >75% of the 8.8T debt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #128 March 28, 2007 QuoteObviously it started at the founding of the US and really took its foothold with the federalist/antifederalist. Check out what folks like Madison and Jefferson thought about Alexander Hamilton's plans for centralizing the government debt and establishing national credit. Jefferson and MAdison were allies against Hamilton and good friends - opponents with huge mutual respect. QuoteWhat person can handle a presidency? Maybe the constitution is flawed in its presidential job description.. Anyone over the age of 35 can be president. How's THAT for a flaw? Bush is over 35, that's how Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #129 March 28, 2007 Quote>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.) That depends on what evidence was suppressed and how it was done. If they wilfully (the key word is "wilfully") suborned false testimony about WMD's, etc. before Congress, that's subornation of perjury and criminal conspiracy. If they wilfully caused Scooter Libby to have him lie to the FBI, that's obstruction of justice, and criminal conspiracy. If any of their testimony re: the Plame affair, for example, before either the grand jury or at Libby's trial was wilfully false, that's perjury. Then it becomes a Watergate question: what did the President or VP know and when did he know it? If either of them knew it was going to happen before it happened, then they could be deemed to share criminal culpability for it. Those would be impeachable offenses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #130 March 28, 2007 Quote(of course, this pretends that the 'jurors' would actually treat this as a trial, not a kangaroo court) Of course, you guys act as if it matters that he did commit a crime or not. Do you think 99.9999999% of all prisoners are guilty? All they have to do is to put a charge before the House and it's done....be interesting to see how the Chief Justice hooks him up. I think he might be think about staying low on this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #131 March 28, 2007 QuoteIf 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. Yes, it starts with a fishing expedition and issuing subpoenas, which they have started, they are now threatening to seve them pending Bush's vetoing of the recent bill they passed. I love this hate rhetoric, it doesn't matter what I think, it matter s that the witchhuint has begun and unless teh Dems get their way with the war the hunt will continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #132 March 28, 2007 QuoteWell 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? What party is "mine"? You are assuming I am a Republican. I've never claimed to be. Only that I'm not a democrat. Maybe i have no party affiliation. You want Bush impeached for lying to congress and usurption of power, but both of these charges are completely dependent upon whether or not you like the guy. I don't like the man but i don't feel he lied to congress about WMDs, only that he had bad intell. That in itself is not a crime. Kennedy had bad intell concerning the Bay of Pigs fiasco. As far as abuse of power, you have only opinion and nothing more. Why not answer questions under oath? Let's see...I think...yeah, there is something about that in the Bill of Rights. If I'm not mistaken that issue is addressed in the 5th amendment? So that leaves us with the same conclusion. You want to impeach just because you don't like him. Well, live with it or get over it. Or move. Because this late in his term nobody is going to impeach anyone unless they find a really big "smoking gun". So sit back, relax, and enjoy the next two years. Better than spending all that time pissed off about something you can't do anything about anyway. Have a nice day! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #133 March 28, 2007 QuoteYour 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. I can see five incorrect assumptions in that statement. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #134 March 28, 2007 >I can see five incorrect assumptions in that statement. ssshh, he's on a roll . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #135 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuote You don't think the more obvious causes - the tax hikes, along with the recession in 1994, didn't lead to this result? It wasn't until the next election cycle where the dropping deficit and growing economy made that move look better. Recession of 94, please provide any economical data to support that. He inherited the recession of the early 90's, 7.5% unemp soaring debt,etc and turned it around, but we didn't see a real change until after the 96 election, so I disagree. Lucky - you flip back and forth between partisan participant and neutral observer of what will happen, rather than what should happen. It is a fact that there was a short lived recession in 1994. I remember it well as I was about to graduate and had to figure out what the hell I was going to do next. I bring it up not to put blame on Clinton for it happening, but rather to explain the election results. Only two years earlier the Democrats thought they might get a fillibuster proof Senate. And now they're not even the majority party. People vote with their wallets. A tax hike coupled with a down economy shifts a lot of votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #136 March 28, 2007 Quote>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.) Just imagine a world where Congressmen would present opposing facts before arguing for their viewpoint. Would be just like 10th grade English, before we were encouraged to actually have a thesis in our writing. It took me midway through college to shake that nonsense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #137 March 28, 2007 Quote I don't like the man but i don't feel he lied to congress about WMDs, only that he had bad intell. But what if that bad intel was the result of all of information from our intelligence communities being culled through the VP's Office of Special Plans in order to suppress intelligence that contradicted the pro-war argument? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #138 March 28, 2007 >But what if that bad intel was the result of all of information from >our intelligence communities being culled through the VP's Office of >Special Plans in order to suppress intelligence that contradicted the >pro-war argument? Then it would be a good lesson - never trust the president. Congress has to learn that eventually anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #139 March 28, 2007 Quote Then it would be a good lesson - never trust the president. Congress has to learn that eventually anyway. didn't they learn that in 1964? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #140 March 28, 2007 Quote>But what if that bad intel was the result of all of information from >our intelligence communities being culled through the VP's Office of >Special Plans in order to suppress intelligence that contradicted the >pro-war argument? Then it would be a good lesson - never trust the president. Congress has to learn that eventually anyway. I'll agree with that. Hopefully they have learned their lesson along with the media. But I want to go on the record stating that I think that it should be illegal to deliberately misinform Congress in order to start a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TrophyHusband 0 #141 March 28, 2007 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... this trend is not good for the voters. do you honestly think that its good for the opposing party of ther presiedent to spend all of their time trying to undermine and embarrass him instead of actually doing some work? if this trend continues, we cannot move forward as a nation and we look like a bunch of dipshits to the rest of the world no matter what party is in charge. the public vilifying and humiliating of our commanders in cheif has to stop. i'm not saying that congress shouldn't check the presidents power, they certainly should, but they should do it in a more dignified way. the office of the presidency used to be respected, even if the man wasn't. now anything goes and the rest of the world is watching. if my wife were to do something i dissagreed with (she never does, she's perfect and she reads these forums) i would talk to her about it within my house, and not scream about it on the front lawn where the whole neighborhood could hear. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #142 March 28, 2007 QuoteUsurpation of power, lying to Congress. You keep saying that like you have some proof. Yet you never provide any. Saying it 100 times will not make it true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #143 March 28, 2007 Quotebut to assert someone does't know the rules, fatcs etc is just agrumentative rather than illustrating why. Like when you claim to not believe in facts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #144 March 28, 2007 QuoteThis 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. You have no evidence of any crime...So you could say "suspect" but not criminal party. Unless you are trying to call all Republicans the criminal party. But if you want to go down that road, I suggest you stop before you are shown that both partys have idiots in them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #145 March 28, 2007 QuoteWillard, 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???? Total BS. When we ask for Proof, you claim to not belive in it. When we show evidence that does not support your rants you ignore it and avoid answering them. Like when we are talking about the economy and you discount the DOW, NASDQ, home ownership....ect and only focus on one issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #146 March 28, 2007 QuoteSame reason the GOP is ignoring the investigations into Frist I suppose. There is a big difference between the two piles of evidence. One was shown on tape taking 100k, the other accused of selling stock that he claims to not know how much he had. One is CLEARLY illegal jet the person is being put one big committees. The other is being investigated. QuoteIn August 2005, federal agents searched his home in New Orleans and his home and car in Washington, D.C., as well as the home and office of his campaign accountant in New Orleans after Rep. Jefferson was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from Lori Mody, a Northern Virginia investor and former technology executive who was wearing an FBI wire. QuoteIn June 2005, Sen. Frist sold all of his stock, as well as the stock of his wife and children, in HCA, Inc., his family’s hospital corporation. Shortly thereafter, the value of the stock dropped by 9% when the company disclosed that hospital admissions of insured patients had been lower than expected. Sen. Frist’s brother sits on HCA’s board of directors. For many years, Sen. Frist has maintained that, because he put the stock in a blind trust, his stock holdings in the hospital posed no conflict of interest, despite the fact that his work in the Senate has often included legislation on health care matters. It was Sen. Frist, however, not the trustee who made the decision to sell the HCA stock. Sen. Frist had considerably more information about how much stock his family held in HCA, and how much HCA stock was in the Senate-approved blind trust, than he has admitted. So one is "We caught him on tape on an FBI sting". The other is "We really think he did something wrong." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #147 March 28, 2007 Quote>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. Why, That post is just proof that conservatives aren't about peace, love and tolerance. I sense nothing but hate! I was going to laugh out loud but his post is not worth it Oh, and are you working on becoming the king of one liners? You did completly go off topic and ignore the post."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #148 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. 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??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #149 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote> 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. I understand it perfectly. You don't"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #150 March 28, 2007 >I was going to laugh out loud but his post is not worth it . . . Instead you decided to take the time to reply. I feel so validated! The only thing more tiresome than democrats who think Clinton didn't lie are republicans who think he was found guilty for doing so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #133 March 28, 2007 QuoteYour 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. I can see five incorrect assumptions in that statement. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #134 March 28, 2007 >I can see five incorrect assumptions in that statement. ssshh, he's on a roll . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #135 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuote You don't think the more obvious causes - the tax hikes, along with the recession in 1994, didn't lead to this result? It wasn't until the next election cycle where the dropping deficit and growing economy made that move look better. Recession of 94, please provide any economical data to support that. He inherited the recession of the early 90's, 7.5% unemp soaring debt,etc and turned it around, but we didn't see a real change until after the 96 election, so I disagree. Lucky - you flip back and forth between partisan participant and neutral observer of what will happen, rather than what should happen. It is a fact that there was a short lived recession in 1994. I remember it well as I was about to graduate and had to figure out what the hell I was going to do next. I bring it up not to put blame on Clinton for it happening, but rather to explain the election results. Only two years earlier the Democrats thought they might get a fillibuster proof Senate. And now they're not even the majority party. People vote with their wallets. A tax hike coupled with a down economy shifts a lot of votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #136 March 28, 2007 Quote>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.) Just imagine a world where Congressmen would present opposing facts before arguing for their viewpoint. Would be just like 10th grade English, before we were encouraged to actually have a thesis in our writing. It took me midway through college to shake that nonsense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #137 March 28, 2007 Quote I don't like the man but i don't feel he lied to congress about WMDs, only that he had bad intell. But what if that bad intel was the result of all of information from our intelligence communities being culled through the VP's Office of Special Plans in order to suppress intelligence that contradicted the pro-war argument? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #138 March 28, 2007 >But what if that bad intel was the result of all of information from >our intelligence communities being culled through the VP's Office of >Special Plans in order to suppress intelligence that contradicted the >pro-war argument? Then it would be a good lesson - never trust the president. Congress has to learn that eventually anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #139 March 28, 2007 Quote Then it would be a good lesson - never trust the president. Congress has to learn that eventually anyway. didn't they learn that in 1964? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #140 March 28, 2007 Quote>But what if that bad intel was the result of all of information from >our intelligence communities being culled through the VP's Office of >Special Plans in order to suppress intelligence that contradicted the >pro-war argument? Then it would be a good lesson - never trust the president. Congress has to learn that eventually anyway. I'll agree with that. Hopefully they have learned their lesson along with the media. But I want to go on the record stating that I think that it should be illegal to deliberately misinform Congress in order to start a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #141 March 28, 2007 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... this trend is not good for the voters. do you honestly think that its good for the opposing party of ther presiedent to spend all of their time trying to undermine and embarrass him instead of actually doing some work? if this trend continues, we cannot move forward as a nation and we look like a bunch of dipshits to the rest of the world no matter what party is in charge. the public vilifying and humiliating of our commanders in cheif has to stop. i'm not saying that congress shouldn't check the presidents power, they certainly should, but they should do it in a more dignified way. the office of the presidency used to be respected, even if the man wasn't. now anything goes and the rest of the world is watching. if my wife were to do something i dissagreed with (she never does, she's perfect and she reads these forums) i would talk to her about it within my house, and not scream about it on the front lawn where the whole neighborhood could hear. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #142 March 28, 2007 QuoteUsurpation of power, lying to Congress. You keep saying that like you have some proof. Yet you never provide any. Saying it 100 times will not make it true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #143 March 28, 2007 Quotebut to assert someone does't know the rules, fatcs etc is just agrumentative rather than illustrating why. Like when you claim to not believe in facts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #144 March 28, 2007 QuoteThis 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. You have no evidence of any crime...So you could say "suspect" but not criminal party. Unless you are trying to call all Republicans the criminal party. But if you want to go down that road, I suggest you stop before you are shown that both partys have idiots in them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #145 March 28, 2007 QuoteWillard, 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???? Total BS. When we ask for Proof, you claim to not belive in it. When we show evidence that does not support your rants you ignore it and avoid answering them. Like when we are talking about the economy and you discount the DOW, NASDQ, home ownership....ect and only focus on one issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #146 March 28, 2007 QuoteSame reason the GOP is ignoring the investigations into Frist I suppose. There is a big difference between the two piles of evidence. One was shown on tape taking 100k, the other accused of selling stock that he claims to not know how much he had. One is CLEARLY illegal jet the person is being put one big committees. The other is being investigated. QuoteIn August 2005, federal agents searched his home in New Orleans and his home and car in Washington, D.C., as well as the home and office of his campaign accountant in New Orleans after Rep. Jefferson was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from Lori Mody, a Northern Virginia investor and former technology executive who was wearing an FBI wire. QuoteIn June 2005, Sen. Frist sold all of his stock, as well as the stock of his wife and children, in HCA, Inc., his family’s hospital corporation. Shortly thereafter, the value of the stock dropped by 9% when the company disclosed that hospital admissions of insured patients had been lower than expected. Sen. Frist’s brother sits on HCA’s board of directors. For many years, Sen. Frist has maintained that, because he put the stock in a blind trust, his stock holdings in the hospital posed no conflict of interest, despite the fact that his work in the Senate has often included legislation on health care matters. It was Sen. Frist, however, not the trustee who made the decision to sell the HCA stock. Sen. Frist had considerably more information about how much stock his family held in HCA, and how much HCA stock was in the Senate-approved blind trust, than he has admitted. So one is "We caught him on tape on an FBI sting". The other is "We really think he did something wrong." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #147 March 28, 2007 Quote>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. Why, That post is just proof that conservatives aren't about peace, love and tolerance. I sense nothing but hate! I was going to laugh out loud but his post is not worth it Oh, and are you working on becoming the king of one liners? You did completly go off topic and ignore the post."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #148 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. 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??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #149 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote> 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. I understand it perfectly. You don't"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #150 March 28, 2007 >I was going to laugh out loud but his post is not worth it . . . Instead you decided to take the time to reply. I feel so validated! The only thing more tiresome than democrats who think Clinton didn't lie are republicans who think he was found guilty for doing so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
