Lucky...
-
Content
10,453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by Lucky...
-
Not according to Ken Mehlman, RNC chair. He said n Meet the press that Congress had teh exact same intel...... a bit of Russert's evidecne...... Congress had basically the same intel..... Under oath, we could finish breaking that myth. After she received, "basically the same intel." Uh, I think if they investigate and draw all of teh intel that was then available and cherry-picked, I think we would see that turn to no where near all of teh intel and establish he suppressed intel. I think Mehlman has spliied the beans. We knew CLinton was a liar about the sex scandals and we know Bush is a liar about the WMD's. We knew Reagan-Bush traded arms for hostages. We also know that OJ killed his wife and friend, as Blake killed his wife. All we have to do is grill the Bushies and get our fish..... The world, other than US neo-cons felt the same about Clinton and the sex scandals, but the neo-con Congressmen decided to press on. Can't bitch when your party set the tone.
-
I agree - You could impeach him, but on what charge? Goofing up Iraq? Being in a League with the Oil Barrons? Sounding Stupid? Sheesh - at least when they Impeached Clinton, they had something concrete against him, like lying under oath. You got nothing on Bushy other than the fact you don't like him. Usurpation of power, lying to Congress, just need a Dem version of a Ken Starr and go fishing. See, with these investigations, that's what they are doing, but Bush has learned to not go under oath at first, let the lies hit and see what doesn't wash; change those. If the Dems can go fishing as the Repubs did, theywill find plenty. But doing ti the way our criminal in chief wants insulates him from that and makes him only liable for teh things we can independently proove.
-
To preace this reply: nice making it a referendum on me rather than the issue...... to be expected. If I wasn't a citizen I would have the right to bitch about what I want, I am tho. Ahhhh, back to Mexico, how cute. Nice PA. Or I could live in a nation, a poorer nation that provides health care and better off too. So you're gambling as the rest of the 1/6th and a lot of the other 5/6th with marginal care. OK, so youtalk tough until you need it then become a liberal activist as the others who gambled and lost. I feel it's oxer all citizens as a courtesy of the rich and teh gov for making them rich, our gov sees otherwise and exloitation of the poor is the norm here, not most of the rest of teh wordl. How much of teh corporation's profits should I be responsible to make for them? Yes, healthcare.... new vehicle, same thing. Rah, rah, America is the best nation on earth, rah, rah....
-
Just out of curiosity....what's the reason for fat guys? Too much beer Fat guys have a lack of self-control absent any LEGITIMATE medical condition. As for the astetic factor, sorry girls, this is not a geese/gander society, guys will be graded upon their vocational successes and girls their, uh, assests.
-
This is England, the risks of being shot on duty are really pretty low for the average bobby (no matter what JohnRich would have you believe) Far, far less than the US.
-
What's one of the perks, immunity from the law?
-
Perhaps some have forgotten this recent thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2723032;page=3;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; I made this assertion: Clinton was impeached for 2 of the 4 counts that were POLITICALLY charged, the charges were perjury and obstruction of justice,as decided by the House. The Senate failed to POLITICALLY convict him with the supermajority they needed, 67 votes. The vote beakdown went as follows: PERJURY: 55 no / 45 yes OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: 50 / 50 So yes, I do well know what the deal is, do you know the diff is between a political and a criminal case/proceding? How quickly some forget.....
-
I'll answer these posts later, as I'm slammed tonight, even tho some don't deserve answering. And yes, to assume I don't know what a political impeachment is, is, well, condescending. As 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. Do I know that they will never get removal? Of course they won't with a supermajority required. Will they get the impeachment (political indictment)? Easily, even with some Repub crossover. Someone said that Clinton was saved by the supermajority rule to remove, yet Clinton had a 55/45 vote against removal on one charge and a 50/50 vote on the other, and we know the VP plays tie breaker, so no, the SM rule didn't save Clinton. As for Johnson, I don; know the structure of Congress back then so I can't attest.
-
I think that Congress is threatening impeachment to force his hand to removing the troops. It's a pretty simple leverage play, but I wanna see the whole deal.
-
Lieing to congress perhaps.
-
...................
-
On what grounds? Impeachment is not akin to a recall. If they believe a crime was committed in 2002/3 to garner congressional support, charge him. If they want to try again to enforce the War Powers Act, do it. Failing in foreign policy, otoh, is not an impeachable offense. Probably has to do with lieing to congress about WMD's.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But you're here to whine that I dare promote your criminal be impeached for lies entering the war, WMD's, so quit whining while you callme a whiner.
-
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.
-
Yep, the Nazi blog is down teh hall, 3rd door on the left.
-
Agnew was not VP when Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, Ford was. Ford did become president when Nixon resigned. True, Agnew resigned for tax evasion-related stuff.
-
You do understand that impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; no? Please, no more condescention..... I was taking poli-sci during the CLinton impeachment, so I know the entire process very well. We basically dropped teh normal curriculum to study that,.
-
Sure! Cheney's a sick man; he's going to die soon. He's not going to run anyway, no matter what. He's already the power behind the throne, so maybe the added pressure of being the actual President might make him code sooner. And you know who's next in line. Yea, the irony, the very leader to the impeachment might become president...... me likey.
-
Good point
-
OK, so name some big, non-182 DZ's that are huge and successful. If a group member is willing to take that on their shoulders, they're fucking stupid. If you had an incident and hurt someone, even yourself, what a better case of gross negligence than that. See, at a USPA DZ, we all assume that the other jumoers are also USPA, so if a nonn-USPAer sneaks in then teh DZ's ass is in a hook. I'm not touching that one Maybe shitholes, but premier DZ's like Perris would turn you away.
-
Even if the USPA requred 180 days no one would follow it. If they required 60 days no one would follow that either. Another post based upon willful violation. That's on the user's end, I'm talking legislation/regulation, not willful violation. Altho you are right with your point, the analogy of 120 packs was introduced as a matter of enforceability as with 270 hooks, remember?
-
Make the USPA and / or you DZ aware that you no longer acknowledge the 120 rule and see how many jumps you get in that day. Furthermore, I've had DZ's make copies of my pack card, so that is how they ensure compliance and active enforcement. Now do they do spot checks? I've never seen it, but they do what is reasonably expected. If the feds decided to make states go back to 55mph speed limits via hiway funding, how many drivers would follow? Your point is void in that we're talking legislation, not willfull violation.
-
The FAA is the only one with teeth. All the USPA can do is revoke their membership. Not much of punishment. The USPA pretty much is required to follow the FAA requirments. They can't recommend 180 days whent he FAA requires 120 days. - Are you shitting me, losing my USPA would be devastating, which is why I follow rules. It could bankrupt a DZ/DZO. - The USPA doesn't have to follow FAA rules, they, like all of us, just can't violate them. There is a difference. The USPA could require a repack that is < 120 days and legislate it. They have chosen 120 days and have written it, don;t make me look it up, so they have legislated the 120 rule whether you like it or not. Even tho they can't violate FAR's, they are not an arm of teh FAA so they could ignire the 120 rule thinking the FAA would pick it up.