The unconstitional impeachment of Bill Clinton

[Tal]

Originally posted by: outriding
sure clinton lied.

but the problem is why did this make it to court.

its a just a hummer people it should have never went to court.

taking a person to court over a hummer is really petty there is alot worse of things wrong with the US than a hummer.

if that is all what the R's can find wrong with the US why are you people voting for them. unemployment / health care / social security should be more important than clintons sex life. i guess the R's are just jealous because they are not getting any action .

Blah blah blah. This is the same old DD (Dumb Demo) response that was hand crafted by hillary and her "Anti-Right Wing Task force" hehe. It's just sex. Republicans are prudes. They want hummers.

Integrity. Integrity. Integrity. It's already been mentioned in this thread, but people look at our leaders as examples of what behavior is right and just. That's why when Billy lies, littles kids in school start saying, "Well, the President lied. I can lie." That's uncool. I'm trying to teach my kids that lying is wrong. You have your lax morals. Don't try to teach that BS to my kids though. Hummer. Just a hummer. Adultery. Lying under oath. He was a scum bucket. Lemme ask. Would you let your daughter intern for him? Didn't think so.... If you can't trust him with your daughter then you sure as hell can't trust him to run the biggest, strongest, (coolest) country in the world.

Yes, I threw in coolest just to be funny.

-Tal

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Tal

Originally posted by: outriding
sure clinton lied.

but the problem is why did this make it to court.

its a just a hummer people it should have never went to court.

taking a person to court over a hummer is really petty there is alot worse of things wrong with the US than a hummer.

if that is all what the R's can find wrong with the US why are you people voting for them. unemployment / health care / social security should be more important than clintons sex life. i guess the R's are just jealous because they are not getting any action .

Blah blah blah. This is the same old DD (Dumb Demo) response that was hand crafted by hillary and her "Anti-Right Wing Task force" hehe. It's just sex. Republicans are prudes. They want hummers.

Integrity. Integrity. Integrity. It's already been mentioned in this thread, but people look at our leaders as examples of what behavior is right and just. That's why when Billy lies, littles kids in school start saying, "Well, the President lied. I can lie." That's uncool. I'm trying to teach my kids that lying is wrong. You have your lax morals. Don't try to teach that BS to my kids though. Hummer. Just a hummer. Adultery. Lying under oath. He was a scum bucket. Lemme ask. Would you let your daughter intern for him? Didn't think so.... If you can't trust him with your daughter then you sure as hell can't trust him to run the biggest, strongest, (coolest) country in the world.

Yes, I threw in coolest just to be funny.

-Tal

...and what if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq...would you trust him with your son?

I agree with you that it is not too much to ask that our representatives have integrity. I just don't think ANY of our leaders have it!

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: Tal

Originally posted by: outriding
sure clinton lied.

but the problem is why did this make it to court.

its a just a hummer people it should have never went to court.

taking a person to court over a hummer is really petty there is alot worse of things wrong with the US than a hummer.

if that is all what the R's can find wrong with the US why are you people voting for them. unemployment / health care / social security should be more important than clintons sex life. i guess the R's are just jealous because they are not getting any action .

Blah blah blah. This is the same old DD (Dumb Demo) response that was hand crafted by hillary and her "Anti-Right Wing Task force" hehe. It's just sex. Republicans are prudes. They want hummers.

Integrity. Integrity. Integrity. It's already been mentioned in this thread, but people look at our leaders as examples of what behavior is right and just. That's why when Billy lies, littles kids in school start saying, "Well, the President lied. I can lie." That's uncool. I'm trying to teach my kids that lying is wrong. You have your lax morals. Don't try to teach that BS to my kids though. Hummer. Just a hummer. Adultery. Lying under oath. He was a scum bucket. Lemme ask. Would you let your daughter intern for him? Didn't think so.... If you can't trust him with your daughter then you sure as hell can't trust him to run the biggest, strongest, (coolest) country in the world.

Yes, I threw in coolest just to be funny.

-Tal

...and what if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq...would you trust him with your son?

I agree with you that it is not too much to ask that our representatives have integrity. I just don't think ANY of our leaders have it!

I hold Bush to even a higher standard than Clinton. If he's a liar then there needs to be consequences. If we have a leader (whether past with Clinton or present with Bush) who lacks integrity, the answer is not to throw up our hands and assume we can't get one that has integrity, it's to demand that they have it or replace them with someone who does. -Tal

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: ElFenix
well, the constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors" and perjury is a misdemeanor. so, by the only standard the constitution gives, it was legal.

so far shrub hasn't been charged with anything.

Perjury is a felony, not a misdemeanor.

well even worse then

 

[tcsenter]

well, the constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors" and perjury is a misdemeanor. so, by the only standard the constitution gives, it was legal.

Its even less restrictive than that. Misdemeanors wasn't exclusively used in reference to a specific class of criminal offense as "misdemeanor" is almost exclusively used today.

It also encompassed misconduct by a public official, even if such conduct did not rise to the level of a criminal misdemeanor.

 

[Moonbeam]

Scum impeached scum.

It was constitutional, of course.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Can you imagine how many problems the Congress would have caused if they were not busy frying Clinton? I think Ken Starr's Inquisition was money well spent b/c it gave the public a respite from ineffective government.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Can you imagine how many problems the Congress would have caused if they were not busy frying Clinton? I think Ken Starr's Inquisition was money well spent b/c it gave the public a respite from ineffective government.

LOL! Probably very true. Sick as that is, but true nonetheless.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

LOL! Probably very true. Sick as that is, but true nonetheless.

So let me chime in . . . impeach Bush. Innocent or guilty . . . doesn't matter. The government will run on continuing resolutions which limit spending to the previous year's budget. Many of the recently enacted tax cuts will sunset over time which will increase federal revenue. Since politicians will be prohibited from radically changing fiscal policy, we can rely on monetary policy and the business community to revive the economy.

Be honest . . . we all want to see Bush testify.

Independent Counsel: Mr. President, what did you know and when did you know it?
Bush: I want my daddy.

IC: What does he know?
Bush: Don't you remember Iran-Contra? He was guilty as sin and got off scott free.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Foolish question (I am sure many will agree)

Suppose that Bush lied to the public about WMD's. Further, everything he did was to start a war with Iraq, and lying did not matter at all

Now, he is brought before Congress and forced to testify like Clinton.

Now this is the difference. When asked if he lied, he says "Yes I did, I admit the whole thing, but it was for the greater good of the American people, and therefore the ends justified the means. It was my call, not yours."


Now, has Bush committed an impeachable offence? What crime (in a legal sense) did he do?

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: AnImuS
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

no i dont wonder and anyone with common sense knows that lying under oath is wrong. Men always lie but when your in court you best be 100% honest...

So stop being so close minded and open up!

yup yup
:beer:

Just curious, if you find lying under oath so bad, how do you feel about lying to the country about a threat that doesn't exist to get them to support a war in which we had our troops die? Is that all cool 'cause it wasn't under oath? Just curious..

Lying under oath is bad... When the president lies in a court... As OUR president he also representing the US amongest the world. As you know the US already has a hard time being creditable by other nations.. So him doing that just makes a worse impression for other countries about us. and it DOES matter...

If bush is found to be lied based on reliable facts and not newspapers with unamed "sources" which could of been written by me i feel he should be thrown out of office... By the reading of your post it sounds you think hes guilty... Correct me if im wrong, but if I'm not i feel the difference between you and I is that I'm open to hear both sides once the "facts" get out...
And that clinton representing the US in my previous paragraph stands the same for Bush...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Foolish question (I am sure many will agree)

Suppose that Bush lied to the public about WMD's. Further, everything he did was to start a war with Iraq, and lying did not matter at all

Now, he is brought before Congress and forced to testify like Clinton.

Now this is the difference. When asked if he lied, he says "Yes I did, I admit the whole thing, but it was for the greater good of the American people, and therefore the ends justified the means. It was my call, not yours."


Now, has Bush committed an impeachable offence? What crime (in a legal sense) did he do?

The premise is off IMHO. The authority given was based on the Resolution HE handed Congress (HRJR114) His call was subject to War Powers Act which 114 acknowledged... he therefore, Violated at least three laws. His actions caused the United States to violate the UN Charter (two areas), His oath of office, Conspiracy to lie to congress, Violation of Constitutional Separation issue (usurping the authority of congress), Obstruction of Justice, With malice of forethought caused the death of X American citizens, ditto Iraqi citizens, misappropriation of funds, munitions, etc., aiding and abetting others to lie... x counts... and on
Can I be the Independent Counsel?
Mr. President when did you first realize the American people were not stupid or have you yet?
Mr. President what is the leader of Uganda's name?

 

[amcdonald]

Can I be the Independent Counsel?
Mr. President when did you first realize the American people were not stupid or have you yet?
Mr. President what is the leader of Uganda's name?

Seriously... did you practice this in the mirror?

 

[Insane3D]

Correct me if im wrong, but if I'm not i feel the difference between you and I is that I'm open to hear both sides once the "facts" get out...

Actually, I agree with that. I am actually waiting for the facts to come to light before casting my judgement, but the evidence, or lack thereof to this point, certainly appears to heading towards a certain conclusion.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HJD1 Violation of Constitutional Separation issue (usurping the authority of congress)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH

you can try every president since FDR for that then!

btw: no president has ever acknowledged the war powers act as being binding upon them, nor has the issue appeared before the courts

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Can I be the Independent Counsel?
Mr. President when did you first realize the American people were not stupid or have you yet?
Mr. President what is the leader of Uganda's name?

Seriously... did you practice this in the mirror?

You people really slay me. You ask what the charges against Bush could be and HJD1 outlines charges. Some very serious, valid charges. And this is your reply? Disgraceful.

You must be really worried. If you think the Republicans took Clinton over the coals over lying about a BJ wait until Bush has his day in court. These aren't semen stains on a dress we're talking about. They're the blood stains on the uniforms of American service people. And the blood stains on the clothes of innocent Iraqi women and children.

Practice that in your mirror, amcdonald.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HJD1 Violation of Constitutional Separation issue (usurping the authority of congress)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH

you can try every president since FDR for that then!

btw: no president has ever acknowledged the war powers act as being binding upon them, nor has the issue appeared before the courts

Even if that is so (and as you said the court never ruled on it) what about "His oath of office, Conspiracy to lie to congress, Obstruction of Justice, With malice of forethought caused the death of X American citizens, ditto Iraqi citizens, misappropriation of funds, munitions, etc., aiding and abetting others to lie... x counts... and on"?

Got a "haha" for those charges as well?

Add to the charges lying on matters regarding national security.

This guy is toast.

 

[amcdonald]

Practice that in your mirror, amcdonald.

Thanks for the diatribe, but I wasn't referring to your politics captain melodramatic. I was mocking your speech-like post that will never be read by the president. Don't lump me in with anyone or any group on here. I speak for myself. I didn't ask you about charges, and this isn't the response of anyone who did. Learn to differentiate arguements.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Practice that in your mirror, amcdonald.

Thanks for the diatribe, but I wasn't referring to your politics captain melodramatic. I was mocking your speech-like post that will never be read by the president. Don't lump me in with anyone or any group on here. I speak for myself. I didn't ask you about charges, and this isn't the response of anyone who did. Learn to differentiate arguements.

Uh huh. You can duck the statements you made now. Just follow Bush's lead. He'll be ducking and covering for a while over this. But I'm sure he'll be flushed out before it's over.

This turkey should be done for Thanksgiving.

 

[amcdonald]

Uh huh. You can duck the statements you made now. Just follow Bush's lead. He'll be ducking and covering for a while over this. But I'm sure he'll be flushed out before it's over.

This turkey should be done for Thanksgiving.

Geez... the banal imagery continues. I would be glad to defend a point that I made, if you would be so kind as to point one out instead of dodging MY point... That you are abusing your language with silly turkey analogies.

 

[amcdonald]

I would just like to point out something to those people blindly defending Clinton.
Remember when he was getting impeached, and decided to launch strategic missle strikes on Iraq?
Do you also remember how obvious it was that he was trying to avert attention from his personal life?
I guess no 'innocent people' were killed by Clinton. No Americans soldiers were killed in action fighting in Africa under Clinton either.
I don't expect Bush to be perfect. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton is a PROVEN criminal. Bush might very well be operating over the law, but unless there are credible charges brought against him (impeachment) then they are little more than hearsay. If anyone has/had actual evidence that might bring about a conviction, he would be impeached.

 

[Moonbeam]

Seriously... did you practice this in the mirror?

I speak for myself. I didn't ask you about charges, and this isn't the response of anyone who did. Learn to differentiate arguements.

-----------------------------
Seriously did you look in the mirror? In what way are you employing less banal imagery than BOB. In what way was your analogy more cogent or clear? If you speak for yourself shouldn't the burden fall on you to provide enough meat to be able to differentiate one flavor from another? Seems to me you got quite huffy without justification.

 

[amcdonald]

Moonbeam, the thing that annoyed me about BOBDN is that he quoted me, argued a point to someone else's argument, called me disgraceful, then ended with "Practice that in your mirror, amcdonald" like he had soundly bested me and there was a crowd waiting to appluad him. Not to mention that it doesn't even make sense to tell me to practice that post in my mirror

Also, I'm having a hard time realizing the banal imagery I used, maybe you could point it out.
But seriously, my point is that he posted as if speaking to the president, and thats just plain silly

 

[Moonbeam]

amcdonald, I'll do the best I can to tell you where I''m comming from here although the effort is hardly worth it since the misunderstanding of probably of little moment:

It began when you took issue with HJ's imaginary inquistion of the President in which he laid out some serious issues and wound up with some 'funny' ones, which you described as silly. In the first place , while you are perfectly free to characterize anybody in any way you wish, I myself have no such bias against speaking to the Pres metaphorically, because HJ was really speaking to you and you heard in accordance with your understanding. You found offence. I found it funny and very on the mark. Different strokes, you know. Well along comes BOBDN and sees you've dismissed the serious with the imaginary and he criticized you as laughing off the former under the smoke screen of the latter. He criticized you as dismissive of highly relevant and important issues. He felt that was disgraceful because, objectively and if true, those are important issues. You then lambasted BOB for his diatribe claiming you were mocking his (and I got lost here because you meant, HJ i think not BOB to which his naturally refered) and not the other charges. OK fine, but that was not very clear from your post. 'Seriously, did you practice this in a mirror' does not convey to me what you later modified and expanded on claiming it did. You used a colorfull metaphore, a mirror, to mock a hypothetical, metaphorical, inquistion of the President. I didn't find it to contain nearly the clarity of intent that HJ's metaphore did. Thay's why I asked if you looked at it in the mirror to see if you weren't guilty of what you were accusing HJ of. As far as I'm concerned you were right about Clinton, HJ was right about Bush, BOB was right about the importance of the issues, and I'm right about everything.

 

[amcdonald]

My mistake, I assumed that it was BOB's post I originally made fun of... didn't bother to go back and check
The mirror comment wasn't meant as a metaphor... to me it really sounded like he had written down a short dialogue after practicing it in the mirror. It is so melodramatic that I found it comical.
I didn't find it offensive. I don't care if the president gets impeached.
I just find it funny that Clinton did exactly what people are accusing Bush of, in terms of lying, obstruction of justice, killing innocent people, recklessly using american soldiers and being responsible for their deaths, etc... Its apparently part of the job description. So shouldn't those people wanting to impeach Bush for all of these acts also be trying with the same passion to convince people to arrest Clinton, who has done the exact same things?