6
65rosessamurai
Guest
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Solo</b></i>
Actually, there's a good chance that criminal W will not be held accountable for his crimes, thanks to Gerald Ford who pardoned Richard Nixon, and set a precedent that no American President shall be held accountable for his crimes. Your'e right, impeachment isn't based on popularity, as impeachment isn't a civil or criminal thing, it's pure politics. But war crimes is drastically different. I don't get where the "majority" fits in?</end quote></div>
Majority could rule either with the "People", or those in Congress, either way, "majority" is more than "minority", so getting an impeachement would be based on "majority rule", right?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>quick question. Eric Holder, Obama's "lawyer", said that waterboarding is torture. Now if it is found that torture tactics are indeed illegal and criminal, do you not think that those who authorized, designed and carried them out should be punished?</end quote></div>
Who's Eric Holder? (other than the obvious that you say he's Obama's lawyer)
If the form of torture is illegal and criminal under the U.S. bylaws and Geneva Convention it would naturally be punishible, but whats the significance of the question?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now what Bill Clinton did is drastically different, and to equate what he did with what Emperor Bush did is nothing but silly sophistry. Did Bill Clinton hurt anyone by lying under oath about personal relations? Kenneth Starr and his cohort Newt led a witch hunt against Clinton. Anyway, if joe six pack goes on a killing spree, the police will be quiet and not tip Joe off until they have concrete evidence that he committed those acts. Hence, criminals are usually suprised when they get nabbed. The prosecution needs to build a case. </end quote></div>
In my recollection, Rule No. 1 is that the President doesn't lie (especially if he's under oath). That's the whole scandal with Nixon, and he was pardoned by then Vice President Ford, who became the successor as Nixon steped down, before Nixon ever went onto trial (an oddity but not pertinent at this juncture), and as I recall from my newsfeed, Clinton also lied. Has nothing to do with what he did, but that he was lying about it during his Presidency. How he got out of any impeachment is beyond me (also not pertinent at this juncture), but my statement is that during the Clinton years, the word (or threat of) "impeachment" came up (in the news), but I never saw that word during the Bush years, just very low popularity polls.
Joe sixpack, as you refer this person to, is in no comparison to an impeachment, since you described him as a "Serial Killer". You said it yourself, an impeachment is "political" (though even that is incomprehensible to me). In your description, Joe Sixpack is not political, he's a civilian (who's also a suspected "Serial Killer").
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>I think it was a huge mistake NOT prosecuting Bush these last years, as Pelosi said since I think 2005 "Impeachment is off the table", if Congress sought impeachment, I tell ya what, it would set a unmistakable precedent that any future President doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever they please.</end quote></div>
Ok, and throughout this entire time of replying to your post at the best of my ability (and pardon that everyone, for i'm just an ordinary Joe), I have not once seen a direct answer to the question I presented.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
...why didn't the "majority" file for impeachment, and on what grounds would that intail...</end quote></div>
I'd like to know that if your opinion states that Bush should be impeached (though its to late now cause he's got less than 24 hrs in office), what are the charges?
For doing his job to the best of his ability for the sake of the United States of America?
And, I'll state it again...the President is only 1/3 of the Government, so if you blame the Government for its current situation, better start pointing at the other 2/3 as well! Especially since you don't seem to (count your prayers--stricken in case its "politically incorrect")... "appreciate" (perhaps more "politically correct") ...at how much freedom you already have!
Actually, there's a good chance that criminal W will not be held accountable for his crimes, thanks to Gerald Ford who pardoned Richard Nixon, and set a precedent that no American President shall be held accountable for his crimes. Your'e right, impeachment isn't based on popularity, as impeachment isn't a civil or criminal thing, it's pure politics. But war crimes is drastically different. I don't get where the "majority" fits in?</end quote></div>
Majority could rule either with the "People", or those in Congress, either way, "majority" is more than "minority", so getting an impeachement would be based on "majority rule", right?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>quick question. Eric Holder, Obama's "lawyer", said that waterboarding is torture. Now if it is found that torture tactics are indeed illegal and criminal, do you not think that those who authorized, designed and carried them out should be punished?</end quote></div>
Who's Eric Holder? (other than the obvious that you say he's Obama's lawyer)
If the form of torture is illegal and criminal under the U.S. bylaws and Geneva Convention it would naturally be punishible, but whats the significance of the question?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now what Bill Clinton did is drastically different, and to equate what he did with what Emperor Bush did is nothing but silly sophistry. Did Bill Clinton hurt anyone by lying under oath about personal relations? Kenneth Starr and his cohort Newt led a witch hunt against Clinton. Anyway, if joe six pack goes on a killing spree, the police will be quiet and not tip Joe off until they have concrete evidence that he committed those acts. Hence, criminals are usually suprised when they get nabbed. The prosecution needs to build a case. </end quote></div>
In my recollection, Rule No. 1 is that the President doesn't lie (especially if he's under oath). That's the whole scandal with Nixon, and he was pardoned by then Vice President Ford, who became the successor as Nixon steped down, before Nixon ever went onto trial (an oddity but not pertinent at this juncture), and as I recall from my newsfeed, Clinton also lied. Has nothing to do with what he did, but that he was lying about it during his Presidency. How he got out of any impeachment is beyond me (also not pertinent at this juncture), but my statement is that during the Clinton years, the word (or threat of) "impeachment" came up (in the news), but I never saw that word during the Bush years, just very low popularity polls.
Joe sixpack, as you refer this person to, is in no comparison to an impeachment, since you described him as a "Serial Killer". You said it yourself, an impeachment is "political" (though even that is incomprehensible to me). In your description, Joe Sixpack is not political, he's a civilian (who's also a suspected "Serial Killer").
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>I think it was a huge mistake NOT prosecuting Bush these last years, as Pelosi said since I think 2005 "Impeachment is off the table", if Congress sought impeachment, I tell ya what, it would set a unmistakable precedent that any future President doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever they please.</end quote></div>
Ok, and throughout this entire time of replying to your post at the best of my ability (and pardon that everyone, for i'm just an ordinary Joe), I have not once seen a direct answer to the question I presented.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
...why didn't the "majority" file for impeachment, and on what grounds would that intail...</end quote></div>
I'd like to know that if your opinion states that Bush should be impeached (though its to late now cause he's got less than 24 hrs in office), what are the charges?
For doing his job to the best of his ability for the sake of the United States of America?
And, I'll state it again...the President is only 1/3 of the Government, so if you blame the Government for its current situation, better start pointing at the other 2/3 as well! Especially since you don't seem to (count your prayers--stricken in case its "politically incorrect")... "appreciate" (perhaps more "politically correct") ...at how much freedom you already have!