| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Zenas wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In the Bush and Cheney cases, justice absolutely requires it. I'm no fan of Clinton, but his impeachment was totally unwarranted. |
Clinton lied under oath. Oaths are no good if they can be ignored, especially by the president. Your remark just shows how low the standard has become for our leaders, lying is acceptable, under oath and lying is now acceptable even when bringing a nation to war, a war that has lasted over five years, has no end in sight and has cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. |
You misread me here. Bush lying in order to involve the country in a pre-emptive war, killing millions and robbing our children of their futures in the form of the trillions of dollars it cost and is still costing, certainly constitutes grounds for impeachment.
A guy lying about a blowjob, even under oath, is pretty inconsequential. How many lives, not to mention trillions of dollars, did that cost? Don't you see a difference of scale here? The real crime here was that the impeachment was even allowed to be brought. If under oath, a president said he ate bacon for breakfast when it was really ham, should he be impeached for that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point was, Clinton, the president of the United States, lied, under oath, which is a crime.
If oaths don't matter, then it was wrong to impeach Clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Different crimes have different punishments. A lie about a bj should not cost the most powerful man on earth his job. I don't know if what Bush did was technically a crime or not. I'm not a lawyer. But the punishment of impeachment was not an appropriate response to a lie about his sex life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Different crimes have different punishments. A lie about a bj should not cost the most powerful man on earth his job. I don't know if what Bush [you mean Clinton?] did was technically a crime or not. I'm not a lawyer. But the punishment of impeachment was not an appropriate response to a lie about his sex life. |
It was a lie made under oath.
At any rate, it was most certainly also political opportunism on behalf of the GOP. They got a bit carried away following the Republican Revolution.
Its fine. The GOP will be in distinct minority status until the Dems really screw things up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If Clinton had not been impeached, Bush certainly would have been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| A lie about a bj should not cost the most powerful man on earth his job. |
Bush is not the most powerful man on earth. The men who assassinated JFK, RFK and killed JFK Jr. are. The president is but a puppet told what to do. As soon as he steps out of line, he goes down just like JFk and Nixon did.
You just don't get it do you. A lie is a lie. If the lie wasn't that big a deal, we wouldn't need oaths, and if Clinton's lie wasn't a big deal he shouldn't have told it, and especially not under oath. Lying under oath is a crime. Crime gets punished. You and I break the law, we get punished. Why shouldn't the president? He puts his pants on the same way we do. In fact, it's more important that he be truthful, his lies cost lives, as we've seen in Bush. Now it seems anyone can lie about anything. And they do. With no consequences, because too many people have the same opinion as you do.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Different crimes have different punishments. A lie about a bj should not cost the most powerful man on earth his job. I don't know if what Bush did was technically a crime or not. I'm not a lawyer. But the punishment of impeachment was not an appropriate response to a lie about his sex life. |
Clinton wasn't threatened with impeachment for that. He was threatened with that for LYING under oath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Impeachment really just means indictment. The key to the thing is conviction in the Senate. Impeachment without conviction is just embarrassment at best.
The current Senate has a make-up of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents.
Conviction requires 67 votes. Please tell me where the 67 votes would come from. Even if all 49 Democrats and the 2 Independents voted for conviction, they would still need 16 Republican votes.
History can sometimes be instructive: "While there were 7 Republican senators who broke party ranks and voted to permit Johnson to remain in office, the "credit" for the decisive vote is generally given to freshman Kansas Senator Edmund Ross. All of the Senators were under intense pressure to vote their party line in the impeachment, and so Ross and the other 6 Republicans took a lot of criticism for their vote, and none of them were returned to office in their next election. Today they are viewed as examples of political courage for withstanding the political pressure of their party and of the voters.
http://www.bigissueground.com/history/blair-andrewjohnson.shtml
Do you REALLY think there are 16 Senators who are willing to end their political careers by convicting Bush with 7 months left in office? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
The question isn't whether there are enough votes for a conviction, the question is does the actions of Bush warrant impeachment?
If yes, he should be impeached.
It's going to be an embarrassment for this congress to not have impeached these two criminals. And thrown his entire neo-con staff out on the street after it was discovered these criminals lied the US into war.
More censored
impeachment news
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/338.html
And then there is 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Different crimes have different punishments. A lie about a bj should not cost the most powerful man on earth his job. I don't know if what Bush did was technically a crime or not. I'm not a lawyer. But the punishment of impeachment was not an appropriate response to a lie about his sex life. |
Clinton wasn't threatened with impeachment for that. He was threatened with that for LYING under oath. |
What part of LIE did you miss? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is becoming one of those conspiracy threads, right?
| Quote: |
| Bush is not the most powerful man on earth. The men who assassinated JFK, RFK and killed JFK Jr. are. |
Uh ... yeah. Just checking.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
"19 Arabs with boxcutters" is a conspiracy theory for the gullible.
Is that the kind of conspiracy of which you speak?
And we all know that a lone gun man shot JFK so that couldn't have been a conspiracy.
Evidence has shown that RFK was shot from the back not the front so Sirhan Sirhan could not have shot RFK as we were told.
What kind of conspiracy gives you a problem - just the ones we don't hear about from those in government? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| A lie about a bj should not cost the most powerful man on earth his job. |
Bush is not the most powerful man on earth. The men who assassinated JFK, RFK and killed JFK Jr. are. The president is but a puppet told what to do. As soon as he steps out of line, he goes down just like JFk and Nixon did.
You just don't get it do you. |
Nope, I don't.
And I understand that he was impeached for a lie under oath urbanmyth. That was why I used the word "lie". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Now if it were about something worth actually doing something about, one could say it was "sad but heroic". This is just sad. |
I'm curious what would constitute "worth doing something about?" Lying and misleading the American people, and the world in order to wage an unjust war ... not worth it?
What WOULD be worth it? |
First of all, there is NO solid evidence that Bush lied. Find ONE credible link that proves Bush KNEW BEYOND ALL DOUBT that there were NO WMD's in Iraq. Hint, you can't. At the time nearly all Western intelligence services believed the same thing too, so unless you think Bush is smarter than those guys... 
Notice this is just not my opinion. The Economist, TIME and Newsweek have all printed articles with more or less the same thing. There is NO evidence for the above that would hold up in a court of law (and don't we all(or most of us) come from countries where innocent until proven guilty is judical law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| First of all, there is NO solid evidence that Bush lied. Find ONE credible link that proves Bush KNEW BEYOND ALL DOUBT that there were NO WMD's in Iraq. Hint, you can't. At the time nearly all Western intelligence services believed the same thing too, so unless you think Bush is smarter than those guys... :roll: |
I agree. At worst they were very careful in their manipulation but not outright dishonest.
| Quote: |
There is NO evidence for the above that would hold up in a court of law (and don't we all(or most of us) come from countries where innocent until proven guilty is judical law? |
Well, Canadians used to. Maybe will again. Tough to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
