Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the main reason Bush has not been impeached is because his successor would be Cheney, and everyone in Congress realizes that this would be even worse because he's the backbone of Bush's bad side without the cheery personableness.
I think the main reason Bush has not been impeached is because his successor would be Cheney, and everyone in Congress realizes that this would be even worse because he's the backbone of Bush's bad side without the cheery personableness.
I once attended a luncheon in San Francisco back in the early 90s where Cheney was the guest speaker. He was actually very funny and self deprecating.
i can't wait for obama to be elected.....i'll be making out my lynch list early.
Wow, you don't even try to be subtle with your racist ranting. In any case, Obama has not taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States so lets stay on topic.
I will say this again. I try to follow the reasoning of this side, but when you start off your argument with statements that are patently false, it is difficult to give much credibility to what follows.
i get lots of responses like this so i will save time.
here is the link for the nixon impeachment it was initiated
he resigned to avoid impeachment.
your public reprimand is not in agreement with these links. what false statments have i made? what sort of credibility are you looking for? my name is not hombre.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 06-15-2008 at 12:35 AM..
your public reprimand is not in agreement with these links. what false statments have i made? what sort of credibility are you looking for? my name is not hombre.
Clinton was impeached (Completed). Because of the Senate's acquittal, he was not "Removed". The Senate's action does not UN-impeach Clinton.
Nixon never was impeached.
Your statement that Nixon was impeached is false.
Your statement that they tried to Clinton implying that Clinton was not impeached is false.
Your dots do not connect. I like to see dots connect.
BTW, I did not intend a reprimand. I apologize if it came out that way. I was simply stating that I, and only I, have a difficult time finding credibility in posts that start out with patently false statements.
Is your name really Huckleberry?
Last edited by Bob The Builder; 06-15-2008 at 01:00 AM..
Clinton was impeached (Completed). Because of the Senate's acquittal, he was not "Removed". The Senate's action does not UN-impeach Clinton.
Nixon never was impeached.
Your statement that Nixon was impeached is false.
Your statement that they tried to Clinton implying that Clinton was not impeached is false.
Your dots do not connect. I like to see dots connect.
BTW, I did not intend a reprimand. I apologize if it came out that way. I was simply stating that I, and only I, have a difficult time finding credibility in posts that start out with patently false statements.
Is your name really Huckleberry?
purpose of impeachment is to remove from office, neither man was removed from office. the first resigned to avoid being removed from office. the second was aquitted he was not removed from office.
how are these false statements?
purpose of impeachment is to remove from office, neither man was removed from office. the first resigned to avoid being removed from office. the second was aquitted he was not removed from office.
how are these false statements?
You stated that "they impeached nixon for less. they tried to impeach clinton for much less."
I say "Clinton was impeached."
Then you say "Well, the impeachment was not complete"
I say "Clinton was impeached."
Then you say "Well, the purpose of impeachment is to remove from office"
I say "Clinton was impeached."
You see how your first statements are false.
Can you say once and for all Nixon was not impeached and Clinton was impeached?
I can understand the need to "protect" us from the mean old terrorists but Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. If we were going to be protected then we should be dealing with the Saudi funding of the terror attacks, or the Pakistani protection of them. We dealt with Afghanistan but due to some in fighting apparently with Rumsfeld we lost many opportunities to get Bin Laden. I have an issue with the Bin Laden family being protected and not interrogated right after the events of 9/11. I don't think our best interests were served. I can't help but question the actions of the man that received millions from the same Bin Laden family.... Seems like a conflict of interest to me at the least and aiding and abetting on the far side.
The issue of impeachment is not actually to go after Bush but to cut the legs out from under him so he won't drag us into a conflict with Iran. We have a history of supporting horrible regimes so we can't say it is done to overturn some terror foe.
We have little respect for the beliefs and cultures of others. We have this Manifest Destiny mentality our God is the only right one and our way to live is the only right one. Face it we have ministers and preachers calling everyone out then screwing aroound on their wives we have priests taking advantage of the alter boys, We have divorce rates that were horrific prior to gays wanting to be married , we have young people shooting each other for bumping their girl friend(it was a stabbing here in Orlando - a jr high student bumped a girl in a line and her bf stabbed him to death).... in short our way is greatly flawed and we certainly can't claim it is the best way. In our arrogance we fail to look at other options. Mind you we have many great accomplishments and things to be proud of but we can all learn from others as well. What we fail to do at the individual level we fail at the national level as well.
While some may think I am down on America I am actually not I think we need to maintain those things that mad us great (our Constitution) I find it horricif that these Nazis come in and defile a great document while wrapping themselves in the flag. Don't think for a minute the wolf is less than what he is because he is sitting at the dinner table.
Some think I overlook the fault of the democrats and again that isnt true. Here is my issue with Clinton and Monica... Kenneth Star was appointed to investigate Whitewater Investments.....and nothing more He wasted 54M and came up with nothing related to that. The only thing that came from it was him investigating a semen stain on a womans dress that was doing something she shouldn't. I do not disagree Clinton should not have done what he did. I disagree that anything was remotely looked at relating to it under the "Whitewater investigation" He was out of scope and a grand jury dealing with White water should never have asked the question. Should Clinton have lied..no would anyone else have performed differently... i doubt it under the circumstances. Should his action be looked at under what it was... ok but then we need to stop turning a blind eye to all the other politicians that cheat on their spouses... Kennedy, Bush sr, FDR, who ever you want to look at dem or repub.... Seems it is an issue of character and national values, both of which seem to need improvement.
I would be the first in line to hold all the politicians accountable. I think they should do what they say and live with integrity. Too many fall short from both sides of the fence.
purpose of impeachment is to remove from office, neither man was removed from office. the first resigned to avoid being removed from office. the second was aquitted he was not removed from office.
how are these false statements?
Clinton will always retain that impeachment * in the history books. Bob is right - the Senate does not un-impeach a president. They choose to act, or not, after the actual impeachment by the House.
Clinton will always retain that impeachment * in the history books. Bob is right - the Senate does not un-impeach a president. They choose to act, or not, after the actual impeachment by the House.
sanrene
I was simply trying to point out that when some starts an argument with statements that are patently false, it is difficult for me to believe much else they have to say. That would require that each word be checked and rechecked and that is very time consuming.
I did not mean to reprimand anyone, get anyone on the defensive or insult anyone. There is way too much of that going on.
Someone else earlier said it was the first time he heard someone say ... (basically that Bush needed to be impeached because of x,y and z." That is patently false because one hears it very often.
But that is just me. Someone responded and said it was ok that that person had made that patently false statement because he made a good point. Different strokes for different folks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
